Schneider Componon Camera lens?

[ZorkiKat]

I always thought that the Componon lenses were made for enlargers.

However, a 210mm Schneider I borrowed from a friend is marked "Componon". I have no doubt that it was meant for camera use since it is mounted on a Compur Rapid shutter. And unlike the Componon enlarger lenses I've seen, this lens has a flared, removeable rear component (for mounting on a lens board). It resembles the Symmar.

As far as the age goes, I think it's from the early 1950s, since the shutter speed progression on the Compur scale includes 1/5, 1/10, 1/25, instead of the "modern" 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30,etc. The lens also looks to have a faint bluish AR coating instead of the vivid purple found in more contemporary lenses.

I tried to google this Componon, but all "Componons" lead to enlarger type lenses.

Is this Schneider Componon really an early Symmar or so?

 

[Rick A]

Not the first time I've seen or heard of a flat field lens mounted to a shutter. I'm not fortunate enough to have a shutter that fits any of my enlarger lenses, that doesn't stop me from using them on my 4x5.

 

[David Lindquist]

My modest collection of Schneider literature includes a circa 1966 price list (if I'm interpreting correctly what I think is a date code). This shows all the Componons, from 28 through 360mm, as being available in both barrel and shutter mounts. Compur shutters were used for focal lengths 28 through 240mm while the 300 and 360mm Componons were mounted in Compound shutters. In particular the 210mm was $203.00 in the barrel mount and $269.00 mounted in a shutter.
David

 

[ZorkiKat]

I don't think that this Componon 5.6/210mm is an enlarger lens. The Componon enlarger lenses that I've seen for large negatives have a cylindrical barrel and is threaded to mount on one end, just like the smaller enlarger lenses.

This lens is slim at the centre, and goes apart to be mounted on a lens board. Just like the most viewcamera lenses.

Is this a special flat-field lens?

When the rear component is removed, the front unit can still focus right, and acts like a long focus lens. Just like in the covertible Symmar?

 

[David Lindquist]

The Componons are plasmats like the Symmars. So I'd expect either the front or the back unit used alone would be a positive lens of longer focal length than the combined lens, same as with the Symmar. Image quality would be another matter. I have a real strong hunch that the Componon components were not mounted in a manner that allowed exchanging them between a barrel and an appropriate sized shutter. In other words I think what you have is the way Schneider assembled a Componon (enlarging) lens for shutter mounting. Looks like you have a nice lens there. The serial number indicates it was made between November 1968 and July 1970, maybe closer towards the end of this time period.
David

 

[ZorkiKat]

Thanks for the information, David. A friend owns the lens though; too bad not mine.

 

[John Koehrer]

Flat field and in a shutter? Could be used as a copy lens ala the Polaroid MP4 setup.

 

[Ian Grant]

Componons were sold as large format close field/macro lenses, they still are but not the longer focal lengths.

Those are older standard Componon lens cells I have 150 & 135 just like it. My 135mm cells will unscrew from the standard enlarger lens barrel and fit a Compur/Copal 0 shutter. Not sure what shutter the 150mm cells fit possible the same. The 210 cells should be in a Compur/Copal 1.

They are listed in some of the older 60's early 70's Schneider literature, I have some details of these shutter mounted Componons some where.

Ian

 

[epatsellis]

The Componons are plasmats like the Symmars. So I'd expect either the front or the back unit used alone would be a positive lens of longer focal length than the combined lens, same as with the Symmar. Image quality would be another matter. I have a real strong hunch that the Componon components were not mounted in a manner that allowed exchanging them between a barrel and an appropriate sized shutter. In other words I think what you have is the way Schneider assembled a Componon (enlarging) lens for shutter mounting. Looks like you have a nice lens there. The serial number indicates it was made between November 1968 and July 1970, maybe closer towards the end of this time period.
David

And your assumption would be wrong, as a matter of fact. I frequently switch my 135 and 180 between a barrel, DB Lensboard and shutter, the 135 in a #0 and the 180 (and 210) fit in a #1 shutter, just as easily. Unfortunately, the Rodagons aren't quite as shutter friendly.

Componons are essentially a plasmat design, optimized for 1:6 to 1:12 (If I remember correctly). Several still life shooters I knew (all of whom earned their living shooting) typically had several they used for tabletop work. My 135 suffices quite well as a slightly long "normal" lens with my Dicomed FieldPro scanback. As a plasmat, either element will also form an image, but unless you use a fairly strong color filter, CA and sharpness issues are likely. (and remember, if possible, the single element goes behind the iris)

When I first returned to LF photography several years ago, I got a 210 Componon in a rim set Compur, worked well at any distance, and covered (barely) 8x10 as well with only the slightest hint of falloff at the corners. It more than sufficed for a few years, I gave it to a friend that is still using it, quite happily. You'll find lots of opinions here, most disregard the Componons, claiming they aren't of high enough quality, but I urge you to make some images with it and decide for yourself, well heeled hobbyists and nay sayers be damned!

erie

 

[AgX]

At least the Componon-S was offered from 180mm on in two versions each: barrel and Compur-shutter

The difference between a Componon and a Symmar would be that the first is calculated for macro work and a more limited angle of view.

 

[paul ewins]

The Componons and Symmars of the mid fifties to early seventies were very similar and appear to use the same cell housings. If you look at the lens diagrams in the various catalogs of the time you can see that where the Symmar is a regular Plasmat with 6 lens in four groups, in the Componon one of those groups has been split to introduce a small air gap. In all other respects it would be fair to call a Componon a close focus Symmar. The smallest of the f5.6 Symmars was the 80/5.6, the smallest f5.6 Componon was a 60mm - below that they were f4 and I don't know whether the design varied at that point. It is worth noting too that the Symmars were all offered in barrel mounts as well as shutters.

 

[epatsellis]

Paul, do you have a source for the optical diagrams?

 

[paul ewins]

They're up on the german language site at: http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm
This one, from 1961, shows the air gap: http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/componar_componon.pdf
while this one (from 1966) shows no air gap: http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/componon_comparon.pdf

Here's a couple of scans from an undated Burleigh Brooks brochure:

and a scan from a Burleigh Brooks pricelist from 1969

g

 

[ZorkiKat]

Thanks all, again for the information.

I don't think I will be bothered by issues like using a lens_computed_for_close_up_work_used_for_general_shooting. With the picture already on a large negative, I think the differences would be moot.

I've taken the lens apart for cleaning, and its insides are exactly the way they are shown in the diagrams provided by Paul. Test shots have been made as well, and these look good. The tests were on photographic paper though...saving the film for the real stuff.