A history of the Xenon lens

I look forward to reading this article tonight. :D
The Retina-Xenon lenses on my Kodak Retina IIc/IIIc cameras are superb performers!

G
 
Excellent article. I previously owned a Schneider Xenon 50mm f/1.9 in DKL mount, which I adapted to my Nikon F system. While it delivered stunning image quality, I ultimately sold the lens due to its restrictive 0.9m minimum focusing distance. This is undeniably a remarkable lens - its classic bokeh rendering and critical sharpness in focus planes have recently made me consider acquiring the earlier M42 screw-mount version. Regrettably, I lost all sample images in an accident, so I'm unable to provide practical demonstrations.
 

Attachments

  • 微信图片_20250306111921.jpg
    微信图片_20250306111921.jpg
    261.4 KB · Views: 7
Godfrey said:
I look forward to reading this article tonight. :D
The Retina-Xenon lenses on my Kodak Retina IIc/IIIc cameras are superb performers!

G
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about my Kodak Retinas, so I'm going to need some explanation about this sentence in the article:
"As far as trying to buy a good Xenon lens, we can exclude the lenses made for Retina cameras as they aren’t practical everyday shooters."
 
A while back I tested all of my 1950s-60s 50mm lenses in M42 and Exakta mounts, and the 1.9/50 Xenon was the obvious winner for center sharpness, being sharper wide open than any other lens in my collection. However, it gave very poor resolution in the corners, being softer than all other lenses until stopped down to f/5.6. In fact some of my cheapest M42 lenses, Mamiya and Yashica this or thats, were sharper in the corners even wide open. This is not a deal breaker for me because I'd much rather have a sharp center of the frame, than a frame that's just sort of sharp corner to corner wide open.

I have two versions of the Exakta Xenon, the old aluminum black barrel version, and the "compact" version that appeared c. 1968. The old version has 20 aperture blades and is more ergonomic to use (the compact version is too compact, with the focus ring being too narrow to grip easily).

stumped by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr
 
mconnealy said:
I feel the same way about my Kodak Retinas, so I'm going to need some explanation about this sentence in the article:
"As far as trying to buy a good Xenon lens, we can exclude the lenses made for Retina cameras as they aren’t practical everyday shooters."
Click to expand...
Just read the article. Some interesting information for sure, but that line about the Retina cameras is just Shakespeare: "... It is a tale told by an idiot, full of strength and fury, signifying nothing. ..." ;) The fact, seen in the comments, that the article's author didn't even know that the Kodak Retina IIc cameras are equipped with an excellent Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 50mm f/2.8 lens at all and tried to pass it off as a Xenar ... Sheesh.

I have three Retina IIc and one Retina IIIc cameras, all equipped with S-K Xenon 50mm lenses in f/2.8 (IIc) and f/2 (IIIc) configuration. They all perform brilliantly and are remarkably handy, practical cameras to use everyday.

G
 
It's an old article, from 2019. Odd that he uses the Retina-Xenon as an example, but tells people to avoid it. Maybe he did not know about the adapter to F-Mount, or adapters to mirrorless. The version of the 50/1.9 that is shown focuses to 2ft, a full foot closer than the RF coupled version of the lens. It came with the Instamatic Reflex. I have one, use it on the Df. The comments regarding the Summarit being identical formula to the Xenon 5cm F1.5 is not correct: Leica User Forum published documentation showing the formula was revised for the Summarit.
 
I wonder how this might relate to Xenon lenses of other focal lengths besides 50mm. I have a 12.5cm f/2 Schneider-Göttingen Xenon from WWII. Any possible relationship?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom