Lenses (as a construct) can encompass traversal, getting, setting, and transformation. With this in mind, I'd suggest that lenses are closer to a combination of XPath and XSLT. A key difference is that no schema is imposed.
That said, I'm a little sad to hear that lenses remind you of an XML technology. :) I suppose I'd rather that XSLT be perceived as a very particular way of doing data transformation under particular conditions with a particular syntax.
All of the above said, I think good lessons could (in theory) be learned from XML, but I feel like XML's notational particulars get over-accentuated and the underlying thinking about data structures gets muddled and even lost.
Which is exceedingly reasonble to think, since XSLT actually mandates XPath expressions for all select attributes. However
The major conceptual difference I can see is the ability for (apparent) in-place editing/updating, the lack of which was/is a major pain point in XSLT.
As XSLT is a functional language for traversing and manipulating heterogenous trees, one can expect quite a lot similarities beneath the surface syntax for most solutions targeting the same problem. At least in part because the limitations of the users (us) and the problem to be solved tends to constrain the solution space for generic (library like) solutions rather strongly.