Fastest lens?

[Laurent]

I own a 210/4.5 Xenar, and I don't think coating makes such a difference. Mine is single-coated and, apart when the sun is right in the field, flare is perfectly acceptable. (see (there was a url link here which no longer exists) for an example with the sun IN the image, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) when the sun is not in the pic...)

I do always use a hood.

 

[Ian Grant]

the new Xenar 150 5.6, wow! I ask myself thou why don´t just use a 70ies Xenar 4.5? do the coatings make such a difference in this simple lens design?

the Xenar 3.5 is interesting in it´s drawing and so is the tessar 165, both are well under 100€ (Leica shop vienna has a 165 f2.7 in focus mount for 120€!)so it´s a cheap fun to try those lenses. thats what I love about LF!

fred

My 150mm f5.6 Xenar was less than 100€ I bought it about 3 months ago from a UK based APUG/LFPI member for £100, it's still looks new. Xenar's were only ever single coated so despite being made around 2000 it's like the 70's versions.

Some where I should still have a 60's perhaps earlier 150mm f4.5 Xenar in a broken shutter, but I've not seen it since the late 80's. The early coatings weren't as good as the later Xenars or even my early 50's CZJ 150mm f4.5 Tessar.

The trade off with Xenar's (& Tessar's) is increased size and weight with the faster versions, and a decrease in optical quality, the design gives it's best performance stopped well down. This was why the Xenotar design was introduced for the fast Schneider lenses.

Robb Scharetg's list is interesting but many of the faster lens won't cover 5x4, so in reality for 5x4 the fastest lenses that are easy to find are the Xenotar and the Aero Ektar.

Ian

 

[monkeymon]

Two things came in my mind while reading this:

Does 120mm f2.7 tessar cover 4x5 or 9x12?

And i just purchased 135mm f3.5 xenar, it's in a barrel without an aperture scale or leafs. It still has the aperture ring. I was wondering if someone would tell me in what shutter i could try to mount the lens cells? They are coated lenses, which is kinda weird.. i have a 150mm f3.5 uncoated version.

 

[Ian Grant]

Hi, and welcome to APUG

I told you there was a post here The person to ask is (there was a url link here which no longer exists) as you can see he has a Xenar f3.5 135mm.

Ian

 

[thafred]

thanks for explaining Ian, I didn´t know that Tessars were single coated at Zeiss even in 2000! very interesting
sweet deal you made btw

monkeymon, Welcome from another newbe! You can see the lens catalogs from all the classic manufacturers at http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html
Click on the "Zeiss Photo Lenses Catalog 1927" , P.9 it says the 120 f2,7 will only cover 3 1/3 x 2 1/2, I´m afraid the 165 is the only one covering 9x12...mine doesnt vignette too badly thou wide open so I´f you´re in for a Holga effect maybe the 120mm will work on 4x5
I have the 150 f3.5 and not the 135mm but I´m sure on the said Website you will find the data.

Btw, those old lens catalogs are so well written, plus reading that a f4.5 is an "extremely rapid design" makes my heart warmer than hot spiced wine

 

[Ian Grant]

thanks for explaining Ian, I didn´t know that Tessars were single coated at Zeiss even in 2000! very interesting
sweet deal you made btw

The Xenar's are Schneider, not Zeiss

The 135mm Tessar covers 5x4 but with a drop in edge/corner sharpness until f22, they were often fitted to US 5x4 Press cameras. They were more commonly fitted as standards on 9x12 cameras, but they shouldn't vignette on 5x4, I have two, and there's room for movements. The 150mm Tessar covers 5x4 far better, and the 165mm will cover perfectly with no corner /edge sharpness.

I have 135mm, 150mm & 165mm Tessar's, (more for 35mm etc), it's interesting that these lenses are what all other's used to be compared to.

Ian

 

[thafred]

Ian, offcourse it´s schneider! sorry for the mistake, it was very late for me yesterday so my brain must have been in sleep mode allready.

you´re talking about the 135mm f4.5 Xenar? Do you think the 135mm f3.5 has the same covering even if it´s a reverse Tessar type like the 150mm f3.5 Xenar? (I thought the reverse Tessars were limited in covering compared to the usual design) ... I´ve seen that my 150 f3.5 doesn´t cover 4x5 as well as my 150 f4.5 Xenar at the same f-stop but maybe I saw an artifact or user error!

 

[Ian Grant]

You'd need Ole or Dan Fromm to tell you about the design. The catalogue does say the 135 f3.5 Tessar lens will cove 9x12cm, and 5x4 is only a little bit larger.

I guess I'm agreeing with you though, my 135mm Tessars don't really cover 5x4 that well until f22, but when they were made photographers in Europe didn't make particularly large enlargements. My 150mm f4.5 50's Tessar and modern Xenar cover far better because of their much larger image circles.

Ian

 

[edtbjon]

I have the mentioned tessar 165mm f2.7 on my anniversary Graflex and thought of it as I read your post. on my flickr I have a few snapshots with it, you can see if you like it´s signature.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57493810@N00/tags/carlzeissjenatessar165mmf27/

I have one picture with the 150 3.5 xenar too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/57493810@N00/2600355264/

all snapshots, handheld using the graflex rangefinder. lens was wide open.

best
fred

Lovely out of focus areas, almost swirly. Hmm, another lens to start searching for. (I better get me a Graflex too...)

//Björn

 

[Ole]

Only the "Typ D" f:3.5 Xenars are reverse Tessars. The others are "normal" - and so are many "Typ D's" too, it would seem? All I'm certain of is that mine is a Typ D, and it's a reverse Tessar...