If you have something to contribute, I invite you to do so. Thanks.
I'm of that humble opinion that I just contributed to the understanding of the technical value of your comparison judgement. Don't take it personally, it's the scientific part of me, you know, the education. Nothing against you personally.
You need to learn the difference between opinions and technical measurements. Everyone's opinions here are worth more or less what is charged. Yours too. So take what is said with all the grains of salt you need, and do with it what you will. And again, if you have something to submit regarding the posed question, please do.
You know the Clint Eastwood's saying about opinions? I like that. And yes, I did understand that your judgement was just an opinion, not based on any technical measurement or other valid comparison. I think you made it more than clear and I said my thanks to you for it. Hope we can leave it at it.
I used one for years as my longest lens, until i felt i needed something even longer and bought a Nikon 360/500 set, which still sees regular use these days. The Tele-Xenar came in a #3 Compur shutter, dated from the mid '80's and was a Linhof select. It had a bit less contrast then the Nikon lens, which isn't much of a surprise as it is single coated, but as i shoot only B&W that was easely in the printing stage. At the other hand i found the contrast rendering more pleasent then it's Nikon cousin. Both lenses were plenty sharp enough for me. All of this is of course completely subjective and an amateurs view of the lens, based on the evaluation a few hundred shots. The advantage of the Tele-Xenar is it's very short flange focal distance, which make is very useable on camera's with limited bellows.
An example, or just hot air?
Bookmarks