Rodagon vs Componon opinions

[Flotsam]

I have been using a Rodigon 50mm f/2.8 lens for enlarging 35mm film. Recently, I got an older Componon 50mm f/4 when I puchased an enlarger.

The Rodi is very nice in use because it focuses bright at 2.8, it has the convenience of having a pre-set aperature ring and easy to read back-lit f stops numbers. I'm sure that I will be doing some subjective comparisons between them in my darkroom but I am wondering what people think or know about the comparative sharpness and contrast between these two lenses.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Neal,

I think that differences between individual samples will be greater than those between the two different brands. Newer models with lighted f-stop scales are a little more convenient, but don't necessarily perform much better. APO versions are usually rated a bit better, but cost a whole lot more.

Konical

 

[Eric Rose]

I went down this road several years ago. I tested Rodi's, Schneiders and Nikkors. I also tested APO and non-APO designs against each other. What I found was that as long as the lens is a 6 element lens, there was no visual difference between them. Using a magnifying glass to examine the prints did show some very slight benefit to the APO's but not that anyone not using a magnifying glass would notice.

Not counting making the image on film in the first place the greatest determining factor in print sharpness IMHO is enlarger stability and the elimination of bounced light when exposing the print.

I could be wrong, but the f4 lens may not be a 6 element lens.

 

[Flotsam]

I could be wrong, but the f4 lens may not be a 6 element lens.

A quick look around the 'net has shown me with great authority that the Componon 50mm f/4 definitely has 6 elements ...or not :confused:

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I would probaby continue to use the Rodagon because it is faster and newer. The Componon will likely be about as good, but it would have to be definately better to overcome the advantages of the Rodagon. If you aren't likely to see the difference, than there are very big reasons to use the Rodagon. (I guess I am saying that I don't think you will see the difference, and if you happen to see a difference, I would expect the Rodagon to be better because it is newer.)

 

[df cardwell]

My own comparisons proved the Apo rodagon better in the '80s than the componon, and the "apo rodagon n" better in the '90s than either. The DIFFERENCE is in resolving grain perfectly from corner to corner in a 16 - 20x enlargement, in a focomat. The Rodagon N has less of a 'doughnut pattern' of sharpness than other lenses I've sampled.

In a piddling 11x14, I've never seen any difference between any first rate lenses: any differences I've seen has more to do with an overall appreciation of the image rather than sharpeness or contrast in a particular part of the image, or at a low magnification.

.

 

[Early Riser]

I have a wide assortment of enlarging lenses, I have the 80mm, 105mm and 150 APO Rodagon -N, the 120mm Rodagon WA, the 180mm and 300mm rodagons and the 135mm, 210mm and 240mm EL Nikkors. I am always impressed with the way the grain just seems to pop through the grain focuser when I use the APO Rodagons. The other lenses produce sharp prints, but there's an element of snap that the APOs just seem to have. The only problem with them is that if you have a very bright enlarger you have to use an ND of some sort as the APO Rodagons are sharpest one stop down from widest aperture, so you end up printing at f 5.6. versus f 11 on other lenses which are usually sharpest 2 stops down.

If price is not a factor I say go with the APO Rodagon-N.

 

[Claire Senft]

The 50mm f4 is a very old design. The 50mm 2.8 Rodagon has been improved upon by the 50mm 2.8 Apo Rodagon. I believe with very sharp negative that there will be a visible difference between the 50mm f4 and the 50mm Apo Rodagon. The current El Nikkor N in 50mm and 63mm are very good lenses also.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I know I'm coming in a bit late here, but the main difference we noticed in the eighties in a mural enlarging area, was that normal home darkroom lenses, were designed for an 8x enlargement. I think the cheaper 6 element lenses were optimised/designed for a 12 x enlargement, however, most Apo lens were designed for a 20 x enlargement.

By design, I mean that the optimum enlargement, where all lenses work at their best, was at the aforementioned magnifications of the negative. This was pretty much across the board, meaning that a 50 mm lens on a 35mm neg was optimised at 20 times enlargement, and, the 80mm or 150mm with their respective sized negs, were also optimised for a 20 times enlargement of the negative.

There was one notable exception, that was a Schneider HM or High Magnification lens. We had two of them, a 40 and a 90mm. I can remember using a DeVere 4x5 free standing enlarger with a drop table. The enlarger head was almost at the ceiling and the drop table was about 150mm from the floor. Printing at that magnification required even 35mm to be in glass, to keep the neg flat, the prints were grain sharp. No other lens we had, was capable of that.

When Ektar 25 Professional was being released in Australia, we used the HM 40mm lens in one of the horizontal mural enlargers to produce pictures of people at same size, for Kodak Australia. We were all amazed at the resolution of the film and the capabilities of the enlarging lens.

Getting to the original question from Neal, I had a Schneider Componar as one of my first better enlarging lens, switched over to a Componon six element of some type, then hit paydirt with a Componon S 2.8 which I still love and use.

I think the Rodagon range of lenses are pretty much on a par with Schneider, as in Canon and Nikon 35mm camera lens in the seventies and eighties were pretty much par with each other.

I think Claire's assessment of lenses, is spot on.

Mick.