Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact 350mm/11

[jeffzeitlin]

Anyone have any first hand experience with this lens? I am thinking about purchasing one for my main lens on my 8x10 and would like to get opinions - not theoretical, but experiences. Thanks

 

[williamtheis]

make sure image circle covers 8x10... I think this is strictly a 4x5 lens using roughly half the bellows draw (hence the "Tele")

 

[Oren Grad]

This lens is designed and marketed by Schneider as suitable for 8x10. Specified image circle is 350mm. It's actually not much of a "tele" design, in that required bellows draw is pretty close to the FL. It's not clear why Schneider chose to call it that.

For some reason, the supply pipeline - such as it is these days for LF lenses - has been *very* slow to fill with this one. They remain pretty hard to find, at least in the US.

 

[Steve Hamley]

A friend of mine has one, and I'm debating trading my 400mm f:5.6 Apo Tele Xenar MRC in on one. It covers 8x10 with room to spare and is not a telephoto design in spite of its name.

It appears to be an Artar formula redesigned at f:11 to fit in a Copal 1, although that's a guess on my part.

Cheers, Steve

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Anyone have any first hand experience with this lens? I am thinking about purchasing one for my main lens on my 8x10 and would like to get opinions - not theoretical, but experiences. Thanks

I've been eyeing this lens as well. Not much in terms of feedback/reviews.

Schneider introduced it in Sept./Nov. 2008. There is a thread on LFPF:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=40937

Maybe a call to Jeff at Badger Graphic to find out how many they've sold and/or any feedback he's received might be worthwhile.

 

[jeffzeitlin]

Steve,
Does your friend like the lens?

 

[Steve Hamley]

Jeff,

Yes very much. He says he has all the movement needed on 8x10 and that it's very sharp. He's a professional photographer so I value his opinion.

Cheers, Steve

 

[jeffzeitlin]

Thanks - I am looking for a single lens outfit for my 8x10 - this lens I find very intriguing.

 

[Keith Pitman]

I have one. It fits perfectly in my 5x7 outfit. Haven't tried on 8x10, but will.

 

[jeffzeitlin]

Please let us know when you try it on the 8x10.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Jeff,

Yes very much. He says he has all the movement needed on 8x10 and that it's very sharp. He's a professional photographer so I value his opinion.

Cheers, Steve

I guess this question was just slow to form in my mind:

With a maximum aperture of f11, does it become difficult focusing the image on the GG, or checking critical focus?

 

[Steve Hamley]

I asked Don the same question, and he said yes it was relatively rather dim, but focusing was not a problem. And it's less than a stop darker than an Artar which is f:9.

But what I discovered is that for many people, a bright image on the groundglass is the holy grail, even to the point of making focusing more difficult. If you're one of these, you'll likely not be happy with it, as it will be darker than equivalent process lenses and certainly much darker than the f:5.6 plasmats and the f:5.6 400mm Apo Tele-Xenar MRC. Small and bright don't go together, especially in longer focal lengths.

Cheers, Steve

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...for many people, a bright image on the groundglass is the holy grail, even to the point of making focusing more difficult...

How does a bright image end up being harder to focus than a dim one?

 

[jeffzeitlin]

good question - I too would like to know the answer.

 

[Steve Hamley]

Sal,

In my experience with a variety of fresnels and Ground glass, brighter means finer which means less of a "snap" into focus. Everything is a balance of course, and I've suspected that eyes and brains are more of a part of the GG/Fresnel/Loupe system that we give credit for. One of the "snappiest" screens was the Wehman plastic screen, but it was too dark for many in-the-field situations for me.

Cheers, Steve

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...brighter means finer which means less of a "snap" into focus...

I've used a number of different screens and, at least for me, the Maxwell is tops. I'm referring to the HiLux 4.7 for 4x5 and 5x7. It's fine, bright and "snaps" pretty well in combination with my eyes/brain. At the other extreme, a Beattie Intenscreen "snapped" a slight bit more, but was so coarse that one needed to "look past" the screen structure to have any idea what detail was present.

Just today I put a 200mm Nikkor M on my SV57 (with Maxwell) to evaluate focus ease and coverage. Pointing it out the window, I had no trouble focusing without a dark cloth, despite the f/8 maximum aperture.

Back to the Schneider 350mm. In this post

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=463778&postcount=5

it was reported that the maximum marked aperture is f/11 but the lens actually opens up between 1/3 and 1/2 stop more, making for a bright, sharp ground glass image.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've heard very good things about it. It's just barely "Tele". But I shoot the Fuji 360A, which has an even bigger image circle and is superbly close-range corrected (as well as at infinity), in a lightweight no.1 shutter. Either lens is fairly rare. If you can put up with a 3 shutter, the 355 G-Claron is a more common and affordable gem.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No need for a Fresnel. They just make fine focus difficult. Save them for wide angle lenses in dim interiors. I even use my f/12.5 Fuji 450C routinely in dark woods. No problem.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, you replied to a thread that petered out more than seven (7) years ago. I didn't know this was the cabin fever season.

 

[Ai Print]

Revive thread, eh...why not?

I have this lens and I was not sure how it stacked up in regards to sharpness until I got a shot that just blew me away which confirmed my belief that a lot of my images were sub par due to camera shake or wind. Now I use it with a heavier camera ( Gibellini ACN45 ) and it is much easier to bring out the real sharpness. It's not a heavy lens but I think it needs mass to absorb vibration.

Now then....these lenses are *nowhere* to be found, new, used or otherwise. I have not seen one used for years so I think they are actually more rare than the 360A when one considers the lens was announced right when the U.S. Economy crashed, I doubt more than one production run was made.

If you find one, nail it, it is a great lens.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Revive thread, eh...why not?...

Indeed! Much better than a zillion redundant threads when one tries to search for information in the archive.

In January of last year I wrote about this and two similar focal length lenses I'd recently tested. Here's the Large Format Photography forum post:

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...360mm-lenses&p=1304122&viewfull=1#post1304122​

For those who don't like clicking on links, that post read:

"Three months ago I completed a comparison of the 350mm f/11 Schneider Apo Tele Xenar Compact, 355mm f/8 Kern Dagor and 360mm f/10 Fujinon A. This was on my 4x5 Phillips with some rise, all exposed at f/22, absolutely no wind, using Delta 100 in XTOL 1+3, since ultimate sharpness was my interest for shooting real world scenes (not flat subjects up close) on that format.

Evaluating the negatives, which included a USAF resolution chart at 50 foot distance along with general landscape content, the order was

Fujinon A sharpest
Apo Tele Xenar Compact next
Kern Dagor least sharp​

By no means was the Dagor unsharp; it was just the least sharp of these three samples. I bought the Fujinon from Kerry Thalmann 14 years ago, the Kern Dagor from an eBay seller about seven years ago and the Apo Tele Xenar Compact brand new a few months ago. The Fujinon was not only sharpest among this group, it has the most coverage. However, if one cannot find a clean sample, and can live with its 350mm image circle at f/22 (compared to the Fujinon's 504mm), I wouldn't hesitate to recommend an Apo Tele Xenar Compact. My source was Linhof Studio outside London, which still has new stock:

http://www.linhofstudio.com/products...Lens-Schneider

I had no issues dealing with them or shipping/customs when ordering the lens."​

Concerning Dan's last point:

...these lenses are *nowhere* to be found, new, used or otherwise. I have not seen one used for years...

Unfortunately, Linhof Studio in London has since sold out its remaining new stock.