All right, that's not the most descriptive thread title, I know.
But the point is that I just bought a bunch of enlarger lenses on ebay. Nice lenses, nice price, but when they arrived I discovered the packaging had been a little less than optimal: A Componar 135/4.5 was dented (outer ring), and a Componon 135/5.6 was not only dented but had three loose aperture blades, and a "Kodak Enlarging Ektanon" 161mm f:4.5 had two small dents on opposite sides. An Elgeet Colorstigmat 135mm f:4.5 survived unscathed, as did a Componon 60mm f:5.6.
I checked the picture in the auction closely, and it appears that all the damage has occurred in the mail. Bummer. At $50 I'm not bothering to complain, though. Especially as all the lenses except the Elgeet came with mounting flanges.
So: Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses? Should I expect the Componar to be much worse than the Componon, or are they just optimised for different enlarging ratios? And what about the Kodak and Elgeet - are they decent or letter presses?
But the point is that I just bought a bunch of enlarger lenses on ebay. Nice lenses, nice price, but when they arrived I discovered the packaging had been a little less than optimal: A Componar 135/4.5 was dented (outer ring), and a Componon 135/5.6 was not only dented but had three loose aperture blades, and a "Kodak Enlarging Ektanon" 161mm f:4.5 had two small dents on opposite sides. An Elgeet Colorstigmat 135mm f:4.5 survived unscathed, as did a Componon 60mm f:5.6.
I checked the picture in the auction closely, and it appears that all the damage has occurred in the mail. Bummer. At $50 I'm not bothering to complain, though. Especially as all the lenses except the Elgeet came with mounting flanges.
So: Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses? Should I expect the Componar to be much worse than the Componon, or are they just optimised for different enlarging ratios? And what about the Kodak and Elgeet - are they decent or letter presses?