Schneider Xenar 210mm?

wiseowl · Sep 10, 2006

I'm considering getting one of these and was wondering what the general opinion of them is? and a few questions. My reason, with both my 2nd hand lenses I've had a few unhappy experiences within a short period of ownership. Nothing dreadful but enough to make me wary of paying a lot on ebay sight unseen, so to speak.

So the question on my mind is new xenar or used other? Most of it's use will be landscape, but I would probably want to use it for still life and would like to try some portraiture also. My concerns are :-

1. Will 60 deg of coverage be very limiting? (Considering my intended usage.)
2. How might it fare with close work, close but not macro.
3. Is single coating likely to be a major drawback.
4. What's it's general performance like.

I should add that I shoot mostly B&W but occasionally shoot transparency, and the largest print I produce is 16X12. Darkroom space is the biggest limiting factor here.

Thanks in advance for all advice.

Cheers

Martin

David H. Bebbington · Sep 10, 2006

You don't say what format! 4x5"? And there is a fundamental choice between the "old" f4.5 lenses and the much newer f6.1. I grew up with f4.5 Xenars, they are fine lenses, not so easy in 2006 to find in really good condition, the single coating I would say is not really an issue, flare suppression is good, macro contrast is medium, micro contrast (aka "sharpness") acceptable but not quite at modern standard, coverage of 210 f4.5 adequate for 5x7", ample for 4x5". I have several f4.5 Xenars, including a 135 mm which I had repolished and recoated (nice lens), an original later-model 150 mm (also good) and a 210 mm which is OK but a bit tired. In today's market it is easier (and not much more expensive) to find a Symmar convertible or even Symmar-S, which will probably be in better condition. The f6.1 210 mm is a different kettle of fish, micro and macro contrast right up to modern standards and a very nice compact lightweight design.

Regards,

David

wiseowl · Sep 10, 2006

David H. Bebbington said:
You don't say what format! 4x5"? And there is a fundamental choice between the "old" f4.5 lenses and the much newer f6.1. I grew up with f4.5 Xenars, they are fine lenses, not so easy in 2006 to find in really good condition, the single coating I would say is not really an issue, flare suppression is good, macro contrast is medium, micro contrast (aka "sharpness") acceptable but not quite at modern standard, coverage of 210 f4.5 adequate for 5x7", ample for 4x5". I have several f4.5 Xenars, including a 135 mm which I had repolished and recoated (nice lens), an original later-model 150 mm (also good) and a 210 mm which is OK but a bit tired. In today's market it is easier (and not much more expensive) to find a Symmar convertible or even Symmar-S, which will probably be in better condition. The f6.1 210 mm is a different kettle of fish, micro and macro contrast right up to modern standards and a very nice compact lightweight design.

Regards,

David

Thanks for the quick reply, just to clarify.

My intended use is 5X4, and it is a modern 210mm 6.1 that I am considering.

Cheers

Martin

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 10, 2006

I agree with David Bebbington. It's not a bad lens, but in today's market you could do better with a second-hand Symmar or Sironar for the price of a new Xenar.

Ole · Sep 10, 2006

I bought an as-new 210/6.1 Xenar a little while ago, despite already having a 210/4.5 Xenar. And 180 and 240 Symmar, a 210/9 G-Claron, a 210/6.8 Angulon, and ...

The new Xenar is a great little lens for 4x5". I haven't used it on 5x7" yet, but I expect it to be every bit as good as the f:4.5 version.

The older f:4.5 Xenar is also a very good lens. Single coating is enough for these lenses, the benfits of MC would be marginal at best with only siz air/glass surfaces.

I haven't tried either of these lenses at close range, but I did once use a 300mm f:4.5 for a 1:1 shot on 5x7" - one of those bizarre situations where you need 1:1, and can't get closer than 60cm with the lens. The 300mm Xenar performed very well under the circumstances. However I believe the old Symmars are better at close ranges, as that was part of the original design target.

cperez · Sep 11, 2006

If you are looking at a f/6.1 Xenar, it stands an excellent chance at being every bit as sharp and contrasty as anything modern.

As for coverage, if you shoot straight on or with minimal movements I doubt you would see many limitations with a Xenar. But if you shoot with movements (architecture?) you will likely run out of coverage by going with a Xenar.

If you need coverage and can't pay the price of modern glass, what about looking for a Schneider Symmar Convertible?

wiseowl · Sep 13, 2006

Thanks for all the advice.

Having given consideration to coverage/size/weight I decided to go for a new xenar 210mm f6.1, it arrived today. All I need now is time to take it out for a spin.

Time will tell whether or not the coverage becomes an issue.

Cheers

Martin

Schneider Xenar 210mm?

wiseowl

David H. Bebbington

wiseowl

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Ole

Moderator

cperez

wiseowl

Schneider Xenar 210mm?

wiseowl

David H. Bebbington

wiseowl

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Ole

Moderator

cperez

wiseowl

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency