Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 135mm f4.5

[Ben]

I read it was originally designed for press cameras such as the Graflex.
Does anyone know how it compares with more modern lenses?

Here's a link:
https://kamerastore.com/product/schn...xenar-shutter/

[abruzzi]

I have the Xenar 210mm ƒ6.1 and its very nice. I don't know the specs on the one you have, but being a fast tessar based lens, I'm going to guess that while it will probably cover 4x5, you won't have a huge amount of movements. Most of the xenars have a little more image circle than the focal length, so my 210 has 250 image circle, so I'm guessing your 135 will have a 160-180mm circle.

[David Lindquist]

A 1966 (based on what I think is a date code) Schneider brochure I have shows both the f/4.5 and the f/4.7 135mm Xenars covering an "image area diameter" of 161mm at f/16 when focused at infinity.

The f/4.5 was mounted in a No. 1 shutter and the f/4.7 in a No. 0 shutter.

David

[ottluuk]

I have the f/4.7 version on my Crown Graphic. It's a lightweight, compact lens. It delivers good sharpness in the center which gradually dissolves towards the outer reaches of the image circle. The image circle doesn't have a hard "edge", it just goes to mush if you use too much movements so you can push it beyond specified coverage if there are no important details in the corners of your frame. On 4x5, straight on (no movements) and stopped down you might mistake it for a modern lens. At close to medium distances and medium apertures, the Xenar can give very nice smooth transitions in and out of focus without getting excessively soft or glowy. The many-bladed aperture of the old Compur shutters probably helps...

A Plasmat-type lens like the Symmars, Sironars, Nikkor-W etc. would have more coverage for movements and even sharpness across the field. If you are after technical perfection and need to use significant amount of rise for buildings, tall trees etc. on 4x5, a 135mm Xenar is not for you. Used within their coverage limits, Xenars are nice. A press camera will mostly enforce those limits anyway. But for a field camera with a decent range of movements, a Plasmat-type 135mm is a better buy. Or a longer Xenar for that matter.

[Dan Fromm]

abruzzi mentioned the 210/6.1 Xenar. It and the 150/5.6 Xenar are probably the last versions of the f/6.3 Tessar designed and are supposed to be outstanding lenses. More coverage and sharper than equivalent faster tessar types, including the Xenars the OP asked about. Unfortunately there's not a 135 mm version of the latest Xenars.

[Jody_S]

My first Xenar 135/4.7 was sharper than the 150 Symmar-S I replaced it with, and I very much regret selling it. I've had 2 or 3 since, but I never fully tested them, and I have a couple of clones, Optar, Raptar, etc. Like all lenses, I think the quality of your particular example of lens matters more than the name on the front. I no longer shop for lenses by name but by condition, unless there are specifics like coverage that require me to get one precise lens.