In article ,
Cheesehead wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:56*pm, " wrote:
On 10/3/2010 4:39 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:



On 10/1/2010 1:20 PM spake thus:

Dislikes:

135mm f4.7 xenar

Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was
my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results
from this.

This seems to jibe with what I've heard, which is that these lenses are
nearly all dogs.

Which is strange, given the Xenar's vaunted reputation in other form
factors. But for some reason, these particular versions just aren't very
good.

Right. I have a rolliecord with a 75mm f3.5 xenar that is amazing. I
wrongly assumed this 135 would be the same. It wasn't. On the commercial
ektar, I have to assume I just had a bad one as most reports on them are
glowing.

Stephe

When I started 4x5 about 7 years ago, my first lens was a Wollensak
Raptar. Dissatisfying to say the least.
Not long after that I got an Optar, which I understand to be the
Ektar. Average, just ok.

Not unless you're talking about the 190mm one from the Super-D, in
which case it's only rumored that it might be the Ektar. Otherwise
"Optar" just indicates a higher-end Wollensak lens.

I have never seen any good Wollensak lens, ever at all (and I've tried
many) except that one 190mm example from the Super-D, which has
suspiciously Kodak-like coatings...

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract