Schneider Componon-S 50mm/2.8 - 5 or 6 elements?

[logan2z]

I've been thinking about picking up a Schneider Componon-S 50mm/2.8 enlarging lens to use for 35mm enlargements. I did a bit of research and found a few online sources claiming that some versions of this lens use 5 elements while others use 6. And I found other sources claiming that all of the Componon-S lenses used 6 elements. I have a copy of a document produced by Schneider about the Componon-S that says:

"The lenses mostly use 6 lenses in 4 groups" (emphasis mine)

That seems to leave open the possibility that not all of them used 6 elements.

There are a bunch of Componon-S lenses for sale regularly on our favorite auction site and I'm wondering if there is anyone here who knows:

1. If there were, in fact, 5-element versions of the Componon-S manufactured.
2. If so, is there any way to differentiate the 5-element from the 6-element models by looking at the lens or via the serial #?

 

[JensH]

Hi,

this may help to answer your questions:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/5-element-schneider-componon-s-50mm-f2-8-info-wanted.169926/

Best
Jens

 

[MattKing]

There is nothing magical about the number of elements used.
Some inexpensive lenses minimize the number of elements to minimize costs.
But a Componon-S was never designed to be inexpensive.
And there are some very fine 5 element lenses.
Increasing the number of elements can cause problems.

 

[logan2z]

Hi,

this may help to answer your questions:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/5-element-schneider-componon-s-50mm-f2-8-info-wanted.169926/

Best
Jens

Thanks, lots of good information in that thread. So it appears as though the 50mm/2.8 Componon-S was made both as a 5-element and a 6-element lens at some point in its history.

 

[logan2z]

There is nothing magical about the number of elements used.
Some inexpensive lenses minimize the number of elements to minimize costs.
But a Componon-S was never designed to be inexpensive.
And there are some very fine 5 element lenses.
Increasing the number of elements can cause problems.

Understood Matt. I'm not opposed to a 5-element enlarging lens, I was just curious if there was an easy way to distinguish the two different optical designs so that I'm informed when I go to make a buying decision.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The Componon-S was designed to a qualitative end point, worrying about the number of lens elements is irrelevant. It's likely a situation where the design changed as available glass types changed. If you are really having an existential crisis over this, get an EL-Nikkor or a Rodagon etc.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Componon-S was designed to a qualitative end point, worrying about the number of lens elements is irrelevant. It's likely a situation where the design changed as available glass types changed. If you are really having an existential crisis over this, get an EL-Nikkor or a Rodagon etc.

I think the chances of finding a 5 element 80mm Componon S is rare as they weren't around for long, Schneider must have had good compelling reasons to revert back to the 6 element design. Schneider did subcontract some optical work and had links with Meopta.

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think the chances of finding a 5 element 80mm Componon S is rare as they weren't around for long, Schneider must have had good compelling reasons to revert back to the 6 element design. Schneider did subcontract some optical work and had links with Meopta.

Ian

And Meopta's optical engineering ability is generally pretty good - not just enlarger lenses, but apparently the optical components in Heidelberg drum scanners too.

 

[AgX]

If you are really having an existential crisis over this, get an EL-Nikkor or a Rodagon etc.

Well, I understood the OP's inquiry as academic and not as a search for the "better" lens.

 

[logan2z]

Well, I understood the OP's inquiry as academic and not as a search for the "better" lens.

That's correct.

 

[Luis-F-S]

What difference does it make? If it’s a Componon-S it will perform as it should! If you’re interest is just academic you can take it apart and count!

 

[logan2z]

If you’re interest is just academic you can take it apart and count!

I just bought one and should have it within a week. I don't think I'll pull it apart to count the lens elements, I'll let the results speak for themselves

 

[apbphoto]

Hi all, I have a Schneider Componon S 50/2.8 5 element (as per the info sheet in the box). It’s a great lens and I’m not worried about 6 element advantages. I am however intrigued about the rationale of 5 vs 6 elements as I note Leitz seemed to have a thing for 5 element designs: 50 Focotars and the 40mm one for the V35 too. I think the IIc 60mm Focotar was also 5 element and perhaps the 100 V-Elmar too. Could this be related to a Leitz developed glass type back in the days they had their own glass lab? In any event 5 element lenses seem rare from other makers.
I’ve got 6 element 60 and 100 Componons for my Focomat IIc but I’m keeping my Leitz original lenses: not as sharp nor as contrasty but they definitely allow for great enlargements and are perfect for some negatives. It’s a long learning process.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Hi all, I have a Schneider Componon S 50/2.8 5 element (as per the info sheet in the box). It’s a great lens and I’m not worried about 6 element advantages. I am however intrigued about the rationale of 5 vs 6 elements as I note Leitz seemed to have a thing for 5 element designs: 50 Focotars and the 40mm one for the V35 too. I think the IIc 60mm Focotar was also 5 element and perhaps the 100 V-Elmar too. Could this be related to a Leitz developed glass type back in the days they had their own glass lab? In any event 5 element lenses seem rare from other makers.
I’ve got 6 element 60 and 100 Componons for my Focomat IIc but I’m keeping my Leitz original lenses: not as sharp nor as contrasty but they definitely allow for great enlargements and are perfect for some negatives. It’s a long learning process.

I think we'd be curious to see a picture of the lens and serial number.

 

[apbphoto]

I think we'd be curious to see a picture of the lens and serial number.

Here you go.

 

[ic-racer]

Thanks for posting those pictures.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Checked my example which is about 18,000 higher in serial number & it's 5/4 too. Will have a look at some even newer examples this week & see what construction they are.

Wonder if the glass was changed because of environmental/ employee health concerns.

 

[apbphoto]

Checked my example which is about 18,000 higher in serial number & it's 5/4 too. Will have a look at some even newer examples this week & see what construction they are.

Wonder if the glass was changed because of environmental/ employee health concerns.

So I guess they made a good few of them.
I wonder about the Schneider Componon 50/4 which was also made in a special version for the ‘Focomat Slayer’ Durst Micromat. Was this actually the basis for the lens Leitz sold as the Focotar 50/4.5 for a few years before they came up with their own (6 element) design to fend off competitors I.e. the 50 Focotar 2?? Were these all 5 element designs? I note the Durst one had loads of aperture blades just like the Focotar but they reverted to 5 or 6 later on.
It’s interesting that Schneider never made an Apo 50mm nor upped their game for the 50mm spot (surely the best selling enlarger lens type) whilst Rodenstock, Nikon and Leitz pushed ahead. Or did they think the 50/2.8 Componon-S was (and remains) state of the art??

 

[Lachlan Young]

So I guess they made a good few of them.
I wonder about the Schneider Componon 50/4 which was also made in a special version for the ‘Focomat Slayer’ Durst Micromat. Was this actually the basis for the lens Leitz sold as the Focotar 50/4.5 for a few years before they came up with their own (6 element) design to fend off competitors I.e. the 50 Focotar 2?? Were these all 5 element designs? I note the Durst one had loads of aperture blades just like the Focotar but they reverted to 5 or 6 later on.
It’s interesting that Schneider never made an Apo 50mm nor upped their game for the 50mm spot (surely the best selling enlarger lens type) whilst Rodenstock, Nikon and Leitz pushed ahead. Or did they think the 50/2.8 Componon-S was (and remains) state of the art??

I'm pretty sure the 50/4 Componon pre-dated the Leitz Focotar version made by Schneider - in fact I almost wonder if the Schnieder Focotar was actually a 2.8 design choked down to 4.5 by the aperture/ barrel to optimise performance - short of taking one apart & analysing the parts, it'll have to remain an open question.

I've used a Durst branded 80/5.6 Componon of the same area - and it is a really tiny lens - the chrome/ brass Schneider barrels of the era have a very high blade count aperture (not that it matters in the darkroom). I've also encountered a 50/4 Componon in the intermediate barrel between the chromed brass ones & the newer composite barrels of the -S lenses - again, an extremely small lens.

Schneider never made a 50mm apo, but made the 45/4 Apo HM - which may have optimised better in terms of enlarging range & sharpness across its field of coverage with available glass and designs, and later a 40/2.8 (likely aimed at the V35 market at least in part) - Rodenstock went through two generations of Apo-Rodagons - I think the first ones pre-dated the Apo-Componon HM's slightly, and the Apo-Componon-N post-dating them - I suspect another part of Schneider's idea envisioned a set of lenses that could comfortably give a 50x60cm print from the more commonly used formats (6x7 having become much more dominant and 65x90/ 6x9 having dramatically reduced in use by the later 1980's) with column length to spare - possibly with them all intended to hit ideal sharpness at f8.

 

[apbphoto]

I'm pretty sure the 50/4 Componon pre-dated the Leitz Focotar version made by Schneider - in fact I almost wonder if the Schnieder Focotar was actually a 2.8 design choked down to 4.5 by the aperture/ barrel to optimise performance - short of taking one apart & analysing the parts, it'll have to remain an open question.

I've used a Durst branded 80/5.6 Componon of the same area - and it is a really tiny lens - the chrome/ brass Schneider barrels of the era have a very high blade count aperture (not that it matters in the darkroom). I've also encountered a 50/4 Componon in the intermediate barrel between the chromed brass ones & the newer composite barrels of the -S lenses - again, an extremely small lens.

Schneider never made a 50mm apo, but made the 45/4 Apo HM - which may have optimised better in terms of enlarging range & sharpness across its field of coverage with available glass and designs, and later a 40/2.8 (likely aimed at the V35 market at least in part) - Rodenstock went through two generations of Apo-Rodagons - I think the first ones pre-dated the Apo-Componon HM's slightly, and the Apo-Componon-N post-dating them - I suspect another part of Schneider's idea envisioned a set of lenses that could comfortably give a 50x60cm print from the more commonly used formats (6x7 having become much more dominant and 65x90/ 6x9 having dramatically reduced in use by the later 1980's) with column length to spare - possibly with them all intended to hit ideal sharpness at f8.

I’ve got a tiny Schneider 80/5.6 and identically sized 60/5.6. I use the latter with my Focomat IIc instead of the Focotar 60 though I still like the latter for some prints. The Schneider 60 just fits inside the top of the barrel in the sliding turret and whilst changing aperture is fiddly it’s a sharper and more contrasty lens than the Leitz and far more consistent across the frame (35mm at least - I don’t do 4x4cm!). I think they are both early ‘70s vintage.
I think the HM 45mm is optimised for diffusion light sources as are the 40 and 90 both of which I have used for a couple of decades. Rodenstock get bragging rights for the 50mm length as they have for a long time been the only one claiming Apo status. Not sure how valid it’s claims are vs Focotar 2 or even the regular Rodagon. Seems to boil down to a slightly wider range of ‘optimum’ aperture settings which helps the printer of colour pictures more than bw.

 

[MattKing]

One should not ignore the fact that enlarging lenses weren't designed and manufactured in a vacuum - they were generally part of a production group that also supplied lenses for colour printers and applications like commercial print shops.
A change in an enlarging lens may very well be due to changes arising out of those other areas.

 

[apbphoto]

One should not ignore the fact that enlarging lenses weren't designed and manufactured in a vacuum - they were generally part of a production group that also supplied lenses for colour printers and applications like commercial printing.
A change in an enlarging lens may very well be due to changes arising out of those other areas.

Quite right. Schneider and Rodenstock (Or Qioptic or whatever they’re called nowadays) seem to pay no attention to traditional enlarging lens markets any more. The Apo HM 45 is also available as a 44mm industrial lens and I wonder if it’s actually the same as the 45. Judging by the flood of decommissioned industrial Apo rodagons on eBay from China I am curious if Schneider has cornered the market or perhaps DJI optics has stepped up. Perhaps industrial process control systems have found novel ways to make such usage obsolete. Not my field but without this market I guess the days of enlarger lens production in whatever guise are numbered.

 

[Lachlan Young]

So, I had a look at a 14,9xx,xxx serial 50/2.8 Componon-S today, which seems like it's 6/4 construction - main physical difference to the earlier 5/4 construction is that the rear barrel (where the serial no. is) of the 6/4 protrudes about 5mm or so further out of the main body of the lens. The 5/4 is near flush with the rear threads in comparison. Hopefully that answers everyone's questions.

 

[logan2z]

So, I had a look at a 14,9xx,xxx serial 50/2.8 Componon-S today, which seems like it's 6/4 construction - main physical difference to the earlier 5/4 construction is that the rear barrel (where the serial no. is) of the 6/4 protrudes about 5mm or so further out of the main body of the lens. The 5/4 is near flush with the rear threads in comparison. Hopefully that answers everyone's questions.

Thanks for the info. FWIW, the one I recently purchased has serial # 14,1xx,xxx and also has a rear barrel that protrudes about 5mm out as you described.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thanks for the info. FWIW, the one I recently purchased has serial # 14,1xx,xxx and also has a rear barrel that protrudes about 5mm out as you described.

Compared to the example apbphoto posted, the barrel extends noticeably further above the serial number in the 6/4 more recent lenses. Your lens pre-dates both my example of a 5/4 and apbphoto's 5/4, so I'm not sure what's going on there...

I'll measure both lenses tomorrow & give more exact dimensions.