Enlarger lens options.

[otzi]

I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good.
The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & white printing over the Componon -S or APO Rodagon N
I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves, but the Componon - S curves
seem flatter than the HM ones.

Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N enlarging
lenses to be on a par with the HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter especialy with bigger magnifications, say 12X.

Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series,
perform equally to the eye.

[ic-racer]

I do have a HM Schneider. It is not LF, though. It is the 45mm and I use it for making 16x20s from 35mm. Under the grain magnifier it yields pronounced sharp clear, contrasty grain when wide open, but at usual working apertures (f8) and at usual viewing distance, the difference from the standard Componon-S is difficult to detect in the center of a print. I DO find the HM design beneficial in getting the corners in focus in the 16x20s. The HM has a flatter field of focus at higher magnification and that gives you a better chance of getting both corners and center in focus at the same time

In terms of looking at the curves, when comparing the two, I do recall that the 45mm HM lens curves on the Schneider site are plotted at higher magnifications than the 50mm Componon-s, so direct comparison is not intuitive. Also, the maximum apertures are different (2.8 vs 4.0) so you have to really look at the fine print under the MTF graphs.

[cyrus]

If I remember right, according to Ctein, in comparing enlarger lenses, the problem is that variation of lens quality in the same brand is greater than between different brands.

[Craig Schroeder]

Otzi,

I'm new to LF but have had a lot of experience comparing the various lenses in multiple examples that you mention (but in shorter focal lengths). The HM APO's and Rodagon APO's are only a hair-slitting difference from the "regular" counterparts. At higher magnifications, they seem to start to show some advantage. I was testing 40, 45 and 90 HM's, 2 Rodagon 50 APO's, a Rodagon 80mm APO and a host of 6 element Nikkors, Rodagons, Fujinons and Schneiders.

I came to the conclusion that they were all very good and for certain applications, the APO's gave some slight advantage but it took some very careful scrutinizing to discern it. The APO's tend to function better a bit wider open so it requires extreme care in alignment and the use of glass carriers to take advantage of any performance edge they offer.

[walter23]

I've got a 150mm componon-S and thus far I haven't found a scenario where it doesn't outprint my negative's detail.

What I mean is that grain is razor-sharp under the grain focuser, and my prints are the same. Haven't printed beyond 16x20.

I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good.
The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & white printing over the Componon -S or APO Rodagon N
I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves, but the Componon - S curves
seem flatter than the HM ones.

Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N enlarging
lenses to be on a par with the HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter especialy with bigger magnifications, say 12X.

Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series,
perform equally to the eye.