worth using a Componon 135?

[ac12]

I have a Componon 135 that came with my Omega, and I'm trying to determine if it is worth using at all. I only need to get a $20 lens adapter for the 32.5mm mounting thread. I have a Componon-S 150 that I planned to use for 4x5, so I had stuck the 135 in a box figuring that I won't need it. But now I'm curious.

I have been trying to find the difference between the Componon and Componon-S.
The only thing I found was the S is newer than the non-S.
But nothing definite describing the change from the non-S to the S version.
It is not as clear as the 4-element Componar to the 6-element Componon.

Max magnification would be about 5.5x and usually less than that.

If I set up the 2nd enlarger, I could put the Componon 135 in one enlarger and the Componon-S 150 in the other enlarger. I have a condenser (Durst L1000) and a diffusion (Omega D5) enlargers.

 

[dpurdy]

I have both of those lenses. In my experience the 135 gave me problems with covering a 4x5 enlarged to 16x20. I always had to burn down the corners. That is why I got the 150 Componon-S. The 150 has no such problem and seems very high quality. I might be wrong but as I understand it the S version uses a higher quality glass than the older non s

 

[DREW WILEY]

Indeed. You will prbably have more illumination falloff toward the corners. It's also an older lens which
might not be quite as well corrected. Just try it.

 

[Ian Grant]

I used a 135mm Componon for many years, very sharp even with large prints 20"x24", no issues with fall off at the corners - after all it's designed to be a 5x4 lens.

Now I either use a 150mm Rodagon as that came with my De Vere 5108, or a 135mm Componon S, I gave my 135mm Componon away with my old enlarger but have another.

There can be advantages using these lenses particulary if you use a bench rather than a floor standing enlarger.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

ALL enlarging lenses of "normal" to sub-normal focal length have falloff. That includes every 150 with
4x5 film. Even a 150 taking lens for 4x5 has falloff. That's why one hypothetically needs a different
ground diffuser for each different lens. This is compounded by any potential uneveness in the mixing
chamber, as well as increased fbf near the edges of sheet film. Of course, we just get used to burning in the sides & corners etc, unless you're printng negs with a reasonably matching degree of density loss in the corners. No big deal unless you're working a process which requires truly even illumination each time. But it is a fact of life.

 

[Ian Grant]

The results are more important than the rhetoric.

Diffuser enlargers need no changes but condenser enlargers need the correct condenser. I've never needed to burn in edges and corners with a 135mm ens and 5x4 negatives


IanIan

 

[ic-racer]

The 135 vs 150 question comes up frequently. This chart shows the "S" versions of theses lenses. Green is the 135 and red is the 150. Three apertures and three maginfications (solid = high, wide dash = medium and short dash = low). Details on the Schneider site.

Comment: Yes the 135 has more light falloff across the board than the 150, but the magnitude is small compared to the changes in magnification and aperture presented in the graph.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nonsense, Ian. Maybe you shoot a lot of wide angle negs which are thin around the corners, or otherwise just got lucky with a helpful diffuser. Print a very hard grade paper through it without any
neg in position, develop to max contrast, and look at what you actually have, unless you have a rare
enlarging meter capable of actually measing across the projected field. A spotmeter might be if you have a bright enough source. But any mfg published chart, like the one in the previous post, will tell
you the facts. It's pretty difficult to get fully even illumination even with an ideal diffuser short of 180
focal length. Below that, the diffuser needs to compensate by having more density in the middle. The
difference between a 135 and 150 might be modest, but between there and a still longer lens is often
appreciable.

 

[ac12]

Well for $15, I ordered the 32.5mm lens adapter for the Omega enlarger.
If it works out, good, if not, oh well...

 

[ac12]

I just ran into another problem that the 135 solves. Funny how these things happen.
My Omega D5 with color head has the standard length girder, not the XL girder. So I am limited in the max height I can elevate the head to, and thus max enlargement on the baseboard. The 135 will give me the ability to still print 16x20 (if I want to) on the baseboard. The 150 is just at 16x20, but leaves zero room for cropping, and I almost always crop on the enlarger. So it looks like I will be using the 135 on the Omega, and using the 150 on the Durst.

I will check what the light fall off is with the 135, when I get my darkroom constructed. Hopefully it will be tolerable/unnoticeable.

thanks guys