Schneider and Rodenstock EL quality brand names

[DonW]

I have several of each in various focal lengths. Each brand has their "good, better, best" but I can't find out what their names are. I'm more interested in the ones available in the 70's to early 90's.

Can you give me a run down please?

Don

 

[MattKing]

Schneider APO Componon HM is better than Schneider Componon-S which is better than Schneider Componon which is better than Schneider Comparon which is better than the Schneider Componar. The Schneider Wide Angle Componon is likely similar to the regular Componon, but regular users would know better than me.
Depending on condition of course!
I'll leave Rodenstock to others.
(Edit: corrected word choice)

 

[DonW]

Thanks Matt!

 

[MattKing]

Here is a useful list of lenses courtesy of KHB's Omega D5 lensmount reference: http://www.khbphotografix.com/omega/LensMountD5.htm

 

[wiltw]

For Rodenstock

Rogonar < Rodagon < APO Rodagon​

 

[jjphoto]

The easiest and most definitive way to determine a pecking order is to look at the number of elements and groups in the lens construction. The fewer elements the poorer the lenses corrections for various aberrations.

http://photocornucopia.com/1061.html

Look at this list which lists various ELs including quite a few early and late Rodenstock and Schneiders (but the list is not 'complete' and really never will be) and look at the Lens Construction (number of elements/groups) to determine the pecking order. Also, the period can be a factor as a 4/3 from the 1950s is possibly still inferior to a 4/3 lens from the 1990s because of coatings and possibly manufacturing tolerances too.

 

[MattKing]

For Rodenstock

Rogonar < Rodagon < APO Rodagon​

And somewhere in there Omegaron, Ysaron and Eurogon.
The Omegaron and Ysaron are nearer to Rogonar, and the Eurogon is ????

 

[ic-racer]

Schneider APO Componon HM is better than Schneider Componon-S which is better than Schneider Componon which is better than Schneider Comparon which is better than the Schneider Componar. The Schneider Wide Angle Componon is likely similar to the regular Componon, but regular users would know better than me.
Depending on condition of course!
I'll leave Rodenstock to others.
(Edit: corrected word choice)

Nice.

 

[Lachlan Young]

And somewhere in there Omegaron, Ysaron and Eurogon.
The Omegaron and Ysaron are nearer to Rogonar, and the Eurogon is ????

In terms of range equivalency:

Ysaron = Rogonar S

Eurygon = W.A. Rodagon

There may have been more than just barrel changes between the name changes - glass etc probably went through some subtle generational shifts over the years.

The highest end Rodenstock lenses are claimed to be the Apo Rodagon N's (some plain Apo Rodagons - those without the 'N' - there were 50, 90, 180 - are the previous generation and apparently aren't as good as the 'N' series, some - more confusingly - are names of process lenses in the 240mm+ range), then the W.A. Rodagons, Rodagon-G mural lenses and regular Rodagons (I recall that the W.A. Rodagons are supposed to be higher performance than the regular Rodagons, but not quite equalling the Apo Rodagon N's). All the above are at least six element lenses, some 7 or 8.

Below that, it's the 4-element Rogonar-S, then the plain Rogonar - which I recall is 3-element. I think there may have been a couple of special 5-element lenses in a Rogonar-SC segment with an aperture for effects filters.

 

[voceumana]

Note that the Schneider Comparon lenses are 4 element lenses designed for low magnification levels (typically, 4X). I have a 150mm Comparon that performs extremely well for 4x5.

 

[ic-racer]

Fujinon enlarging lenses:

EX = Latest EBC 6/4 lens (multicoat, six element/four groups)
EP = Older non-EBC 6/4 lens
ES = Economy 4/3 lens

 

[Steve Goldstein]

For Rodenstock

Rogonar < Rodagon < APO Rodagon​

And APO Rodagon < APO Rodagon N

 

[DonW]

The brain trust at APUG/Photrio never disappoints!

 

[wiltw]

And somewhere in there Omegaron, Ysaron and Eurogon.
The Omegaron and Ysaron are nearer to Rogonar, and the Eurogon is ????

Rodenstock made lenses under contract for other companies who private labelled them...usually an older design, one generation back, offered by companies with enlargers, etc. I have heard the Omegaron name, lens that is sold for the Omega lenarger, but I had not of the other two.

 

[MattKing]

I happily used a 75mm Ysaron for many years,
It offered some of the convenience and ergonomic benefits - e.g. lighted aperture setting - that other basic enlarging lenses didn't offer.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have Schneider Componon-S and Rogonar in 50 and 60 and 80mm, Componon S in 135, don't have any APO lens. At at 8X10 to 11X14, my 4 element Kodak Ektar and Wallensake Rapatar and the 6 element Wallensake in 135 and 162 are just as sharp, as better consumer grade lens they were optimized for mid size prints. What I like about the Componon S and Rogonar 50s is being able to focus at 2.8.

 

[DREW WILEY]

EL was Nikon's designation for their standard enlarging lens series, which included at least a couple of budget lenses, as well as better more expensive ones. Above that, they didn't have an upper tier enlarging lens series per se, but the very high quality 4-element Apo Nikkor graphics lenses suitable for enlarging too (and dispelling the myth that less elements necessarily equates to lower performance), and still above that, the very expensive and now rare Apo El Nikkor series.

 

[MattKing]

EL was Nikon's designation for their standard enlarging lens series, which included at least a couple of budget lenses, as well as better more expensive ones. Above that, they didn't have an upper tier enlarging lens series per se, but the very high quality 4-element Apo Nikkor graphics lenses suitable for enlarging too (and dispelling the myth that less elements necessarily equates to lower performance), and still above that, the very expensive and now rare Apo El Nikkor series.

I took the "EL" in the OP's post as being a shorthand for "Enlarging Lens".

 

[DonW]

Matt's correct, EL meant enlarging lens.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmm ... unfortunate coincidence. With respect to lenses, EL is generally shorthand for Extra-Low dispersion glass.

 

[wiltw]

Hmm ... unfortunate coincidence. With respect to lenses, EL is generally shorthand for Extra-Low dispersion glass.

Released first in the 1960s the EL Nikkor well predated the availability of extra ow dispersion glass elements. Fluorite proved to be too fragile for the task. The ED line was released in 1975.

 

[jjphoto]

... but the very high quality 4-element Apo Nikkor graphics lenses suitable for enlarging too (and dispelling the myth that less elements necessarily equates to lower performance), and still above that, the very expensive and now rare Apo El Nikkor series.

That's quite misleading. Comparing a process lens designed for 1:1 magnification, and which therefore has a symmetrical lens design (hence four elements), to any enlarging lens is quite pointless and it really doesn't serve to illustrate your point that there is a 'myth'. Even Nikon's own APO-EL-Nikkors described as 'for color separating/screening/enlarging' are typically 5x10X magnification lenses (not 1:1) and are 8/4 designs.

Enlarging lenses are not designed for 1:1 reproduction and the relatively few that are are symmetrical designs, like process lenses, although with many more than 4 elements (eg MAKRO-SYMMAR HM (8 element in 4 group) or the APO-Rodagon-D (6 element in 4 group).

Four element enlarging lenses are typically 4/3 Tessars and are non symmetrical designs so they are not as well corrected as typical 6/4 designs (also seen in variations such as 5/4 to 6/6 and higher) such as Double Gauss variants or Plasmats which are often close to, but not quite, symmetrical. As I'm sure you know, that is the reason it's not a 'myth' that the number of elements is an excellent guide to an enlarging lenses performance. Lets not even mention the three element lenses or the fact that ELs have been designed over a period of about 100 years so there are many variations on even 'typical' designs and some better than others.

Although still not symmetrical, the Kodak Enlarging Ektar 4.5/100 (and likely the Enlarging Ektar 4.5/90) are on a very short list of 'almost' symmetrical four element enlarging lenses, in this case Dialytes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

jj - You're obviously totally ignorant of the practical facts involved. Trying to convince someone like me, who has actually used these lenses year-in /year-out for various critical applications, isn't going to be swayed by your sheer guesswork generic assumptions. All the big pro labs around here used Apo Nikkors for mural-sized printing. I use them not only for more precise results than ANY official enlarging lens can achieve (and I have some of the best of those too), but also for very critical color dupe and interneg work. The technically best tele-photographer I've even known routinely uses some of the same lenses at INFINITY. They've frequently been adapted by view camera photographers for general usage all the way for macro to infinity, but are a bit bulky in my opinion, especially if fitted in shutter, but otherwise optically superb over that whole range.
What you don't seem to understand is that factory specifications for these kinds of lenses are based upon printing conventions and extremely accurate apo dot reproduction standards far in excess of ordinary photographic needs. But just study up on how these lenses get re-purposed. Not long ago, remaining Apo El Nikkors were highly coveted for large expensive scanning-back cameras used for reproduction of paintings and related art forensic purposes. Some people still use them on conventional enlarging system, though it takes a very well built enlarger to support their extra weight. The shortest Apo El Nikkor is a 105, and the shortest Apo Nikkor 180, so pretty much off the radar of typical 35mm photographers.
But it works both ways. Cheapo student-grade 3-element enlarging lenses tend to be just rebranded cheapo stat camera lenses like those once used in T-shirt silkscreening shops and for other casual graphics applications.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

For Rodenstock

Rogonar < Rodagon < APO Rodagon​

Where does Rodagon WA fit in there? I was told the WA 135 was an APO, but they are not labeled as such. I guess the Rodagon-G's are at the top of the heap - but are the G's APO?

Mike

 

[wiltw]

Lets not even mention the three element lenses or the fact that ELs have been designed over a period of about 100 years so there are many variations on even 'typical' designs and some better than others.

Hundreds of years of EL lens? Released first in the 1960s was the first of the EL Nikkor lenses.