Hello friends,
in one of our photo stores I did notice an old lens on camera, apparently pre-war Schneider Xenar 135/4.5. Here's the picture: http://www.fotolavka.ru/images/tovar/1286-1.jpg
I am having much fun with my Speed Graphics now, I put there an old 210/3.5 Trioplan (great results!) - so maybe this Xenar, costing $15 with the camera, will be useful to me? It's not a problem for me to make a Speed lensboard, I wonder what's an optical quality of this lens? How would it be in terms of pleasing picture/sharpness/contrast when compared with my Ektar 127/4.7? (a wonderful lens, and a coated one - and my question should sound a bit silly ). Do I need it at all, or my Ektar already gives me everything I can expect from Tessar of this focal length?
Of course it will work - it's a Xenar! Same lens as the newer ones, only uncoated.
If you don't want it for $15 with camera, sent it to me!
This Xenar f:4.5 should be as good as my 180 f:4.5 - which is very good indeed. Nice and sharp, but somewhat lower contrast. So it gives more shaduw detail than many modern lenses. I also have a 150mm f:3.5 Xenar Typ D of about the same age - that's a very different lens with a different construction.
Zhenya, if you can afford to get the Xenar and try it out, get it. It probably won't be better than your Ektar, but that depends as much on your Ektar's condition as on the Xenar's condition. I tease Ole and Jim Galli about their excessive stocks of lenses, but they're right about one big thing. The only way to find out how a lens shoots is to use it. And, although I'd never admit it, I have too many lenses too.
I have a xenar 135mm 4.5 and find it a very useful lens. My only complaint is its limited coverage (problem when doing tilts & swings); but, on a speed graphic, that isn't a concern. I paid well over $100 for mine 4 years ago so $15 sounds like a good deal.