Xenar "Type D"
I have one of these strange Xenar Type D lenses. It is a 165mm f/3.5 triplet with nice OOF rendering. I have found a few threads on this site and others relative to these lenses. Ole seems to have a 150mm and there is a 180mm for sale on Camera Eccentric. Are there other people actually using theses lenses? Apart from the two lines featured in the Vademecum, does anybody have more information about these rather unique Xenars?
Except for the two lines of incorrect information in the Vademecum ("for small cameras"??) and my own lens, I know nothing.
It's a fun lens - the "soft" rendering at full aperture, coupled with the minimal DoF, is quite special. It's far more interesting than the 135/3.5 Planar in terms of rendition!
I had also a Type D Xenar for Mediumformat (3,8/10,5 cm). It wasn't marked as a Type D, but I'm sure it was one of these "strange Xenar Type D lenses". The pictures looks very interesting and "old". For examples see http://glasmaster.blogspot.com/
I have one useful information: sell it to me... ;)
My Typ D is also a reverse Tessar-derivative, and not a triplet.
I believe the "non-typ-D" fast Xenars are "normal Tessars", and can confirm that at least one Typ D is a reverse Tessar with negative power uncemented rear cell (two air-spaced lenses in the rear cell, a cemented pair in the front cell).
Until I see a Typ D triplet with my own eyes, I'm prepared to assume that the Vade Mecum is yet again in error when describing less common German lenses, and that all Typ D's are reverse Tessars. It wouldn't be the first such error.
Ole, here my suggestion: An older usage in german is to say "triplet" even to the Heliar. Authoritative is the architecture, the lens design. So we can find triplets with three, four (one cemented group) or five (two cemented groups) lenses. What is the english equivalent for "Vierlinser" and "Fünflinser"?? Dr. Helmut Naumann states in "Das Auge meiner Kamera", site 92, all xenars as "Tripletts mit verkitteter Hinterlinse" - including the faster f/3.5-design (35 to 300 mm).
My only problems are the curious 3.8-Aperture of my type D, the missing "Typ D"-signature, the missing proof in the literature and that I resold it too hasty.