Schneider SL-Xenon 1.8/50mm in QBM

[estudleon]

Anybody has experience with it, or know about his IQ?

Thanks in advance.

Rino.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Sorry, I don't, but may I ask, is this lens Schneider's equivalent to a Zeiss Planar T*?

[estudleon]

Thanks.

This is the Scheider xenar for the Rolleiflex SL 35 cam. I think that it's the only one 1,8 xenar lens in 50 mm.

Similar to the planar, yes. But not identical. The xenar is 6/4 and the planar made by rollei is 7/5. The previous planar, made by Zeiss don't know.

It's seems to be not interesant at all, or very uncommonm or very bad lens. Only one comment.

Rino.

[Minolfan]

The lens should have a compairable IQ like the Rollei Planar/Voigtländer Ultron lens.
Less common, I think that is the reason of little reactions.
Schneider made an nice Xenon for Kodak Retina Reflex too.
Sorry I don't have one.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I am interested in Schnedier lenses. We hear so little about them compared to Zeiss.

Everyone seems to agree that Zeiss Contax T* lenses are among the very best.

Those were made in West Germany, at the same time Schnedier were also making lenses in West Germany.

Surely this is akin to BMW and Mercedes and they both produced the best possible lenses?

Or were Schneider more Volkswagen to Zeiss' Mercedes and they produced Golfs and Jettas while Zeiss made luxury cars?

[Minolfan]

I think its closer to comparising Mercedes vs BMW. Rodenstock and Schneider are top notch, but with other production programs (enlarger lenses, large format etc.).

[BRunner]

I have this lens...I like it's rendering - different to all my other 50mm lenses...very "bright" and little desaturated colors, very fine bokeh and probably my sharpest fast 50 for close distances (wide open even better than Planar/Ultron 1.8/50). Unfortunately it hits mirror on 5D, so I didn't used it much. I'm planning to make replaceable mount to M42 and use it on my Pentax.

Few snapshots, nothing special. Everything on 5DmkI wide open except #5 which is @f2.8.

Especially #2 and #3 shows how good is this lens wide open at close distances.

[BRunner]

I've forgot to mention build quality of this lens, which is better than my Rollei and Contax Planars and is almost equal to Leica lenses.

[Maple Wang]

[estudleon]

Thanks for all, guys.

Thanks for the images too. Very informative by itself.

One thing more, it has only five blades?

And the price?

THanks again, for all.

Rino.

[BRunner]

Yes it has 5 aperture blades, but it's not much difference to 6 blades lenses.

It's rarest 50 for QBM and price reflects this. I was lucky, got mine for 60€ with SL35 body, but the auction had bad photos attached and without description of lens type. More realistic prices are ~100€.

[IAZA]

[estudleon]

Thanks guys.

The price seems to be very up.

My son in law asked me about which lens can he buy for E 34, a fujinon 3,5/135 or the xenon QBM lens. Both at the same shop. And the money for only one lens.

The xenon should be the answer. At least, for me.

Rino.

[jmiro]

The original Planar of 1896 was a perfectly symmetrical "double Gauss" 6/4 design.



The Xenon is a slight variation of that design into a slightly asymmetrical 6/4 design first developed and manufactured by Schneider in 1924.



(Xenar is Schneider's name for the classic Tessar 4/3 design and should not be confused with the Xenon.)

The slightly asymmetrical Xenon design is exactly the same as the later Zeiss Contarex Planar 50 f2, Zeiss Contax G Planar 45 f2 and Leitz Summicron 50f2.

What has varied since 1924 in Schneider's, Zeiss's and Leica's use of the same general design are coatings and different glass both individually and in combination. However all versions of these are for practical purposes symmetrical.

Symmetrical lenses if the aperture size is not more than in this case f2 (1.9 and 1.8 are here just marketing numbers) are known for their sharpness at full aperture, their flatness of their field (i.e. sharp across the frame even to the corners) and also good control of aberrations including CA. Good quality enlarging lenses made since the 1950s have been of this 6/4 design and are known for their sharpness wide open and across the field and control of aberrations. I fully agree with BRunner that the Xenon 50 f1.8 for Rollei (the 50 f1.9 for others) is among the sharpest f2 35mm lenses I have used. (The other competitors are the the G Planar 45/2, Contarex 50 f2 and late Summicron 50f2) To stay with European lenses the very atypical 7/6 design found in the Rollei Planar 50 f1.8 and Voigtlaender Color Ultron



are the next sharpest I have used but the long sides and corners are not as sharp as the Xenon types. Then comes the Pancolar 50 f1.8 in a good sample (more sample variation than the Xenon types by Schneider or Zeiss or the Rollei 7/6 types). It is an "ultron" type



of a 6/5 design. The center can be as sharp as the Xenon 6/4 or Rollei 7/6 but is even less good than at the long ends and corners than the Rollei. When I say less good in all these cases I mean less than the Xenon flat field at wide apertures. Also the differences only become fully apparent if printed at large sizes or by pixel peeping though the Xenon type is more contrasty at wide apertures (less flare) than the others without post processing and often even with. Usually by f4 and certainly by f5.6 they perform equally well in my experience in terms of crisp clarity ("sharpness") across the field whether full frame or half frame.

There is also another 6/5 variation of the following type



favored by among others Pentax in their 55 f1.8 or f2 Takumars or their bayonet 50 f1.7s. Then there is the Contax CY 50 f1.4 and 1.7 that have the same design - some other great lenses - with a 7/6 design very different from the Rollei 7/6.



(Notice that each has only one doublet that needs to be centered and cemented.) But enough of design formats for now.

What is surprising to many is how good many maker's 50 f2 lenses can be. Nikon had a 6/4 50 f2 for many decades and many were and are surprised that it had crisper clarity across the field wide open than Nikon's faster 50s. (Nikon stopped making that lens in the early 80s and made instead a 50 f1.8 and still does. It is a 6/5 of the Pentax type. One hypothesis is that it is cheaper not to cement and center a doublet rather than use 2 single elements.)

The same is also true of other maker's 50 f2s that are of the Xenon type. In general they are for most users and practical purposes just as good as the Xenon or Zeiss or Leica. If you are a lens fanatic like many of us there are subtle but real differences due to acceptable manufacturing tolerances including precise spacing of the front and rear elements from each other as well as centering the cementing of the doublets, quality control, glass and coating used, etc.

Schneider supplied practically all of the lenses for the Kodak Retinas (they were made in Stuttgart) from the late 30s on. Once coating was available most Retinas had Xenons instead of Xenars. (Coatings made possible a similar change in medium format Rolleiflexes from Tessars and Xenars to Planars and Schneider Xenotars and also in large format lenses that were for a long while after WWII dominated by Schneider and Zeiss,)

I have used large and medium format Schneider and Zeiss for over 50 years and my "travel camera" from the mid 60s until the late 90s were Retina IIcs that had Xenons on them. Nesster has many pix on MFLenses taken with that camera. Crisp overall, great colors and smooth oof. I have owned and used and still use a Schneider Xenon 50 f1.9 since the mid-70s made in 1971 in M42 mount for SLRs. It even has a M/A switch, very well made (as BRunner said), and needs little to be done to it to avoid mirror problems on the 5D. The main difference is the length of the protective fin that sticks out to a greater and lesser degree from around the rear cell. The purpose of that is to precent damage to the rear element if put down flat on some surface. Both the Rollei Planar and Voigtlaender Color Ultron QBM and also the Color Ultron M42 as well as the Xenon for Rollei have fins that stick out more than on the f1.9 Schneider. It is easy to take out the rear cell of the f1.9 and sand the fin down so that there is no mirror hit. It is a bit trickier with the Rollei f1.8 lenses whatever the name since Rollei presumably specified a longer fin though the build of their lenses is the worst of any I have mentioned here. The worst fin is on the last Summicron R 50 f2. With earlier Summicrons the fin was part of a cylinder that went around the rear elements tube and was simply glued to the another part of the lens. It could be easily removed if needed though one did not have to do that for it to work as is with a Leitax Pentax mount even on a 5D. But the last Summicron R 50 has a much longer fin and the tube was part of the entire lens metal molding. For it to work with a Leitax Pentax mount on a 5D, for example, one needs to grind the fin down after taking out the rear lens elements. I had the main Leica person in the US do that since it is easy to put the rear elements back incorrectly and loose proper spacing so important to the symmetrical formula.

[estudleon]

Thank jmiro, very much.

Very informative and formative. Easy to read and to understand too.

Regards.

Rino

[rafa1981]

[Kram]

[taunusreiter]

The SL-Xenon (50/1.8 ) is a 6/4 design, according to an old Rolleiflex SL35 brochure.
No diagram published with it.
So my best guess is a "Planar" formula, as published by Schneider with the M42/ Wirgin or Eakta Xenon (which was a f/1.9)
This is a bit mysterious, because development already went to the 6/5 (Ultron) designs in the 1960's and also Schneider had build them. They eventually faced some engineering ressource problems at Schneider after the demise of designers like Tronnier, and the sudden death of one young engineer (told by Dr. Tronnier jr., don't remember the name), so they went back to a Planar style.

Nevertheless: the SL-Xenon is one of the best 50mm lenses. Reminds me to the concave Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8. Color characteristics on the cooler side also.

[simbon4o]

So I have and idea now why my SMC M 50 1.7 is so much like Planars in rendering . Thanks for the info!

[Lord Minty]

[BRunner]

[l9magen]

I was reading this threadvwith great interest because one of these lenses was going on eBay ($230 buy-it-now), but it sold this morning before my paycheck arrived.
C'est la vie, shall have to start looking again.
Is there any difference between this lens and the Xenon 50/1.9 in M42 mount?
Thanks

[jmiro]