135mm Xenotar

[Arne Norris]

Does anyone have any experience using a Linhof select 135/3.5 Xenotar on their 4x5?

I was thinking it might be a nice option for handheld work (ie. used at wider apertures than normal for LF.) I'm wondering about the differences between it and a "modern" lens like a Symmar or Sironar.

It seems like they are somewhat overpriced, maybe mor of a collectors item?

[Gene McCluney]

I think Xenotar's and Xenars are basically enhanced Tessar lenses. Tessar design lenses are known for brilliant sharpness, but less coverage than a Plasmat such a a Symmar or Sironar. I use a Graflex 135mm Optar (made by Rodenstock) a lot, and it is a similar design to the Xenar and it is a brilliant lens.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

The Xenotar is a five element double gauss (5/4 construction) like the Zeiss Planar. Nice and sharp wide open but small image circle. The 135mm just covers 4x5, no movements.

I use the faster 150/2.8 Xenotar all the time; it is a wonderful lens, sharp and facinating.

[Ole Tjugen]

The Xenar is to all intents and purposes a Tessar lens, while the Xenotar is a Planar derivative.

I've used a "real" Planar 135/3.5, but didn't need the extra speed often enough to justify it - so now I use a 1930's 150/3.5 Xenar Typ D (a reverse Tessar).

The difference between f:3.5 and f.4.5 is what drives the price up - almost to the level of the "real" Planar.

Of course the cheaper Plasmats (like Symmars) have even smaller max apertures and wider image circles.

[Ernest Purdum]

I sold a 150mm Xenotar on eBay awhile back. I don't think I got too much for it. Try your luck if you think the added speed will be worth it to you. If you like limited depth of field, or if you enjoy low light level opportunities, it's an excellent choice. If you want a general-purpose lens to use with view camera movements, something in the Symmar, Sironar or similar families would be far more appropriate than a Xenotar.

[Bill_1856]

Does anyone have any experience using a Linhof select 135/3.5 Xenotar on their 4x5?

I was thinking it might be a nice option for handheld work (ie. used at wider apertures than normal for LF.) I'm wondering about the differences between it and a "modern" lens like a Symmar or Sironar.

It seems like they are somewhat overpriced, maybe mor of a collectors item?

I have one on my Technika. It is a superb lens corner to corner, limited movements, large and heavy, takes 58mm filters. It's a lot more expensive but only one stop faster than the usual 135-150mm Tessar type lenses, and stopped down below f:8, I don't think you'll notice any difference.
A Symmar will give you a lot more room for movements, but probably not any sharper wide open.

[Frank Petronio]

I had one too, on a Crown Graphic, and it worked great. Seems as sharp as anything else but having an extra stop plus is a great benefit. Nice round aperture blades in the older shutters too.