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

[Patrick Robert James]

Correction; it’s the S-Biogon that only works on diffusion enlargers. That’s in part because it’s a wide angle and also because it needs a 50mm mount which is impossible on my Leitz enlargers. The 60mm is fiddly with extension rings on the Focomat Ic and having to raise the head on the column for most printing. I have both new and old versions of the Nikon 50/2.8 and find the new one mediocre whilst the old one is sharper across the frame. As for the Componon-S 5 element it was one of the first lenses I used back in university days and it was paired with a Phillips enlarger. An excellent combo and preferred to the V35 by pro printers on Fleet Street I knew then.
Eventually I will thin out my collection but when you can pick up treasures for the price of one or two rolls of film why not keep them until you’re bored?

Yeah, why not? I have had the same general idea with enlarging lenses. I pick them up cheap for kicks which is how I got the Orthoplanar. Of course Orthoplanars are no longer cheap. I stumbled over mine more than 20 years ago for a song. Had no idea what it was and back then the Zeiss Historical society didn't either. The internet changed all that.

Mine has a custom machined brass adapter/mount on it that a retired machinist volunteered to make for me. I guess he was bored. The lens with the adapter on it weighs a lot. I used to use it all the time back when my only enlarger was a medium format Saunders/LPL. Since moving up to a 4x5 Saunders, I barely use it. I have put it on the Focomat but focusing is a pain when you are used to not doing it, and at small sizes it doesn't really matter. For the highest quality print from 35mm, the Saunders 4x5 with the O-Pl and the 35mm mixing box is the tops. Beats the Focomat. Incredible image quality.

The Nikkor I have is a good one. Pretty much mint when I got it for cheap of course. I like using it because it really brings out the grain. That changes all the time though. Sometimes I put another lens on the Focomat just for the heck of it. Lenses don't really mean that much in the end. You can only tell if a direct comparison is made of the same image. Who does that? Not me.

I am like you too these days. I mainly want to get rid of stuff. I might even sell the Focomat and Minox enlargers I have. The Saunders does it all and does it very well indeed.

The days of Agfa, yes those were the days! Too bad that all is gone. I get nostalgic thinking about it.

 

[apbphoto]

Good news: my Componon-S HM 50mm 2.8 just arrived. Photos attached. I have only had a very brief look at images projected at about 10x and 20x magnifications onto the baseboard through my Peak Focus Magnifier and it looks tremendous: grain sharp wide open right to the corners of the image with what looks like terrific contrast. Obviously this is no substitute for actual prints but I'll get onto that next week when I return from a trip. It's very small and has the old small 25mm mount for which fortunately I have an LTM adapter.

 

[16:9]

What a little beauty! I just finished testing the 5-element V2 vs 6-element V3 - would be great to compare them with the HM sometime.

 

[apbphoto]

Sure. Let me know what’s involved.

 

[16:9]

PM sent. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to post comparison shots of all versions of the Componon-S 50/2.8 here after. Good reference.

 

[Dani]

I'd be interested. I just got a Componon-S V1 and curious to see your results. Thank you!

 

[16:9]

Well, that was interesting. I've now tested all versions of the Componon-S 50/2.8, including the rare and exotic 'unoffically Apo' HM.

The bottom line is that they're all very good, but the six-element third version [16828] is the best overall. The HM is more specifically optimised as an enlarger lens - ie, it's quite fussy about magnification range - and it's not particularly impressive wider than f8. However, at f8, at the right distance, the HM is sharper (as a taking lens) than any Schneider I've used, including the Makro Symmar 120, and Apo Componon 60 and 90.

At f5.6, the [16828] is better than almost any other 50mm (at f5.6), but the Componon HM and Apo-Rodagon-N need to stop down to f8 to do their thing, where they improve on the f8 performance of the 'standard' Componons.

It's worth noting that Schneider never marketed an Apo-Componon-S 50 as if to compete with the Apo-Rodagon 50. If you look at 80mm options, Schneider and Rodenstock offered a similar 'basic' but highly competent, Componon-S/Rodagon 80/4, with the option of deluxe Apo versions: Componon-HM 90/4.5 and Rodagon-N 80/4. Taking that precedent down to 50mm, we might ask - why no Apo-Componon-S 50?

It seems to have been forgotten - judging by the market prices today - that the 'basic'(-sounding) Componon-S [16828] was (in the UK) £100 more expensive than the Apo-Rodagon 50, and almost twice the price of the standard Rodagon 50/2.8. Performance is in line with price: the [16828] is slightly sharper overall than both the original Apo-Rodagons and, as I outlined above, comparable to the Apo-Rodagon-N. Both have similar levels of chromatic aberration (slight to none).

It's also a bit sneaky that the [16828] looks almost identical to the [14849]. There's a guide to identifying the different versions here. In all the confusion, the Componon-S [16828] has been mixed up with any old German enlarger lens you can snag for £50, whereas it was - and is - an elite-level 50mm that deserves to be more expensive than the equivalent Rodenstock Apo's.

PS: I forgot to mention the 'fifth' version of the Componon-S 50/2.8 - the [18827] - the M25-mount version of the [16828].

 

[gorbas]

Well done 16:9! Thank you very much for your hard work and sharing your interesting results! Are you behind Delta project?

 

[16:9]

Thank you. Yes: the project somewhat outgrew my initial plans to publish a few enlarger lens tests on the 16-9.net site! If you spot any errors or omissions, or would like to contribute reference pictures, articles or ideas, I'm all ears.

 

[BobUK]

Going back to the original question.
The Big List of Enlarging Lenses at Photo Cornucopia has four lenses listed.
Two with five elements and two with six.

Photo Cornucopia

photocornucopia.com

May be of interest to the original discussion.

 

[apbphoto]

Well, that was interesting. I've now tested all versions of the Componon-S 50/2.8, including the rare and exotic 'unoffically Apo' HM.

The bottom line is that they're all very good, but the six-element third version [16828] is the best overall. The HM is more specifically optimised as an enlarger lens - ie, it's quite fussy about magnification range - and it's not particularly impressive wider than f8. However, at f8, at the right distance, the HM is sharper (as a taking lens) than any Schneider I've used, including the Makro Symmar 120, and Apo Componon 60 and 90.

At f5.6, the [16828] is better than almost any other 50mm (at f5.6), but the Componon HM and Apo-Rodagon-N need to stop down to f8 to do their thing, where they improve on the f8 performance of the 'standard' Componons.

It's worth noting that Schneider never marketed an Apo-Componon-S 50 as if to compete with the Apo-Rodagon 50. If you look at 80mm options, Schneider and Rodenstock offered a similar 'basic' but highly competent, Componon-S/Rodagon 80/4, with the option of deluxe Apo versions: Componon-HM 90/4.5 and Rodagon-N 80/4. Taking that precedent down to 50mm, we might ask - why no Apo-Componon-S 50?

It seems to have been forgotten - judging by the market prices today - that the 'basic'(-sounding) Componon-S [16828] was (in the UK) £100 more expensive than the Apo-Rodagon 50, and almost twice the price of the standard Rodagon 50/2.8. Performance is in line with price: the [16828] is slightly sharper overall than both the original Apo-Rodagons and, as I outlined above, comparable to the Apo-Rodagon-N. Both have similar levels of chromatic aberration (slight to none).

It's also a bit sneaky that the [16828] looks almost identical to the [14849]. There's a guide to identifying the different versions here. In all the confusion, the Componon-S [16828] has been mixed up with any old German enlarger lens you can snag for £50, whereas it was - and is - an elite-level 50mm that deserves to be more expensive than the equivalent Rodenstock Apo's.

PS: I forgot to mention the 'fifth' version of the Componon-S 50/2.8 - the [18827] - the M25-mount version of the [16828].

Very interesting and thanks for all your hard work. As enlarging lenses there are many excellent options around 50mm and at their sweet spot it’s really hard to see the difference between them. Mostly it is a subtle contrast signature. I do find that certain lenses excel with certain light sources and I’ve never quite understood why. For example my Apo Componon 45mm is fine on a Focomat Ic but the Apo Rodagon 45mm has very fuzzy corners even stopped down. They are both superb on diffusion sources. Not sure how such weirdness might manifest when used as taking lenses as frankly the optical laws for this are a mystery to me.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The bottom line is that they're all very good, but the six-element third version [16828] is the best overall.

Maybe. Without going into incredibly boring details, I've worked with a larger (and unintentionally randomised) sample size of this specific lens than most will have encountered - and for enlarging (as opposed to use with digital sensors) it's very good, but realistically about level with the current Rodagon 50 (which may even be a hair better overall) - and up towards 15x and beyond, the Rodagon-G does a better job (which is what it was designed for). This is on a very stable floor standing De Vere. What I suspect Schneider may have done is slightly adjust the calculation to improve the 50 Componon-S's behaviour in machine vision applications - and that is why you are perceiving certain results in off-label applications.

For example my Apo Componon 45mm is fine on a Focomat Ic but the Apo Rodagon 45mm has very fuzzy corners even stopped down

I think that that particular last generation Apo-Rodagon-N formula is more complicated than the (for the large part) improved 6/4 layouts of most of the HM Componons - which may cause unforeseen issues with the Focomat 1c's optical path/ illumination

 

[apbphoto]

Maybe. Without going into incredibly boring details, I've worked with a larger (and unintentionally randomised) sample size of this specific lens than most will have encountered - and for enlarging (as opposed to use with digital sensors) it's very good, but realistically about level with the current Rodagon 50 (which may even be a hair better overall) - and up towards 15x and beyond, the Rodagon-G does a better job (which is what it was designed for). This is on a very stable floor standing De Vere. What I suspect Schneider may have done is slightly adjust the calculation to improve the 50 Componon-S's behaviour in machine vision applications - and that is why you are perceiving certain results in off-label applications.



I think that that particular last generation Apo-Rodagon-N formula is more complicated than the (for the large part) improved 6/4 layouts of most of the HM Componons - which may cause unforeseen issues with the Focomat 1c's optical path/ illumination

Yes the Apo Rodagon N 45mm is a 7 element design. It’s sharp and contrasty over a wide range of magnifications (up to 30x as per spec). Main advantage is close to zero fall off and edge to edge sharpness just one stop down. I mainly use it on a V35 with Kienzle double condenser modified light box and am very happy with that setup.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Yes the Apo Rodagon N 45mm is a 7 element design. It’s sharp and contrasty over a wide range of magnifications (up to 30x as per spec). Main advantage is close to zero fall off and edge to edge sharpness just one stop down. I mainly use it on a V35 with Kienzle double condenser modified light box and am very happy with that setup.

How would you compare the 45mm APO Rodagon to the Orthoplanar? Just curious.

 

[apbphoto]

I've not done any exhaustive comparison between the 60mm S-Orthoplanar and the 45mm Apo R but prefer the latter for it's practicality. It's brighter and projects a bigger image, barely needs stopping down and has no annoying deficiencies. The 60mm is finicky about which aperture is optimal and it's not a good match for the Focomat Ic I prefer given the need for extension tubes, constant refocussing and limits on max print size. For that enlarger a Focotar-2 50 is my preferred lens. They are all superb but if I had to whittle down my collection I would stick to Focotar-2 lenses on Focomats. I have a Focotar 60mm on a very late Iic which is amazingly good too, unlike other examples I have used (and its general reputation for mediocrity). I know of no design change to the 60 over its decades as the 35mm (or 127) lens on IIc enlargers. Maybe it's just better QC?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've not done any exhaustive comparison between the 60mm S-Orthoplanar and the 45mm Apo R but prefer the latter for it's practicality. It's brighter and projects a bigger image, barely needs stopping down and has no annoying deficiencies. The 60mm is finicky about which aperture is optimal and it's not a good match for the Focomat Ic I prefer given the need for extension tubes, constant refocussing and limits on max print size. For that enlarger a Focotar-2 50 is my preferred lens. They are all superb but if I had to whittle down my collection I would stick to Focotar-2 lenses on Focomats. I have a Focotar 60mm on a very late Iic which is amazingly good too, unlike other examples I have used (and its general reputation for mediocrity). I know of no design change to the 60 over its decades as the 35mm (or 127) lens on IIc enlargers. Maybe it's just better QC?

Thanks for that.

The 60 O-Pl not being convenient to use on the Focomat is the reason I barely use it anymore. If I had the bucks for the 50 O-Pl I'd get one of those. I was only asking because I've never seen a 45 APO R, and the 7 element thing has me intrigued.

I used to have a Focotar-2 but ended up selling it. Just didn't see anything in it that was special and I already had a drawer full of lenses. There are still a few lenses I'd like to try, the LFE Focotar being one of them.

I was always curious too on how the Rodogon-G compared to the Orthoplanar. Ever used the G?

 

[apbphoto]

Never had the pleasure of using a Rodagon G. I doubt I would ever need one either. Higher than 30x magnification I’d go for digital prints these days like (almost) everyone else. The largest prints I have made were A0 and they were off scans of TriX. Done by a fellow who does artwork for Mercedes showrooms in the UK. Really happy with the those but normally 12x16 to 16x20 is what I want.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Never had the pleasure of using a Rodagon G. I doubt I would ever need one either. Higher than 30x magnification I’d go for digital prints these days like (almost) everyone else. The largest prints I have made were A0 and they were off scans of TriX. Done by a fellow who does artwork for Mercedes showrooms in the UK. Really happy with the those but normally 12x16 to 16x20 is what I want.

That is why I haven't bought one. Although i wouldn't mind doing huge prints at some point just for fun. The O-Pl I am sure is up to the task.

For big prints I think the best/easiest way is to make a great sharp darkroom print, then scan that. I won't go down the rabbit hole of why, but that is the best method I have found.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Higher than 30x magnification I’d go for digital prints these days like (almost) everyone else.

People do it for cost, not quality. You start to see even the best scans start to hit the wall around 24-30x, relative to what the tiny handful of specialist lenses can deliver - but I wouldn't be using a Focomat of any sort for that, as nice as they are to use. 36x off 35mm Tri-X will happily deliver incredibly sharp granularity reproduction with appropriate enlarger lens choice.

 

[16:9]

Going back to the original question.
The Big List of Enlarging Lenses at Photo Cornucopia has four lenses listed.
Two with five elements and two with six.

Photo Cornucopia

photocornucopia.com

May be of interest to the original discussion.

Re: your reference and my earlier post, this is a more up-to-date list of the nine (ten, really) versions of Schneider Componon-S 50/2.8: For full details, including serials and a guide to identification, please > Delta Lenses.

Version 1 [10146]: Produced 1975-1981. Five-element, concave-5 aperture. Single-coated.

Version 2 [14849]: Produced 1981-1990. Optically identical to [10146] but with aperture illumination and lever. Single-coated.

Version 3 [Catalogue # unknown]: M25 mount version of [14849]

Version 4a [16828] V1: Produced 1990-1995. New six-element design with concave-5 aperture in BLV-L. Similar appearance to [14849] with crucial minor differences. Lenses produced in 1994 have the same curved-5 diaphragm as [16828] V2, but no green band. Multicoated.

Version 4b [16828] V2: Produced 1995-2008 and beyond. Same six-element design as [16828] V1 but all models have curved-5 diaphragm in BLV-L. Green identifying band. Multicoated.

Version 5 [18827]: M25 mount version of [16828].

Version 6 [14796]: V-mount version of [16828] with Makro Iris body.

Version 7 HM [Catalogue # unknown]: Produced c.1993 in unknown quantities. Likely industrial or high-magnification application.

Version 8 V2 [1097301]: Revised optical design produced from 2020-2021 and marketed as an industrial lens in V38 mount only, but equally suited to enlarger and taking application. Max aperture now f32. All metal body.

Version 9 Pyrite [1097301]: Produced 2021 to date. Rebranded version of V2.

 

[Dani]

Oddly enough I have a version 1 that is 6 groups, 4 elements. When I use a flash light, and stop down the aperture ring, I can see the exact number of reflections (3) as the version 4 I got today in the mail.
That tracks with the discussion here #22

Quite an interesting mystery!

 

[BobUK]

Re: your reference and my earlier post, this is a more up-to-date list of the nine (ten, really) versions of Schneider Componon-S 50/2.8: For full details, including serials and a guide to identification, please > Delta Lenses.

Thank you for the link to a handy source of lens information.
I have just spent a happy half hour reading about my enlarger lenses. Some very good and unfortunately a couple not so good.
Nice one.

 

[gorbas]

Version 1 [10146]: Version 2 [14849]: Version 3 [Catalogue # unknown]: Version 4a [16828] V1: Version 4b [16828] V2:

Version 5 [18827]: Version 6 [14796]: Version 8 V2 [1097301]: Version 9 Pyrite [1097301]:

Beside on Original lens box where else you can find those version/catalogue numbers?
Maybe other way is to find version/catalogue # is to look at lens serial # and then to Schneider serial # production list and see year of production?

 

[16:9]

Oddly enough I have a version 1 that is 6 groups, 4 elements. When I use a flash light, and stop down the aperture ring, I can see the exact number of reflections (3) as the version 4 I got today in the mail.
That tracks with the discussion here #22

Quite an interesting mystery!

That is interesting - what's the serial number please?

 

[16:9]

Beside on Original lens box where else you can find those version/catalogue numbers?
Maybe other way is to find version/catalogue # is to look at lens serial # and then to Schneider serial # production list and see year of production?

Each version has a visual tell, but you can also cross-reference serial numbers against production dates on Delta and double-check which version you're looking at.