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

[Eric Rose]

Chip, like I said before, SHOW ME THE MONEY! Show an example of this "air in the shadows" that only Schneider lenses can impart on an image.

If only you can see it and you can't show us an example then I think the entire premise is BS.

Put up or shut up imho.

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

Have to agree with you.

I used a Vivitar VHE 150mm lens commercially for images from about 3ft wide to 12 maybe 15ft from 5x4 negatives. It was an excellent lens it's actually a Symmar S in a composite barrel.

Some say that Rodenstock LF lenses as a whole are a touch sharper than the equivalent Schneiders, I have both and it would be very difficult to see a difference otside of vigorous testing.

Ian

 

[faberryman]

I do not think my Componon S lenses have a look, unless sharp with good contrast is a look. Maybe that gives you air in the shadows but that is a pretentious, nonsensical way to describe those properties.

 

[chip j]

This site should be called BLINDTRIO.

 

[faberryman]

This site should be called BLINDTRIO.

A double blind test would resolve the issue, but we all know that is not going to happen.

 

[Ian Grant]

This site should be called BLINDTRIO.

Like Eric has already said you need to contribute quantifiable facts based on some actual images.

It's you that expect others to follow your blind often unfounded ideas.

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

A double blind test would resolve the issue, but we all know that is not going to happen.

BTDT, and all I found was that used within their optimised range, most of the major players' 6-element lenses from about 1970 onwards in the 50-80mm range can be readily controlled to make sufficiently identical 10x enlargements that a viewer could not tell them apart under close examination. Even the cheaper 75/4 EL-Nikkor is pretty good if used for up to 10x enlargements of 35mm only. The only noticeably poorer lens was an old 50mm E.Rokkor which was probably outside its optimisation range at 10x.

 

[btaylor]

All three Gernan lenses (rodenstock, schneider, leitz) have different "looks".--the concept was very evident to the local Leica dealer, whot pushed me relentlessly to get a Focotar 2. 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.

I can’t believe you all are taking the bait. C’mon. You don’t remember the magic pixie dust in Leica lenses from awhile back? I hand it to you chip j, you get these things going on for pages and pages. Enjoy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What "look"? Do you mean lower contrast and less crisp than newer options? I once got several Componons virtually free via a horse trade, and immediately sold them. They might have been nice for their era, but that time is long gone. I even sold off all my trusty Componon S lenses and acquired a variety of better ones. Now I mostly use Apo Nikkors, Apo Rodagon N's and sometimes regular Rodagons and Nikkor EL's. All of them are sharper and more contrast than the Componon S series, but the Apo's especially so. So it seems that alleged special Componon S look equates to nothing more than lower contrast. But I personally took advantage of that fact when I combined it with the softer contrast of Symmar S lenses and Ektachrome 64 when printing on early Cibachrome, which was even more contrasty than the second version.

 

[Lachlan Young]

You don’t remember the magic pixie dust in Leica lenses from awhile back?

Worse, I think it was about a loupe. A loupe that turned out to be an OEM product.

 

[chip j]

Artistic experiences can't be described in "facts" too well.. Sure, the Componons don't have the sharpness of other lenses, but there's to a picture than sharpness. Over the years I've tried & tried to share my experiences w/photo optics, but to not much avail, it seems. You'll all be hapyt to know that I am DONE w/that topic.

 

[Paul Howell]

there's to a picture than sharpness.

Very true, but I would guess what you see as something special in your enlarging lens is a combo of subject, lighting, film, camera lens, developer, paper, paper surface, paper, grade, paper developer, toning and mounting that gives you the look you like. If I gave you a set of Kodak Ektar enlarging lens from the 50s you would find way to get the look that defines your work.

 

[NB23]

This site should be called BLINDTRIO.

Or Trolltrio?

 

[warden]

This site should be called BLINDTRIO.

You’ve got to be kidding, man. This is what you have to offer to your own thread?

 

[ruilourosa]

Artistic experiences can't be described in "facts" too well.. Sure, the Componons don't have the sharpness of other lenses, but there's to a picture than sharpness. Over the years I've tried & tried to share my experiences w/photo optics, but to not much avail, it seems. You'll all be hapyt to know that I am DONE w/that topic.

I really hope that the artistic experience you are talking about isn´t just testing lenses in your backyard... usually is...

the process of experimenting in arts is a bit more that that...

 

[Martin Rickards]

This reminds me of the claims made about the bog standard 50 mm lenses that equipped the various Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Yashica, Leitz etc. models before zoom lens kits became popular. Everybody argued the odds that theirs was optically better than the others, but when it came down to it, they were all pretty good. They had to be or no-one would buy them.

 

[bernard_L]

I can’t believe you all are taking the bait.

Not for me. Post #11:

At least this generates some activity on photrio. Just this time the infamous K.R. is not involved (so far).

 

[ic-racer]

"Air in the Shadows?" My experience is that the shadows bleed into the sky with old foggy Componons, so more like "Shadows in the Air."

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've tested lenses straight against each other several times. There are slight differences in lenses. Schneider Componon-S lenses tend to have slightly lower overall contrast, Rodagons are in the middle, and EL Nikkors have a lot of micro contrast. I you want grain to show up, the EL Nikkors do a good job. Some lenses are better at larger prints than others. The Minolta C.E. Rokkor is a great regular lens at larger sizes. There are coating differences and design differences. The Fujinon EX that I have for example has slightly different highlights that make fog images look nice. Subtle though. Computar DLs are nice because they are sharp from wide open, and a few are brighter than all but the APO lenses. Good to have around for a dense neg. Lenses that aren't that good work well for some things too. I keep a Leitz Elmar around even though it is soft compared to the modern lenses because it works well for portraits. Sharp enough, but a little soft.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've tested lenses straight against each other several times. There are slight differences in lenses. Schneider Componon-S lenses tend to have slightly lower overall contrast, Rodagons are in the middle, and EL Nikkors have a lot of micro contrast. I you want grain to show up, the EL Nikkors do a good job. Some lenses are better at larger prints than others. The Minolta C.E. Rokkor is a great regular lens at larger sizes. There are coating differences and design differences. The Fujinon EX that I have for example has slightly different highlights that make fog images look nice. Subtle though. Computar DLs are nice because they are sharp from wide open, and a few are brighter than all but the APO lenses. Good to have around for a dense neg. Lenses that aren't that good work well for some things too. I keep a Leitz Elmar around even though it is soft compared to the modern lenses because it works well for portraits. Sharp enough, but a little soft.

Those comments hold true for the same manufacturers LF lenses, manufacturers chose different design criteria. It's most noticeable between German and Japanese lenses. I prefer German I don't use my El Nokkor lenses that came with an enlarger.

But as Lachlan says we can control slight differences in printing, I have 3 images made with quite different lenses, two made the same day with a 150mm Sironar N on 5x4, the other with an 80mm f3.5 Xenotar on a Rolleiflex, the third made a few years later (probabluyb10years) with a 240mm. Nikkor W, you wouldn't know they were
t all taken in the same session.

Higher Micro Contrast doesn't mean higher resolution usually just the opposite.

Ian

 

[wiltw]

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

I do not recall which Computar is among Ctein's own inventory, but both the 50mm and the 55mm lenses are mentioned in his chart discussing lens pros/cons, and both seemed to be similarly high in performance.

 

[wiltw]

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

I found the time to re-read the applicable chapter about enlarging lenses. Ctein does mention his Computar 55mm a few times, and shows some test with it. He stated it can resolve 300 lp/mm, making it one of the highest resolution lenses. But he also admits that wide open (f/1.9) it has terrible contrast that does not get good until f/4, and for color work it has some bad chromatic convergence issues.
In short, and to the OP, that which makes a lens 'high performance' has to be understood fully WHAT characteristic(s) make it good, AND what its limitations are, and under what conditions the lens is operating outside its designed optimum range (e.g. what degree of enlargement to be made).

 

[DREW WILEY]

What Ctein coveted was a 105 Apo El Nikkor. But it wouldn't have made a tad of difference in his dye transfer prints because the dyes bleed a bit and that particular medium's strong point is not crisp detail, but hue accuracy. But that whole lens review is quite dated by now. Ironically, what I use for 35mm is a 75/4 El Nikkor - a cheap lens mediocre for the medium format usage it is marketed to; but using only the center of the optic for 35mm film, quite good starting one stop down from wide open. If I want something seriously sharp, I just use my 105 Apo Rodagon N.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ironically, what I use for 35mm is a 75/4 El Nikkor - a cheap lens mediocre for the medium format usage it is marketed to; but using only the center of the optic for 35mm film, quite good starting one stop down from wide open.

As mentioned above, I subjected a random sample of this lens to a double blind test & at 9-10x & 2 stops down for enlarging 35mm, it's essentially equal in practical performance with most big name non-apo 6-element lenses in the 50-60mm range. You would have an extremely hard time picking out which print was made with it. That said, the 50's have obvious advantages in terms of useful speed & optimisation ranges.
For the record, the enlarger was a floorstanding DeVere 504 which has proven remarkably resistant to vibration.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think I still have an old 50mm Componon S laying around, but seldom use it. I want more room between the negative stage and baseboard. I always print 35mm small, 11X14 at very most. 50mm is just too tight for comfortable dodging and burning. Anyway, a longer focal length gives more even illumination. When I want big prints, I use big original negs. Today it was 8x10 color film.