Componar 105/f4.5 as taking lens
-
A
- Thread starter dabsond
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Free FREE: Sears (Ricoh) KSX Super camera body - mirror locked up
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
For Sale NIKON FM10 70-210mm
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale 2 each 4x5 ground Glass
- Started by waynecrider
-
For Sale Film holders for Omega Chromega B Enlarger; For 35, 6x6 and slides
- Started by waynecrider
-
For Sale Whole plate film
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
Can't say for that Componar, but I have a 150mm f/5.6 Componon that's beautiful, and as a bonus, I can take the front group off an it's a 250mm f/11. I also have a 10.5 cm f/4.5 Agnar triplet (off a 6x9 folder) that just about covers 4x5 -- if I stop down to f/16 or smaller and focus in to 12 feet or so, it covers and is hyperfocal. Seems likely that Componar isn't any worse than the Componon, and any 105mm in that class should have at least the same coverage as my Agnar.
Therefore, I'm going to vote for "likely to work, give it a try."
Therefore, I'm going to vote for "likely to work, give it a try."
I just picked up one of those for my enlarger. I am trying to find a use for the 105.
If you have a working focal plane shutter, all it costs you is the time to mount it and a couple sheets of film for a test. What are you waiting for?
It won't cover well 4x5, if corners are illuminated they won't have quality. You may experiment with it, sure interesting shots can be taken, but in general it won't be suitable. A way to use that lens for 4x5" is reversed for extreme macro.
A 150mm regular enlarger lens will cover 4x5.
A 120mm enlarger lens has to be special "W" Wide kind to cover 4x5, delivering higher fall-off than a 150mm.
But a 105mm regular enlarger lens has a too small coverage angle to cover 4x5 at infinite focus, as you go macro you give bellows extension to focus and the same coverage angle delivers a larger image circle (than with infinite focus).
May be the componar is optimized to yield peak performace around x4, so reversed for say 1:4 extreme macro (image x4 times larger than the object !) it should shine (to shot coins, insects...).
Last edited:
That approximately matches my experience with my Agnar 105/4.5 on 4x5. It's got dark corners and poor focus in the outer several mm of the image circle when focused to infinity and especially if wide open -- but when stopped down to f/16 and focused to 12 feet or closer, the whole film is illuminated and the corner quality is adequate (with no movements). I think I have a couple images from this lens in my gallery (I'm not at home, so I can't post them directly to this thread).
That said, the Agnar was optimized for putting an image from infinity (or near it) onto film, not for projecting film two or three feet onto a print. A lens optimized for enlarging might have a smaller image circle than this Agnar and still do what it was made to do.
You’ve never printed with a 120WA have you. Fall off is not worse. Performance is extremely high and, with a properly ialingned enlarger with a glass carrier at least equal to the best, non Apo, 150 and 135mm enlarging lenses!
Bob, this deserves a clarification... the 120mm WA fall-off is not worse than the regular 120mm for say 6x9cm, ....but the 120 WA also covers 4x5" and its fall-off for 4x5" is worse than the fall-off of a 150mm, no surprise, the cos^4 law explains it. (This is not a tilting pupil design... so cos^4 is in force).
I've never printed with an WA, but I made a (laser cut) lensboad for a Componon 105mm W. A. of a friend, and while having it I mounted it in a 138S and I explored the field with a lux meter, anyway datasheet shows the fall-off, there is no doubt that a 4x5" (same big print specially) the 120 W.A. has well higher fall-off than a 150 for 4x5", specially when relatively open. With small enlargements (say x3) then bellows extension is larger and we work more with the center or the image circle... and less difference will be seen.
For even more extreme 4x5" macro a reversed Nikon EL 50mm can be ideal (http://extreme-macro.co.uk/el-nikkor-50mm-28n/), by 1:4 (image x4 larger than the object) the EL 50mm (and others) cover 4x5". For flat objects in extreme macro an enlarger lens is ideal, it works around its optimal magnification and field of an enlarger lens is quite flat, specially for 6 element lenses like the EL, the Componon or Rodagon. Componars and Comparons are less optimized, specially when fairly open and in the corners.
Go print with a WA and then make your comments. Try the 120 Rodagon WA.
Bob, this is the Rodagon W.A. 120mm fall-off, well stopped it follows the cos4 rule, no surprise.
By f/8 in a 4x5 negative ( x6 enlargement) it has slightly more that one stop in the corner point, and by f/11 it matches yet the cos^4 rule, delivering 4/5 of an stop fall-off in the corner point.
...this is a well noticeable fall-off. I would use a 120mm W.A. (Componon or Rodagon) to compensate the fall-off of the taking lens that thins the negative in the corners, so less illumination in the corner helps to sibtitute some dodging.
Looking the same graph for the 150mm it delivers 3/5 of stop in the corner point but we have 1/2 stop at around 8mm from the corner. If our enlarger has room enough, a 180mm works better than a 150mm and the 120 w.a. , regarding fall-off, still we may want some fall-off from the enlarger's lens to compensate the taking lens fall-off, of course !!
What is clear is that cos4 rules by f/11 in those lenses.
https://nielspn.dk/files/rodagon rodagon-wa.pdf
Get one and make prints with it. Then write.
That lens will work on your camera. It will likely cover 6x9cm format at infinity and 4x5" format at 1 meter and closer.
Bob,
I agree with you on the Rodagon 120mm WA. I have it and it is as good as my 135mm Componon-S. I also have and use a Schneider 80mm WA Componon-S and it's equally as good. I have no coverage problems with either one. Nice not to have your enlarger head up in outer space wobbling back and forth. JohnW
Bob, this is good advice, but an W.A. is not what I want, this is a good opportunity to debate about the W.A. choice. Let me explain why I prefer regular non W.A. lenses...
Personally I want to use longer than necessary enlarger lenses, not the counter, and I've a solid critterion for that, so in that way I obtain a poorman's top notch lens, essentially I use more the (better) image circle center, I avoid fall-off and rays come more pendicular to the paper, this is a sound way because our 138S allows an insane easel to head distance, so I can print really big even with a (for the format) long focal, in the other post I mentioned the 180mm that is considered a good choice by many good printers... but personally I use a Rodagon 210 for 4x5" which I feel it's even better to me. Again, I feel privileged because I enjoy 5x7" oversized enlarging gear allowing extra room for 4x5". ...and also we have another 138S permanently pointed to the wall.
(let me say a joke) So (IMO) using a 210mm is like riding a cadillac, the 120 w.a. is like a bicycle that fits in the cadillac's trunk:
Still the W.A is a superb glass that can be an excellent solution !!! Ideal if we lack room in the enlarger to make larger prints without wanting to print on the wall...
With the 210mm I don't have noticeable fall-off, but the W.A. (even if well stopped) has some 1stop fall-off in the corner. As mentioned, that fall-off can be an advantage, if we are landscape photograpfers using short focals then that fall-off is benefical as it helps compensate the fall-off of say a 75mm taking lens.
... but if we don't want that fall-off then the 120 W.A. for 4x5 is a problem, we may have to burn the corners because 1 stop is a lot, like halving exposure !!!
In my case I enjoy a 138S that has 3 knobs at hand to displace the bulb left-right, top-bottom, forward-back, so I can easily introduce the fall-off I want, and even I can displace the fall-off from center if fall-off in the negative was displaced because of movements, so with the 210mm mounted I have top performance and total flexibility.
I measured the (old) Rodagon 210mm performance (for 4x5) and I found some (at least) 140lp/mm (at extintion) in the 4x5" field, taken from the film plane, which is a plain overkill, way beyond (IMO) anyone may ever need... I keep my mind open to learn if other enlarger glasses can do things better or different, but presently I cannot tell how I could take advantantage from something better than that old rocking Rodagon 210mm.
If wanting to see the regular vs WA perfomance in the graph (210 vs 120 W.A.), it may seem the 120 is better, but note that the 210 graph shows MTF up to 40 lp/mm while the 120WA only reaches 20lp/mm, so we should compare the curves for 20lp/mm, and the 210 wins. (also 150 or 180 win on the WA, but add the 210 only uses more the center of the field!!)
Still it's difficult to say when that extra performance can be noticed.
My (IMO) conclusions;
> Of course, the WA is not optically superior to regular Rodagons, the slightly lower performance may be difficult to notice.
> The WA overcomes a lack of room for easel-head distance.
> The 120WA has some 1 stop fall-off in the 4x5" corner that we may want (for short focals landscape negatives) or not.
> The plain Rodagon 150mm has less fall-off than the 120WA for 4x5", the 210mm has only 1/4 of the 120WA fall-off.
> All are superb glasses.
Last edited:
If you take the time to test rather then read you will find that the 120 Rodagon WA outperforms both the 135 and 150 Rodagon for prints made on a properly aligned enlarger with a glass carrier at optimal aperture within the optimal print magnification for each lens. It will not outperform the Apo Rodagon N. It does outperform the older 180mm Apo Rodagon.
now get some experience, print with it and come back and tell us how it performs.
now get some experience, print with it and come back and tell us how it performs.
Bob, I think once again it's someone trying to 'prove' that they're cleverer than the optical engineers who designed the lens (for specific purposes) - and that they've never had to get spot-on focus quickly with the bed dropped significantly on a 138S (Durst's understanding of ergonomy appears to have been rooted in sadism), nor realised how much of a difference the 1.5 stop (or thereabouts) exposure difference between the 120WA and 210 will make once they have to burn-in something or add a mask etc at a decent enlargement size.
Last edited:
Bob, this was a urban legend coined by people that were not able to read well the technical information sourced by Rodenstock.
Time ago I told an optician that the W.A. was better showing him the graphs, and he told me: please read well the graph !
Problem is that the Regular and WA graphs show different curves. The regular Rodagon shows 5, 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm while the W.A. shows 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 which is a graph more suitable for worse lenses.
OK, let's erase the missleading information in the graphs, I removed the excess field in the plain 180 (to cover 4x5"), the 40 lp/mm MTF curve in the plain Rodagon MTF and the 2.5lp/mm curve in the W.A. graph. Now we can compare. The WA peaks slight lower in the center (20 lp/mm), for the rest we have the same.
Still we have the sample to sample variability, but what Rodenstock technical literature says (and I strongly belive that it's quite serious) is that the plain Rodagon is at least as good as the WA. Also it's totally true that (for 4x5") the 120 WA has a quite remarkable and noticeable fall-off compared to the 180.
Technical information from Rodenstock is quite serious and much a better reference than presonal subjective impresions, still everyone should use what works for him.
Let me reiterate that many people missinterpreted the technical graps (2.5-20 vs 5-40 lp/mm graphs) to end saying wrong things, originating that urban legend.
When properly scaled, the MTF differences between the 180 and 120WA across the 4x5 field are minimal - apart from that the 120WA is doing it at a higher magnification & with a shorter effective exposure. I wouldn't bother getting the 120WA if you are making 16x20's, but for bigger prints it rapidly becomes much more useful (which is what it's meant for).
Bob, a bit expensive to me
:
Still, let me point that I'm extremly happy with the old Rodagons I have, I don't realize how you could sell those expensive N and G glasses being the plain Rodagon that good. I'm impressed because my 20x16" prints are sharp even when inspected with a x8 magnifier... totally I don't feel the need for a WA, but your N (made up to 150) or G recommendation makes a lot more sense to me, I've a friend treasuring a G 300 and I've some envy. Anyway I recently retrofited the 138 with powerful 100w RGB LEDs (ready for 200W) so I can illuminate the entire wall and still requiring short enough exposures, this changes the game so an expensive lens having an advantage when working fairly open is less a need, as we can use the optimal aperture of a cheaper glass.
Using RGB powerful LEDs in old enlargers have been a major enhacement, having x8 more light simplifies the job, as we have reasonably exposure times even for murals after stopping what optically optimal.
If your optimised aperture is a stop wider (as per the Apo Rodagon N and Rodagon G) you will get better sharpness in mural prints from having less diffraction. You want to stop down as little as possible. Most of the problems I see with big enlargements come from exceeding the optimisation range for a particular lens and stopping down too far for the enlargement size. A 16x20" from 4x5 is not asking a lot of an enlarging system.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |