What would happen if I used a 240mm enlarging lens to take photos?

[AtlantaTerry]

Having a good dose of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), somewhere along the line I picked up a 240mm enlarging lens along with the Durst mount that it came with.

I don't have a Speed Graphic with focal plane shutter so would have to mount the lens on one of my Cambo 6x6 lens boards then use the old "remove the lens cap" method of exposing.

But before I go through all the time and trouble of adapting the lens to a Cambo board, what kind of image should I expect to get on my negative? Would it be sharp, soft, mushy, what?

Thanks,
Terry

[Tin Can]

imho sharp



Having a good dose of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), somewhere along the line I picked up a 240mm enlarging lens along with the Durst mount that it came with.

I don't have a Speed Graphic with focal plane shutter so would have to mount the lens on one of my Cambo 6x6 lens boards then use the old "remove the lens cap" method of exposing.

But before I go through all the time and trouble of adapting the lens to a Cambo board, what kind of image should I expect to get on my negative? Would it be sharp, soft, mushy, what?

Thanks,
Terry

[Bob Salomon]

Adequate but not near what a 240mm taking lens of equal quality would deliver.

[AtlantaTerry]

Update:
Schneider-Kreuznach Componon f:5.6 / 240 #58606xx

My notes say it came from a Las Vegas photo lab that went out of business. It was used to enlarge 8x10 film. I bought the lens in 2005 for US $45 + shipping to Atlanta.

[Tin Can]

Bargain



Update:
Schneider-Kreuznach Componon f:5.6 / 240 #58606xx

My notes say it came from a Las Vegas photo lab that went out of business. It was used to enlarge 8x10 film. I bought the lens in 2005 for US $45 + shipping to Atlanta.

[AtlantaTerry]

Adequate but not near what a 240mm taking lens of equal quality would deliver.

Bob,

I thought that might be the case. Since I already have a nice Tele-Congo 240mm f6.3 then I won't mess with this for now.

When you say "adequate" I wonder how it would look if I wanted a Pictorial or soft focus image. Now where did I put that Packard shutter...?

Thanks.
Terry

[JohnJ]

Bob,
...When you say "adequate" I wonder how it would look if I wanted a Pictorial or soft focus image...
Terry

If you expect painterly or pictorial effects then you will be disappointed. Most older enlarging lenses will flare more than taking lenses, but not in a dramatic way.

[AtlantaTerry]

If you expect painterly or pictorial effects then you will be disappointed. Most older enlarging lenses will flare more than taking lenses, but not in a dramatic way.

I am working on a series of portraits that would really look good with a pictorial / soft focus lens on my 4x5 Cambo but I really can't afford to buy another lens. :(

[polyglot]

It will give excellent resolution for macro subjects (about 0.15 to 1.0 magnification, 1.0 to 6.0 when reversed). It will have a very flat field. It will probably be overcorrected for spherical aberration and may give horrible nisen-bokeh.

[AtlantaTerry]

Polyglot, I am familiar with the term "bokeh" but never heard of "nisen-bokeh". What is that?

[JohnJ]

Polyglot, I am familiar with the term "bokeh" but never heard of "nisen-bokeh". What is that?

It simply means harsh or distracting bokeh, often characterised with a double line effect with straight edges that are out of focus, or a kind of onion ring or doughnut effect in out of focus highlights. For example (Edit, the effects below where created artificially but they illustrate the point):

http://photocornucopia.com/images/Lenses/General/IMG_6282_Xen80_s2F8_400.jpg vs http://photocornucopia.com/images/Lenses/General/IMG_6283_Xen80_2F8_400.jpg
or
http://photocornucopia.com/images/Lenses/General/IMG_6255_Xen80_s2F8_1b_400.jpg vs http://photocornucopia.com/images/Lenses/General/IMG_6259_Xen80_2F8_b_400.jpg

It's worth noting however that the same lens will often have a very harsh bokeh one side of the plane of focus and quite smooth on the opposite side. Some lenses are smooth on both sides.

[TheToadMen]

I am working on a series of portraits that would really look good with a pictorial / soft focus lens on my 4x5 Cambo but I really can't afford to buy another lens. :(

For pictorial effects, check out the inexpensive lenses made by Reinhold; http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html
There are several examples in other threads.

[AtlantaTerry]

Cool beans. Thanks.

[Paul Ewins]

The larger Componons are the same formula as the plasmat (f5.6) Symmars, but tweaked for enlarging and macro. Early pamphlets show them as having one air spaced element and two cemented elements in the rear group while later literature shows three cemented elements in each group, exactly the same as the Symmar. The tweaking is probably no more than the spacing between the front and rear groups so I wouldn't expect a dramatic difference between your 240 Componon and a 240 Symmar of the same vintage.

[HoodedOne]

Having a good dose of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), somewhere along the line I picked up a 240mm enlarging lens along with the Durst mount that it came with.

I don't have a Speed Graphic with focal plane shutter so would have to mount the lens on one of my Cambo 6x6 lens boards then use the old "remove the lens cap" method of exposing.

But before I go through all the time and trouble of adapting the lens to a Cambo board, what kind of image should I expect to get on my negative? Would it be sharp, soft, mushy, what?

Thanks,
Terry


Terry,

Just use the lens, and have some fun.

I use several barrel lenses with my Cambo SC2. Most of the time I use 5mm thick foamboard and lots of tape, to mount the glass on the Cambo.

The pic. below was made like this, with a unknown barrel lens (320mm f5.6)
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2846/9957025723_fa39113ce3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/9957025723/)
2013-SC2-010.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/9957025723/) by HoodedOne (http://www.flickr.com/people/hoodedone-photos/), on Flickr

[Dan Fromm]

The larger Componons are the same formula as the plasmat (f5.6) Symmars, but tweaked for enlarging and macro. Early pamphlets show them as having one air spaced element and two cemented elements in the rear group while later literature shows three cemented elements in each group, exactly the same as the Symmar. The tweaking is probably no more than the spacing between the front and rear groups so I wouldn't expect a dramatic difference between your 240 Componon and a 240 Symmar of the same vintage.Paul, are you sure?

IIRC, early Symmars are dagor types, later ones (the "convertible" Symmar, -S, ...) are plasmat types. From '61-on (see http://web.archive.org/web/20100922053809/http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm ) Componons have been plasmats.

Changing cell spacing upsets corrections and changes focal length.

Re using an enlarging lens as a taking lens, polyglot gave the standard answer in post #9 in this thread. I've tested a number of decent ~ 100 mm enlarging lenses as taking lenses at distance; none was worth using, but some were acceptable (or better) at near distances. Others have reported getting good results with longer (including Terry's 240 mm) at all distances.

Terry, shorter Componons' cells are direct fits in standard shutters. Check your 240's cells to see if they fit a standard shutter.

[AtlantaTerry]

Terry, shorter Componons' cells are direct fits in standard shutters. Check your 240's cells to see if they fit a standard shutter.

I have never done something like that. How? Would I have to disassemble the lens? Or can I simply screw the lens into a shutter?

BTW, I don't own a shutter that large - it appears to be as large as the Copal 3 on my 300mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N and I am not about to disassemble the Rodenstock.

Since I have the Durst threaded enlarger ring I could attach that to one of my Cambo lens boards then use the lens-cap-for-shutter way of exposing.

Thanks for all the information.

Terry

[Drew Wiley]

I know of studio photographers who did prefer Componons for tabletop product photography. But the G-Claron lenses were the ones marketed for this application, which were more versatile anyway. Some graphics lenses work superbly for both enlargement and generally shooting, but are slower than typical dedicated enlarging
lenses. "Bokeh" is a different subject altogether, and I can't think of many of these lenses I'd consider ideal in that category.

[Bob Salomon]

I have never done something like that. How? Would I have to disassemble the lens? Or can I simply screw the lens into a shutter?

BTW, I don't own a shutter that large - it appears to be as large as the Copal 3 on my 300mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N and I am not about to disassemble the Rodenstock.

Since I have the Durst threaded enlarger ring I could attach that to one of my Cambo lens boards then use the lens-cap-for-shutter way of exposing.

Thanks for all the information.

Terry
You have to unscrew the front and rear cells out of the barrel mount that they come in. Then screw those in to the front and rear of your shutter.

[Jim Jones]

Terry, enlarging lenses don't need great Depth of Field, and thus the minimum aperture is often less than we sometimes desire where greater DoF is preferred.

[Paul Ewins]

Paul, are you sure?

IIRC, early Symmars are dagor types, later ones (the "convertible" Symmar, -S, ...) are plasmat types. From '61-on (see http://web.archive.org/web/20100922053809/http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm ) Componons have been plasmats.


That will teach me to rely on memory! What I should have said was that early Componons are shown as having three air spaced elements at the rear instead of a cemented pair and a single element as would be normal for a Plasmat. Later diagrams show a cemented pair. If you put a barrel mounted Symmar next to a Componon of the same vintage the only visible differences are the names engraved around the rim. So while I would expect a 240 Symmar to perform better than a 240 Componon for general photography, I don't think the difference would be as dramatic as with one of the cheaper enlarging lenses like a Comparon or Componar.

http://www.paulewins.com/old_site/resources/photos/schneider/componon%20diagram.jpg

http://www.paulewins.com/old_site/resources/photos/schneider/symmar%20diagram.jpg

[Randy]

For what it's worth, I used the 300mm Componon f/5.6 (with Packard shutter mounted behind it) as a taking lens on my 8X10 for many years. I now regret selling it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/linda2a.jpg

[coisasdavida]

Randy, hope not to upset you even more, but I got a Compound III for it! It looks awesome!

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I have 100, 135 and 150mm Componon-S lenses, they shoot very well at distance on my 2x3 Graphic. I have a 150mm Symmar and I actually think the 150mm Componon-S is sharper at distance. I have 9/150mm Apo-Gerogon and 9/150 G-Claron too, the Gerogon is front mounted on a Compur and the G-Claron is mounted in a Compur, but I haven't shot them yet, I'll be very surprised if they are actually as good as my 150mm Componon-S but they do have bigger image circles and I intend to use them on my 5x7 camera whereas the Symmar and Componon-S 150s won't cover 5x7 so I use them on my 2x3.

Give your lens a try, it might surprise you how well it shoots at distance.