How many prefer the "LOOK" of Componon el lenses over all others?

[jvo]

You're totally wrong here. The Leica is a Piper Cub, the Rodenstock is a lion tamer's whip, and the Schneider has Marmite in the midtones. It is also well known that the Fuji lenses are best for animal portraits, Nikon is best for gothic architecture, and Wollensaks are only sharp after 6:00 p.m.

before... but what after AFTER the full moon!?!

 

[wiltw]

The 'look' of Componon is probably nothing more than

• good preservation of contrast
• good sharpness
• high detail resolution
• reasonable flatness of field
• reasonably freedom from vignetting

...not to say a Rodenstock (can't be found with similar characteristics in an enlarging lens or even in some more modestly priced enlarging lenses). In fact, Ctein the darkroom printing wizard of some reknown thinks very highly of the Computar Symettrigon enlarging lens (ever hear of that lens hame?!)

 

[AgX]

General contrast and sharpness one can influence by the chosen aperture and by filters.
Remains the fall-off such to the edges.

Thus as already indicated enlarging lenses much less yield a certain bokeh than taking lenses. (Or correct: lenses used under taking circumstances).

 

[chip j]

The 'look' of Componon is probably nothing more than

• good preservation of contrast
• good sharpness
• high detail resolution
• reasonable flatness of field
• reasonably freedom from vignetting

...not to say a Rodenstock (can't be found with similar characteristics in an enlarging lens or even in some more modestly priced enlarging lenses). In fact, Ctein the darkroom printing wizard of some reknown thinks very highly of the Computar Symettrigon enlarging lens (ever hear of that lens hame?!)

I have a 55mm 1.9 Computar DL--is that the Ctein praises?

 

[ruilourosa]

the look of the prints that produces or the look of the lens?

i really do not care about the look of the lens

and attending to the design of an enlarger lens and it´s purpose, it should be completely neutral... in every aspect, trying to maintain the qualities (or the lack of them) of the negative.

seems that the character is relatable to the capacity to maintain the qualities of the negative or the absence of it. I have a lot of enlarger lenses... i like the ones that are not a problem!

 

[chip j]

The look of the prints.

 

[Martin Rickards]

I don't know how important it is, but the size and weight of my Minolta CE 50 mm f2.8 is very impressive

 

[mshchem]

I've used them all. The top tier products from Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Fuji, and even good old Wollensak lenses are outstanding. My go to lenses are EL Nikkors and Rodagons. I've accumulated a amazing array of lenses. I bought a Componon S 300 mm for 50 dollars. I'm running out of turrets and lens boards

 

[warden]

If an enlarging lens has a "look", I don't think I want it. The "look" comes from the camera, lens, film, and paper choice, and I want the enlarger lens to simply deliver the negative to the paper accurately without making its presence known.

I've only ever thought about the quality of enlarger lenses in relation to scientific accuracy, but maybe I've got it all wrong and should be looking to them for creative potential, translating the negative rather than simply delivering it to the paper. Like an instagram filter if you can forgive the reference.

 

[NB23]

I knew there’d be a mention of Leica. “Magical look” and all that bs, as soon as Leica is involved.

My answer will be quite simple: an enlarging lens has to be the most transparent as possible. Unnoticeable. Clear.

If an enlarging lens is giving you a look, then it is undeniably ALIENATING your print and the negative. You must throw the thing away.

The darkroom is no place to be creative. Creativity is at the shooting stage.

 

[NB23]

The look of the prints.

Please don’t start this, as it might become another internet fad just as stand development. Or the Leica magic.
The look of the prints comes from the negative.

 

[chip j]

I don't know how important it is, but the size and weight of my Minolta CE 50 mm f2.8 is very impressive

+1000

 

[chip j]

If an enlarging lens has a "look", I don't think I want it. The "look" comes from the camera, lens, film, and paper choice, and I want the enlarger lens to simply deliver the negative to the paper accurately without making its presence known.

I've only ever thought about the quality of enlarger lenses in relation to scientific accuracy, but maybe I've got it all wrong and should be looking to them for creative potential, translating the negative rather than simply delivering it to the paper. Like an instagram filter if you can forgive the reference.

If the camera lens can influence the picture, why not the enlarger lens????

 

[cowanw]

I have been looking for Componon EL lens for two days now. None on Ebay.
PS I clued in.

 

[warden]

If the camera lens can influence the picture, why not the enlarger lens????

I didn’t say that it couldn’t, I said that I don’t want it to. I want the enlarger lens to be unseen. To take this argument to its logical extreme I suppose I could tape a Holga lens or a magnifying glass to my enlarger and use that, but I don’t want to. I’m not saying that other people shouldn’t, it’s just not for me.

 

[chip j]

"neutral" is an almost impossible to achieve in photography.

 

[chip j]

I have been looking for Componon EL lens for two days now. None on Ebay.
PS I clued in.

There are Componons & Componon Ss, but NO "el". EL means "enlarger lens".

 

[ruilourosa]

I want to be able to create in the laboratory. Creating has nothing to do with transparence or neutrality or look of a lens.

Neutrality should be understood as a graduation. And in a laboratory a high degree on neutrality could and should be a consideration for an enlarger lens, to the highest degree...

but yes, seems a invention of a new magical bullet... bs, pure bs...

 

[warden]

"neutral" is an almost impossible to achieve in photography.

I think what you're hearing from experienced photographers in this thread is that "neutral" certainly is possible, and has been achieved with enlarging lenses from several brands that offer no "signature look".

 

[chip j]

I have over a half-century of doing intense film photography.

 

[AgX]

If an enlarging lens has a "look", I don't think I want it. The "look" comes from the camera, lens, film, and paper choice, and I want the enlarger lens to simply deliver the negative to the paper accurately without making its presence known.

I've only ever thought about the quality of enlarger lenses in relation to scientific accuracy, but maybe I've got it all wrong and should be looking to them for creative potential, translating the negative rather than simply delivering it to the paper. Like an instagram filter if you can forgive the reference.

Exactly.
You read what I wrote on that look thing. But why not use those characteristics that there ARE within the creative process?

Different it would be if one cannot control the post-negative stage, and thus must deliver something that furtheron in a standardized process will yield the result that you have forseen.

 

[ruilourosa]

chip j is the only one looking for some magic in enlarger lenses, some distinctive and enveloping conveying of feeling, or a punchy and grabby visual power, or a misty morning sensation..

manufacturers tryed to put the most advanced technology (until the industry died) into the utmost clarity, resolving power, contrast, distortion free, aberration free possible in a lens, regarding price, size and doability. This means that the attempt was to produce a lens that was the purest flow from the negative or positive. Enlarger lenses are among the best in their purposes...

6 element lenses multicoated lenses from the main manufacturers and even some others manage to be much better than most focusing skills and enlarger alignment and flare, and negative carrier alignment (some are even glassless...). Photographic technique also tend to be an issue. Developers and developing... pfff......

a different character than the highest degree of transparence or neutrality is not a thing in an enlarger lens, is just another name for: lack of contrast, lack of resolution, poor focusing or alignment, fungus, scratches, poor build, poor design, cheap market target, a fall...

even russian designs of enlarger lenses are on the track of this utmost clarity

but: you can use what you want to make whatever you want and need no aproval from a forum... and you should! you can even stop photography and start sculpture or painting.

i think you should try to search that character in other lenses than enlarging. You could try to print through a camera lens, or a lensbaby, or a round fish tank (remember sutton lens?)

using a apo-nikkor 105mm instead of a 4 element amateur lens from a good manufacturer (or even a proper aligned russian enlarger lens) in a 30x40cm enlargement is not going to change you from a mediocre photographer to a stellar one...

Miroslav tíchý images are an extreme of this character... you can search his enlarger and cameras.

No lens will make you shine through your photographs.... just your thinking and doing.

 

[ic-racer]

If this thread is about emphasizing distortions from low-quality and/or damaged optics, there is some aesthetic potential to using foggy lenses with high levels of chromatic aberration. For example the damaged Componon used for this print looks and performs like a human eye with cataracts. The effects during projection printing B&W is that the dark areas bleed into the light areas. I find the aesthetics appealing under certain conditions.

TECHNICAL DETAILS: Seems the more area of damaged glass, the more pronounced the effect. Something like this 240mm Componon-S has a massive lens opening of about 70mm.
Using any fast enlarging lens wide open (to emphasize distortions to the projected image) produces a pronounced hot-spot in the middle, so over-sizing the lens focal length for the format can eliminate that.

 

[warden]

But I find the Leica to be a stuffy Rolls Royce, and the Rodenstock to be a mere carpenter's tool. Only the Schneider has air in the shadows.

The above quote makes no sense at all. I assume you're comparing properly functioning lenses, right? One is a car, one is, I don't know, a screw driver, and the other has "air in the shadows". What does any of that actually mean?

Schneiders (and Angenieux) are the only lenses I've tried that reproduce reality; most others (except the Nikkor) put a luxury spin on it.

Again, putting a "luxury spin on reality" is also complete gibberish. Can you describe using clear language what you're actually seeing? If you have to resort to nonsense terminology to describe what's happening (this lens puts the mustache on it, while that one spins the aroma of campfires, etc) then nobody will know what you're talking about.

Ic-racer did a fine job of explaining how a damaged optic can be used to artfully improve an image, and he explained why and how, using normal, understandable english language, and pictures. It makes sense. But he's talking about damaged optics rather than properly functioning optics as I think you are. I'm interested in what you have seen and why you think one enlarging lens is better, but so far I've not learned much from your descriptions.

It's totally cool if you have a favorite enlarging lens and don't know why, btw. We all have favorites.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The above quote makes no sense at all. I assume you're comparing properly functioning lenses, right? One is a car, one is, I don't know, a screw driver, and the other has "air in the shadows". What does any of that actually mean?

Probably that the Schneider he's using has a hint more flare than the others - and doesn't want to admit that it is easily compensated for by a competent printmaker, at which point it'll be functionally indiscernible from the others, especially at the 6x enlargements he has admitted to using as a comparator. And there's no clarity as to what 50mm Rodagon - an f5.6, an f4 or an f2.8? The 2.8 is (in my experience) better optimised for bigger prints than the older, slower glass.

Personally, I've found the current Rodagons to be perhaps a hint (and we're talking a very small amount) better in their sharpness response in low contrast areas (the grain edges seem a hair sharper at fairly close viewing distances of decently big prints) than the Componon-S, but largely only in bigger prints (10x & up) & I am pretty rigourous about switching to the Rodagon-G at 15x, which does the job it was designed to do.

Wouldn't stop me using a Componon-S for non mural work if it was what I had at hand & I doubt almost any viewer of the final print would notice or care.