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

[chip j]

And WHY,please?

 

[AgX]

This is the first time ever I read about "the look" of an enlarging lens.
Seemingly part of a doctrine unknown over here.

 

[jimjm]

I've got several Componon-S lenses, including an 80mm and 135mm. I'm sure my printing skills don't equal what they are capable of, so I've been very happy with them.
I also have an older 75mm Enlarging Ektar. I really can't tell much difference between those prints and ones from the 80mm Componon...
But the features of the newer lenses make them much easier to use.

 

[AgX]

Of course things like light fall-off were discussed compensating fall-off at taking.

And I myself can think of resolution/sharpness fall-off as esthetic means. But I am not sure if you got such in mind.

 

[chip j]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

And WHY,please?

EL Nikorrs all the way!

 

[larfe]

I think the barrel of my componon lenses look better than my rodagon ones...

 

[Peter Schrager]

sorry it's Fuji!!

 

[Ian Grant]

I think the barrel of my componon lenses look better than my rodagon ones...

I'd agree the barrels of Componon and Componon S lenses are nicer than the Rodenstocks.

I use Componon & S, Rodagons, Rokkor, Nikkor, Durst (Pentaz) and a few others. I've never seen any signature or specific difference in the look or feel of a print with any coated enlarger lens. Coating is about the only thing that has any effect as long as thye lenses are sharp.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'd agree the barrels of Componon and Componon S lenses are nicer than the Rodenstocks.

I use Componon & S, Rodagons, Rokkor, Nikkor, Durst (Pentaz) and a few others. I've never seen any signature or specific difference in the look or feel of a print with any coated enlarger lens. Coating is about the only thing that has any effect as long as thye lenses are sharp.

Ian

Ian,
Do you use any APO enlarger lenses?

Tom

 

[bernard_L]

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

 

[jim10219]

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.

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a wide assortment of lens, Schneider, Rodenstock, Wollensak, Kodak, Vivitar, (made in Germany likely by Schneider), and Meopta. I don't see any difference in look meaning contrast or tones. In terms of sharpness, the Wollensaks I have are designed for smaller prints up to 11X14 and are fine as are the Kodaks and my lone Meopto. At 16X20 the Rodenstock and Componon are sharper. I don't have any APO lens and have not printed color in a very long time. My guess is that there may be a noticeable difference in color prints, an APO lens would be sharper. Guess I will find out as I just order a package of color paper and a R4 kit.

 

[Chan Tran]

I prefer the look of the EL Nikkor the newer N series.

 

[chip j]

Thanks, Chan. At least you recognize a "look".

 

[faberryman]

I have the 50mm, 80mm and 135mm Componon-S lenses. I like them because they are all I have. I am sure I would get along fine with the comparable Rodenstock lenses, but I chose Schneider at the time.

 

[Chan Tran]

Thanks, Chan. At least you recognize a "look".

You're welcome! I know to most people the look of the equipment isn't important but it is for me. Cameras, lenses I do care about how they look.

 

[Eric Rose]

Chip I am interested in some examples of what you see different between the lenses you have. Could you post some scans of prints? I have used a number of different EL lens mounted to lensboards and used on my 4x5 cameras. In that situation some do indeed have a "look" that I have utilized. When I was doing a lot of colour printing I found the Rodenstock lenses to be more "Portra" like while the Schneiders were very clinical. Both were equally sharp. I also A/B tested APO and non APO lenses when equivalent FL's were available. The only difference I could see was in colour prints, not in B&W prints.

 

[narsuitus]

Over the years, I have used Rodenstock, El-Nikkor, and Schneider-Kreuznack enlarger lenses.

My eyes only recognize that the images I produce with my 100mm f/5.6 Componon S enlarger lens are on par with the images from my 210mm f/5.6 Rodenstock Rodagon and my 50mm f/2.8 El-Nikkor.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian,
Do you use any APO enlarger lenses?

Tom

I had to check, no

It's 30+ years since I last bought an enlarger lens and tat was second hand although I've acquired many since. I've Componon S lenses for every format I use 35mm to 10x8, however as I have a few enlargers I do also use Rodagon's and my Durst (Pentax) lenses.

I use quite a few older camera lenses, a couple of Dagors, a few Teessars (or type), we can be too obsessive of lens performance it's the prints that count.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I had to check, no

It's 30+ years since I last bought an enlarger lens and tat was second hand although I've acquired many since. I've Componon S lenses for every format I use 35mm to 10x8, however as I have a few enlargers I do also use Rodagon's and my Durst (Pentax) lenses.

I use quite a few older camera lenses, a couple of Dagors, a few Teessars (or type), we can be too obsessive of lens performance it's the prints that count.

Ian

I have three enlargers set up at the moment (2x De Vere, 1x Meopta) but I'm thinking of packing away the Meopta as my De Vere 5108 and 504 are easier to switch between and feel more familiar, and I'd like free up more counter space.

Thinking about it I have Componon-S lenses, a Nikkor, and a Rodagon, but I've not really given much to about any potential deficiencies, and I have printed colour. Never used an APO corrected enlarger lens though, they're not an inexpensive option: https://www.ffordes.com/p/SOR-18-016797/darkroom/150mm-f4-apo-componon-hm - I have tended to assume they were for very critical colour work and mural scale enlargements.

Tom

 

[BMbikerider]

A Schneider enlarger lens to me always has the 'feel' not the 'look' of being slightly 'plasticky'. Especially when compared to the latest offerings from the likes of Rodenstock APO Rodagons, or even the last of the Nikon EL lenses.

 

[chip j]

Eric,scans wouldn't show the differences.

 

[chip j]

Schneiders (and Angenieux) are the only lenses I've tried that reproduce reality; most others (except the Nikkor) put a luxury spin on it. The Nikkors are neutral ( grayish w/ no "omph").

 

[ic-racer]

Certainly silver has a stylish, vintage look, but I prefer the modern barrel.