I've seen no discussion on this forum of the Schneider 240 mm Tele-Arton. (I also did a search but found only the listing in the specs charts.) They seem to come relatively cheap on the used market. What do people think of this lens? (I actually have one, but it is for my 35 mm Retina IIIS-85 mm).

-- Tony Galt (galta@uwgb.edu), February 26, 2002

Answers

Hi Tony,

the Tele-Arton should be a good tele-lens (actually I don't have one) and should be a better performer than the Tele-Xenar for LF. Your 85mm for the Retina is a different design. In case of the 240mm for LF, consider that there were two different lenses for 2x3'' and 4x5''. The pros and cons of tele-lenses are discussed on this forum often.

-- Thomas Vaehrmann (TVaehrmann@web.de), February 27, 2002.

I own a classic Tele-Xenar 240mm, and are quite satisfied with it. It is quite sharp and luminous at 5.6

Have no used the Tele-Arton, so canīt really compare

-- Enrique Vila (evilap@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.

I'm very happy with my 180mm f5.5. It's a Linhof version and very sharp. And it just fits into the front standard of my Century graphic. I would give the 240 a try if you need the tele due to bellows limitations.

-- Chuck Pere (jcpere@aol.com), February 27, 2002.

I have found that while the lens is sharp, and reasonably contrasty, there is really NO space for movements, the lens just covers the film. If you are happy never using movements the lens might be fine.

see Schneider's site: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/ large_format_lenses/tele-arton/data/5.5-240mm.htm

-- jason (sanford@temple.edu), February 27, 2002.

It is a very interesting lens. Sharp, yet not too contrasty. You can get great negatives with a wide tonal scale. It is great for portraits. It is rue that it does't have big coverage , but....do you need it?

-- domenico foschi (applethorpe@earthlink.net), March 01, 2002.

At that focal length, for landscapes, I could foresee using slight tilts to bring near and far into focus. For portraits I don't see using movements. Is the lens incapable of even slight tilts and swings?

-- Tony Galt (galta@uwgb.edu), March 01, 2002.