Idle curiosity about "exotic" medium format telephoto lenses

I own a couple of somewhat "special" medium format teles. A Schenider 250/5.6 Tele-Xenar MF (Exakta 66) and a Mamiya 645 200/2.8. Both terrific lenses. I don't need "better."

But I have always been curious about the exotics and rarely seen teles and how they relate to each other.

There are the famous Zeiss 250mm Superachromat and the 350mm APO Tele-Superachromat lenses for Hasselblads. Schneider had the fast 180mm Tele-Xenar and the 300mm APO Tele-Xenar lenses for Rollei. So who bought the Zeiss and who bought the Schneiders? Did one of these have a reputation for portraits and the other for landscape? Maybe one was preferred for slide film and one for B&W? Substantial resolving power differences or mere brand tribalism? I've always been curious.

Then there is the Mamiya 300/2.8 - a lens I would like to own. It is the fastest of the bunch. But does it also hold up at f/5.6 against those famous Zeiss lenses?

I suppose there are maybe 20 people who have ever compared these lenses side by side. I've just always wondered if there were significant differences between all of the above lenses beyond aperture, color reproduction, and modest focal length differences, along with handling.

Like I said, this is pure idle curiosty. Just for fun. Feel free to throw out anything you know or just plain old opinions. Would love to hear any of it.

Interesting inquiry. I had both the Schneider 300 Apo and the Zeiss 250 Tele Xenar for the Rollei. The Schneider was the more current design, and superb at all apertures - f4 on up, but it was a beast, too much to hand carry. The Zeiss was not as good wide open, practically the same by f8, and half the size/weight. Ended up selling the 300, working with the Zeiss 250 - which was lovely on the system. Miss it still.

At my Hasselblad peak time, I never bothered with anything "exotic" as the "normal" lenses were exotic and erratic enough for my taste.

Having said that, I had an early (chrome, uncoated) 150mm Sonnar, and that was wonderful. You could call it "exotic" as most photographers preferred the "better" (later, more expensive) versions. Today you can pick one up for pennies, of course the shutter needs to be serviced, but then - in a combo with an equally exotic motor-drive Hasselblad body - you have a very special, vintage, steam-engine-like machine.

For the Pentacon Six system, the 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar plus K-6b teleconverter is so sharp that it doesn't really pay off to go up to larger lenses with lower resolution. In fact it's sharp enough to use as a 35mm lens.

And what about the Nikors for the Bronica's? 400mm, 600mm, 800mm and 1200mm.

RezaLoghme said:

At my Hasselblad peak time, I never bothered with anything "exotic" as the "normal" lenses were exotic and erratic enough for my taste.

Having said that, I had an early (chrome, uncoated) 150mm Sonnar, and that was wonderful. You could call it "exotic" as most photographers preferred the "better" (later, more expensive) versions. Today you can pick one up for pennies, of course the shutter needs to be serviced, but then - in a combo with an equally exotic motor-drive Hasselblad body - you have a very special, vintage, steam-engine-like machine.

Click to expand...

I didn't know there was an uncoated 'blad 150mm sonar lens?

John Wiegerink said:

I didn't know there was an uncoated 'blad 150mm sonar lens?

Click to expand...

The early one - if not uncoated, then less coated than the later models. I am sure there are veterans here who know everything and can explain it better than I can.

Why "exotic"? The Pentax 300/4 EDIF for their 6X7 is probably the pick of the litter optically. The only thing better would be certain non-tele design graphics and view camera lenses needing a long bellows.
Spoken from experience. That same system also have a 400 and 800 version of EDIF teles. The gear gets really big there, and one is no better than the tripod support system involved.

Yeah why the niche of a niche.For the sake of finding a niche?
A bit like the Angenieux lenses for Leica.

DREW WILEY said:

Why "exotic"? The Pentax 300/4 EDIF for their 6X7 is probably the pick of the litter optically. The only thing better would be certain non-tele design graphics and view camera lenses needing a long bellows.
Spoken from experience. That same system also have a 400 and 800 version of EDIF teles. The gear gets really big there, and one is no better than the tripod support system involved.

Click to expand...

I did forget Pentax. No arguments from me. Pentax * telephoto lenses for 67 and 645 are the stuff of legends. The 400mm EDIF seems to be a standout. But the one that always intrgued me was the 645 600/5.6 EDIF.

RezaLoghme said:

Yeah why the niche of a niche.For the sake of finding a niche?
A bit like the Angenieux lenses for Leica.

Click to expand...

That's a fair and rational point. But I would do irrational things for a clean Angenieux 90/1.8.

Astro photographers generally preferred P67 EDIF tele lenses even on the Pentax 645 cameras. There is a standard adapter for that. As long as you have substantial support, the extra mass of a 67 400 EDIF
was probably lend more stability than the 645 600mm version, while lending an equivalent tele "reach".
I don't believe they made a 6x7 600 EDIF, just the old Takumar 600 version. Once you get into 800, well that's almost like Naval ship artillery - big.

I do have a nice Nikon F adapter for my own P67 300EDIF, but mainly use it full 6x7 film format size. Same tripods as I use for my 8X10 camera - don't want to skimp there!

loccdor said:

For the Pentacon Six system, the 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar plus K-6b teleconverter is so sharp that it doesn't really pay off to go up to larger lenses with lower resolution. In fact it's sharp enough to use as a 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

That lens is more or less my favorite medium format optic. It's wonderful. But I think of it as something of an open secret.

I have those 1.4x and 2x tele-converters but sort of forgot about them and never really used them. I was always looking for an excuse to use my Meyer 300/4 Orestegor instead. I should bring them out. Thanks for bringing it up.

On a related note: I wish Schneider had offered the 1.4x Longar for the Exakta 66. I assume they had an agreement with Rollei for that converter. That and the 40mm Super Angulon also from the Rollei system would pretty much complete the Exakta 66 Schneider MF lens lineup.

MMfoto said:

I have those 1.4x and 2x tele-converters but sort of forgot about them and never really used them.

Click to expand...

I made a test with the 2x teleconverter and found if you stop the lens down to f/5.6 it's above my ~4800 dpi DSLR digitization rig's ability to discern detail. The only thing that stops me from taking it out into the field more is the weight of carrying a heavy tripod and camera around for several hours on my back. Pretty impressive from a 5 element lens design from the 30s.

I've heard about the Schneiders for Exakta 66 and was interested in purchasing them but it was never in my price range.