Difference between 40mm and 45mm APO-Componon-HM??

[Steve Goldstein]

Schneider offer both 2.8/40 and 4/45 APO-Componon-HM lenses for 35mm use. I've looked on the Schneider web site and can't find anything that tells me how to choose one over the other beyond the obvious focal-length and aperture difference. There's been no reply to my email to Schneider. Does anyone know?

 

[ic-racer]

How big do you want to enlarge? I have the 45mm and at anything less than about 11" across image size I can't open my easel because the head is so low, so I only use it for 16x20 and bigger.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

It's more intellectual curiosity than anything else. Two lenses, 10% difference in focal length, one stop difference in aperture, both in current production at nearly the same price seems strange. The only other significant difference seems to be that one of them has an illuminated aperture scale. There's no indication in Schneider's brochure (2.5Meg, received today by email) to advise how one would choose one over the other. I'll ping back Schneider again to see if I can get clarification, but I don't plan to invest a lot of time in this. To your point, I normally use a 63mm lens for 35mm to get more clearance, and I never enlarge beyond 11x14.

 

[Ian C]

The 40/2.8 has two advantages over the 45/4.

1. It’s one stop brighter wide open. This can help you to focus and compose when making the largest prints as the projection is harder to see at higher magnifications.

2. It provides somewhat more magnification for any given negative-to-print distance. For example, at 800mm negative-to-print distance the 45mm lens gives 15.7X while the 40mm lens magnifies 17.9X. If you need that extra magnification to make the print you want, the shorter lens might make it possible if your projection distance limits what you can accomplish with the longer lens.

Assuming both lenses have optimum performance closed 2 stops (usually the case), the 40/2.8 will print in half the time at f/5.6 compared to using the 45/4 at its optimum f/8 aperture. For most home printers this is not important. But if you were choosing a lens for a high volume lab making hundreds or even thousands of prints per day in which the printing time was an operating cost, it might be important.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Yes, those are the two obvious benefits, but the one datum that eludes me is whether the lenses are optimized for different magnifications. For example, does one correspond (roughly) to Rodenstock's Rodagon-G line in being intended for making very large prints? Nothing in Schneider's literature gives any basis for selection other than aperture, focal length, and illuminated aperture scale!

 

[Ian C]

Schneider doesn’t say much about the APO Componon HM series except to comment

“The APO-COMPONON HM is an apochromatic design that assures the highest resolution across the entire image. Designed with custom labs and the fine art photographer in mind, these six-element, four-lens designs produce the highest quality images at a wide range of magnifications including 1:1.”

Unfortunately, Schneider doesn’t elaborate on the “wide range of magnifications” for the APO Componon.

It’s likely similar to that of other standard enlarging lenses such as the Componon S, for which Schneider claims “It is a versatile design and may be used to make enlargements in the 2x to 20 magnification range.”

An enlarging lens designed to work well at 1:1 isn’t likely to produce its best possible image at the high magnification that the Rodagon G is designed for.

The Rodagon G enlarging lenses are optimized for greater magnifications such as we’d employ in making murals. There is, however, some overlap in the magnification ranges of standard lenses and the Rodagon G series.

For example, the only Rodagon G designed for 35mm enlarging is the 50/2.8. Its rated magnification range in the Rodenstock data sheet is given as 15X-25X(optimum)-50X.

 

[ic-racer]

To your point, I normally use a 63mm lens for 35mm to get more clearance, and I never enlarge beyond 11x14.

I'd save my money. Buy something else. Do you have a Jobo? A Bessa rangefinder? Nikon F100? Sensitometer?

 

[ic-racer]

I'd save my money. Buy something else. Do you have a Jobo? A Bessa rangefinder? Nikon F100? Sensitometer?

To answer the original post, my impression as to why they offer two lenses is that one is a "wide angle" lens for 35mm and the other is just slightly longer than "Normal" for 35mm.

 

[Bob-D659]

Some older automated optical printers had different focal length lenses on a turret for different sized prints.

 

[Leigh B]

I have all of the Apo-Componon HM lenses _except_ the 40mm, which wasn't available when I bought my lenses (IIRC).

My guess is that it's intended for people making bigger enlargements from 35mm. Both the wider angle and the larger aperture argue for that application, since the brightness at the easel will decrease as the enlarger head is raised.

- Leigh

 

[DanielStone]

I'm not 100% on this, but I remember hearing that the 40mm APO-Com-H was designed for enlarging APS-sized negatives, or 1/2-frame negatives. This line of lenses was brought to market in the late 90s, when APS cameras were becoming more popular.

But since it covers the 35mm frame completely, it doubles as a WA 35mm enlarging lens. A friend of mine makes 20x30" enlargements from his 35mm negatives(both color and b/w), and he uses the 40mm to achieve this, using a Durst 4x5 enlarger with a drop table. It helps since he only has 8' ceilings in his apartment, and doesn't have to reach as high up to adjust things vs using a 50mm(or 63mm) lens. He previously used a 63mm El-Nikkor 3.5 for printing, but he wanted to go bigger with his printing. He has now "standardized" on pretty much using the 40mm ACH only.
The 63mm nikkor now sits in a drawer 99% of the time .

thing is though: he said he had to get a recessed lensboard(about 25mm) for his enlarger, so he could use the bellows to focus rather than racking the head up and down

-Dan

 

[ic-racer]

I'm not 100% on this, but I remember hearing that the 40mm APO-Com-H was designed for enlarging APS-sized negatives, or 1/2-frame negatives.

The MTF data on the Schneider site shows coverage for a 24x36mm frame for the 40mm APO Componon HM. As far as I know, they did not make an APS format lens. The 25mm Componon shows coverage of 18x24 and the 35 and 40mm Componon lenses shows coverage of 24x24. APS is 30.2x16.7mm and the letters "APS" are not found in the Schneider Enlarging Lens brochure.

This is an apochromatic 40mm f2.8 enlarging lens, most commonly used to make photographic prints with 35mm negatives. The 40mm focal length allows a 20% shorter enlarger column height--Schneideroptics.com

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I thought the 45 followed the 40mm and that the 45 was regarded as slower but sharper in the corners? I am pretty sure I have read comments from several people saying that the 45 performed better across the field and is stunning from wide open.

I use a 63 nikkor as I have a huge enlager which does not like even regular 50mm lenses in a recessed panel.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I have a 45 2.8 APO and Leica 40 2.8.

I got the 45 used and cheap. I though it was junk as the corners blurred to 11. Years later I tried it on a diffusion enlarger and it worked well. Since that discovery, I tried it on a variety if diffusion and condenser enlargers I own with the same result, poor corners on condensers. Glass carriers and perfect alignment make no difference.

Focotar 40 2.8 made for the V35 is the same is the same.

So if you want to put it on a condenser enlarger, I would tell you not to buy either.

Build a stand with drop table or increase distance another way. And get a lens with 6 elements for high mag work that is not a wide angle design. A cheap lens will not make good large prints. Then you need to align the enlarger and use a grain magnifier to focus