210 Xenar f/6.1 sharpness?

[Wordsandpixels]

Getting back into LF (4x5) and tried a couple of shots with the Xenar. The results were a little disappointing. I’ll keep trying different apertures and maybe there’s a sweet spot. Anybody have similar experiences with this lens?

[Dugan]

I used a 210 Xenar f /6.1 as my only lens through college.
It did everything I asked of it in the studio and in the field.
Tack sharp at f/22.
Don't use an f/3.5 or f4.5 Xenar as a reference, those are uncoated antiques.
Mine was coated, and in a Copal #1 shutter.
Check the sharpness for yourself:
( Cell phone snaps of 4x5 chromes, my light table does a weird color fringing thing due to fluorescent tubes, so ignore color fringing...chromes are proper color.)

[Jody_S]

Condition matters more than lens design or brand. If your Xenar isn't sharp at f16-22, there's something wrong with it, so get yourself another lens. May have been dropped, might be missing spacers or the like, might have been improperly re-cemented, etc.

I have and use an older 210/4.5 in Compound shutter, but I have never used it stopped down beyond f8 so I couldn't say if it's as sharp as smaller Xenars. My previous 135/4.7 was excellent at f16, and I have just replaced it with a more recent 150/4.5 that I haven't tried yet.

[Bernice Loui]

Have an entire set of Schneider Xenar from 100mm f3.5 to 480mm f4.5 (most are in barrel some in shutter), they are ALL very usable good at full aperture, at f8-f11 they are as "sharp" or sharper than a modern plasmat or similar modern lens within their spec'ed image circle except for lower contrast which could be a plus or could be a minus.

Higher contrast rendition is not "sharper" while the image can appear sharper.. know this difference, do not be fooled by harder-higher contrast being sharper.

They remain one of the all time fave view camera lenses.

If your sample of 210mm f6.1 Xenar (likely in copal or similar# 1 shutter and could be multi-coated) this specific sample could be damaged or something else is wrong like the distance from ground glass to film in film holder seating area. Know if the lens looks good using a 7x or so loupe on the GG and does not reproduce identical or similar results on film, the problem could be else where and not the lens.


Bernice

[Richard Wasserman]

I had a 210mm f/6.1 Xenar several years ago and never had any complaints about sharpness. It was relatively small and light-weight, but I replaced it with a Sironar-N for its larger image circle.

[Bernice Loui]

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

"In closing, I am very pleasantly surprised at the resolution and contrast performance of my $165 Schneider Xenar f/6.1 lens. This lens gives incredible performance for the money. I am pleased to confirm my Nikkor 200 M f/8 as a fine performer. When using a Rodenstock Geronar lens, just make sure to stop down to at least f/16. When considering cost performance trades off's between old Schneider Symmar Convertible lenses are the newer APO wonder optic, photographers need not worry about the performance of the older lenses. When debating the benefits of single vs. multi-coatings, well, the results here speak for themselves.

Perhaps the best realization I had in doing this test is that aperture shape influences more than just out of focus highlight shape and rendition. It defines everything about out of focus area rendition, shape, and texture."


~Or why been a BIG fan of Schneider Xenar for decades. Much like Kodak Ektars (f6.3 Commercial and f4.5), this family of lenses (Tessar) trade off image circle for pleasing image performance at full aperture to about f16.

The real world experiences were very similar. Add to this the in to out of focus rendition became a preference over the modern Plasmat. For images with most everything in apparent focus or image focused a true infinity, in to out of focus rendition is much a non-issue.



Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I would personally take anything by Perez with a grain of salt. The methodology is all over the map, and sometimes conspicuously inappropriate for the type of lenses tested. Bob S. once abundantly pointed out his anomalies in method in a past thread. The bigger problem is, we often don't even know the specifics involved, and whether the perceived results were simply due to eye fatigue, uneven film plane, funky old random lenses, or what. And in this case, no modern general plasmats are in the mix in this focal length to compare with, nor any kind of color film application involved.

That certainly doesn't mean outright dismissing his results. In this particular test case, I'd tend to agree. But it's just one set of opinions among potentially many of equal worth. And it all depends on exactly what we intend to do with a specific lens, which might differ from allegedly standardized test mockups.

[nolindan]

All manufacturers occasionally produce a lemon. I had a 150/5.6 multicoated Xenar, mid 80's vintage in a Copal shutter - it was soft when viewing the ground glass and it got no better when stopped down. Much time had passed from when I bought it to when I started using it so I sold it on for not much money; sorry to say that somewhere in the universe there is a cosmic turkey of a Xenar - by rights I should have quietly buried it in the back yard. Maybe one of its future owners did the right thing by it...

YMWV (Your Mileage Will Vary).

[Wordsandpixels]

Thanks to all for your input. I just got a 135mm Fuji and it is terrific, so maybe Santa will drop off a better 210 if I leave him some delicious home-baked cookies.

[Wordsandpixels]

Nicholas, that’s precisely what I’ve been experiencing, and negs and prints prove it. It never really looked sharp on the GG so I figured f/22 would correct what is perhaps my aging eyes don’t see. I was going to use it with my 5x7 Kodak 2-D, but now will start shopping for a new lens. Thanks.