Came with purchase: schneider componon 35mm f4.. What is it?? What is it worth ??

[heespharm]

So I just bought a auction lot of m605 color with a 50mm f2.8 nikkor, nikkor 80mm f5.6 and a schneider 35mm f4... I don't know what this 35mm lens is for ... 126 film??

All in all I think the lot was a good buy 140 bucks for enlarger with 35mm and 6x6 carrier with condenser and diffusion chambers, lenses above, dev trays of all sizes, saunders 4 blade easel, 2 omega 2 blade easels, microsight III, contact sheet maker and 4 timers (gralab 300 and 500, master time-o-lite and omega ct-20 digi timer with footpedal) ..

 

[ozphoto]

Wow! $140 - has me crying in my beer.
I paid $165 for a Saunders 4-blade 11x14 easel alone.

If it's like this model, you really did land a bargain:
http://cgi.ebay.com/SCHNEIDER-KREUZ...tem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19ba0f5b2b

 

[heespharm]

Yup it's that lens but a earlier serial number.. Yeah the saunders easel is 11x14... I went there for the enlarger... It said 3 easels but when I saw that I just about shat myself

 

[ozphoto]

Now I'll have to cry in my whiskey as well - well done!
Great easel to use - you won't be disappointed with that bargain.

 

[AgX]

The Componon range was the high-end before the Componon-S and Apo-Componon range were intruduced.

The 35mm (and the 40mm) were designed for film-image sizes of up to 24x24mm.

 

[Mike Wilde]

If you don't want it, pm me with an ask price for it.

I have a yen (and a wife asking) to print some old 110 negatives, and I don't want to resort to try to graft some old 8mm movie camera lens sets onto my enlarger if I don't have to.

I have looked at using a 50mm lens, but the print times are absurdly long.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have looked at using a 50mm lens, but the print times are absurdly long.

A shorter lens won't change the print time unless it's a faster lens. A shorter lens will let you print a small neg larger with the enlarger column you have.

At the same aperture and magnification factor you'll get the same exposure time, independent of focal length.

 

[Ian Grant]

Wrong David A wider angle lens is closer to the light source but more importantly nearer to the paper for the same size print (enlargement) so because of the inverse square law times are much shorter.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A common misconception. You can calculate bellows factor on a view camera (or any camera or an enlarger) using magnification alone (disregarding minor factors like transmissive light loss due to different lens designs, coatings, and such). No need to know the focal length of the lens or the subject distance or bellows extension.

Exposure factor=(1+Magnification)^2

If the magnification is the same, the exposure is the same, independent of focal length.

 

[ath]

A simpler view of this is: the enlarging lens collects all the light from the negative and spreads it over the paper size - only f-stop and magnification involved. A different focal length will only require different settings - it does not change the principle.
When you meter a white wall the resulting time and f-stop do not depend on the focal length either - it's the same vice versa.

 

[DWThomas]

Ayup! I agree with the other David and ath. When I complained of short exposure times on my B-8, someone recommended I ditch the 80mm for a 105mm, but after more thought, it doesn't matter, it's all about the print size relative to the negative -- magnification. (So I bought an ND filter.)

DaveT

 

[Ian Grant]

Well I just tested it, and with a 35mm negative in my Durst M670 there was a very significant visual & measurable difference between 3 Componon-S, 50mm, 80mm &105mm lenses, all set to give the same size enlargement the 80mm & 105mm at f5.6 - full aperture & the 50mm stopped down 4 clicks to the marked 5.6 setting. It was more than 1.5 stops difference between the 50mm & 80mm and even more for the 105mm around 3 stops

It's quite obvious that the further the enlarger lens is from the light source the greater the exposure, this is why the larger the format of the enlarger the stronger the light source thats required, so 150W for a Durst M670 and 1200W for a De Vere 5108 (10x8).

Ian

 

[Anscojohn]

So I just bought a auction lot of m605 color with a 50mm f2.8 nikkor, nikkor 80mm f5.6 and a schneider 35mm f4... I don't know what this 35mm lens is for ... 126 film??

All in all I think the lot was a good buy 140 bucks for enlarger with 35mm and 6x6 carrier with condenser and diffusion chambers, lenses above, dev trays of all sizes, saunders 4 blade easel, 2 omega 2 blade easels, microsight III, contact sheet maker and 4 timers (gralab 300 and 500, master time-o-lite and omega ct-20 digi timer with footpedal) ..

*********
The 35 is for half-frame 35mm.

 

[Ian Grant]

A simpler view of this is: the enlarging lens collects all the light from the negative and spreads it over the paper size - only f-stop and magnification involved. A different focal length will only require different settings - it does not change the principle.
When you meter a white wall the resulting time and f-stop do not depend on the focal length either - it's the same vice versa.

Logic is that when working with a light source the distance of that source to the object affects the exposure needed.

The object being enlarged is the negative, a longer focal length lens need to be further from the negatives light source, and conversely closer witha shorter lens. It's this that people are forgetting.

Ian

 

[ath]

Logic is that when working with a light source the distance of that source to the object affects the exposure needed.

Thats why we always moan that the landscape gets darker in the distance ;-)

If your 670 is a condensor enlarger the exposure might indeed change with the focal length. The reason for this is that there are TWO projecting systems - the lens and the condensor which interfere if not matched.

My personal test revealed that the exposure is the same.

 

[ath]

The object being enlarged is the negative, a longer focal length lens need to be further from the negatives light source, and conversely closer witha shorter lens. It's this that people are forgetting.

Ian

You seem to forget that this is compensated by the definition of the f-stop.

 

[Mike Wilde]

Geez, I am sorry I ever brought this up. It was just my recollection of the experience, and the thought that there had to be a better way with a shorter lens.