PhotoBanter.com - View Single Post

**Thor Lancelot Simon** · February 18th 11, 03:11 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format

In article ,
wrote:

Another experience, I ran into the same sort of problem with a 135mm
xenar LF lens. It was a -horrible- lens where the 75mm xenar on my
rolleicord is a wonderful one. So just because a lens has more elements
in my experience doesn't mean it's always a better performer.

Most LF Xenars were "press" lenses, which really means budget: small
circle of coverage, never the best coatings (newspaper printing amps
up the contrast plenty), in some cases questionable quality control.
Schneider had a much higher-end series of lenses for similar applications,
the Xenotar. Perhaps this is has something to do with why the Xenars
are so uncharacteristically bad for Tessar formula lenses in those
lengths.

On the other hand, maybe it's not "uncharacteristic". Wollensak made
some awful Tessar lenses and so did a few others. Maybe Richard knows:
is there something about the Tessar design that makes is particularly
prone to manufacturing or Q/C error?

There are some truly awful Schneider large format lenses as well as some
very good ones. The 90 and 120mm Angulons in particular seem to have
been either misdesigned or systematically mismanufactured, while by
the time they started multicoating (for example, the earliest Symmar-S-MC
lenses) they seem to have gotten their act together.

The Schneider web site says they made the large-format Xenars until
the mid 1990s (this is a surprise to me). I wonder if the later ones
were any better.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart