Durst Componon and Componon. What is the difference?

[Tamas]

Hello Members,

Hope you are well.
I have got a question, and someone maybe can help me.
Do you know if there is any difference in performance as sharpness...etc. between the Schneider Kreuznach Componon and the Schneider Kreuznach Durst Componon lenses?
Let's say the year of the construction, the focal length and the wider apperature are the same. (Actually the only different can be notice is the Durst name, added on the front on the durst componon lens.)
Do I think well, the diferent is only on the thread diameter?


Thank you:
Tamas

[Paul Ewins]

There shouldn't be any noticeable difference, they are built to the same specifications.

[LabRat]

Engraving...

Steve K

[Tamas]

I see, thanks for the reply.
So the only different is the Durst Componons made for the Durst enlargers? Is there different size of mounting on the Durst enlarges?
I think I saw linhof componon as well, but can be wrong, not remember clearly.

[pjd]

I've got a couple of old Durst badged Componon lenses that have 25mm threads rather than the more common 39mm, just check that your enlarger lens board has the same thread to the lens you are looking at. Those are for 35mm / medium format rather than large format though.

[Tamas]

Thanks for all help, clear now. :)

[Drew Wiley]

There is a significant difference between Componon per se, and later Componon S, and still later Apo Componon. Various Durst mounting rings are available for the turret. But once a lens simply gets too big in diameter, you'd have to resort to a non-turret disc with a fixed central hole of correct diameter. These are hard to find, but can be made by any reasonably equipped machine shop. What specific Durst enlarger do have in mind, and how large of a film format are you contemplating?

[Tamas]

Well, I have a 4x5 Sinar F2 and I use the Intrepid Enlarger Kit for converting the camera to be an enlarger.
I used to go in a community darkroom and they had the Durst Componons. In that time I enlarged 6x6, so I used the 80mm. I bought my own componon, the componon-s 100 for 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 but I noticed decline in the qualty. I (maybe) see less sharpness but the tones are just not the same than with the older componon.
However I use different paper, but the advanced one (for tonality) but I really think the quality dropped because of the lens. (Otherwise everything is the same, developer, methods, temperature...etc.)
The paper I used was the Ilford Multigrade RC Deluxe Pearl VI, for the prints with the Componon-S I used the 5th version, where the company promised better tonality.
I believe there is some special character the "simple" componon hold and that is I mainly missing from the prints not so much the sharpness. It is maybe something simmilar as some (or most) of the leica lenses are got?
So as I said, in the community darkroom there were durst componon, but on online, I see better quality and more option to buy from the "simple" componon and I did not find anything on the web about my question after deep search.
The bord for the lenses has 39mm tread.

[ic-racer]

The Durst branded lensed did come in Durst mounts, but you could get the non-Durst branded lenses in those mounts too.
218584
218585

[Bob Salomon]

Well, I have a 4x5 Sinar F2 and I use the Intrepid Enlarger Kit for converting the camera to be an enlarger.
I used to go in a community darkroom and they had the Durst Componons. In that time I enlarged 6x6, so I used the 80mm. I bought my own componon, the componon-s 100 for 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 but I noticed decline in the qualty. I (maybe) see less sharpness but the tones are just not the same than with the older componon.
However I use different paper, but the advanced one (for tonality) but I really think the quality dropped because of the lens. (Otherwise everything is the same, developer, methods, temperature...etc.)
The paper I used was the Ilford Multigrade RC Deluxe Pearl VI, for the prints with the Componon-S I used the 5th version, where the company promised better tonality.
I believe there is some special character the "simple" componon hold and that is I mainly missing from the prints not so much the sharpness. It is maybe something simmilar as some (or most) of the leica lenses are got?
So as I said, in the community darkroom there were durst componon, but on online, I see better quality and more option to buy from the "simple" componon and I did not find anything on the web about my question after deep search.
The bord for the lenses has 39mm tread.

How do you align and maintain the alignment? You have a glass negative carrier? Did they in the darkroom you used?

[Drew Wiley]

Bingo! Without a precise glass carrier and all the relevant planes properly aligned, it's impossible to make an objective comparison of lens performance. In some of the public or rental darkroom I've seen, their idea of a lens coating was nicotine stains.

[Tamas]

Hello Bob Salomon,

This is the intrepid enlarger I use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xchk_O1MtJY

[Bob Salomon]

Hello Bob Salomon,

This is the intrepid enlarger I use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xchk_O1MtJY

I realize what it is. That is why I asked about alignment and carrier.

[Tamas]

The negative carrier I use, is the one, provided by the Intrepid. I bougth all the size 35mm; 6x4,5; 6x6; 6x7; 6x9 and the 4x5.
I enlarge horizontaly, and to setle the parallels, I use sprit level and measuring tape. The previous one is for the camera settings, the last one for setting the parallel between the the lens board and the wall.
The lighting box can be easily fixed on the universal back, after taking of the "ground glass frame".
I have a Sinar F2, they came with universal back and "ground glass frame" you can separate them, using the two long silver "knob", located on the up and bottom part (if the fram is is horizontaly/landscape position front of you). To fix safely, I also use an elastic bandage.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Do you know if there is any difference in performance as sharpness...etc. between the Schneider Kreuznach Componon and the Schneider Kreuznach Durst Componon lenses?
Let's say the year of the construction, the focal length and the wider apperature are the same. (Actually the only different can be notice is the Durst name, added on the front on the durst componon lens.) Do I think well, the diferent is only on the thread diameter?



Tamas,

I have a complete set of the original chrome Schneider Componons and I'm a fan. They do the job well and it used to be that they were extremely inexpensive, so one could afford to buy a whole set. Just this week another 360mm f5.6 rolled in here, I'm building a twin lens reflex LF system.

You can clean the "milkiness" from these lenses, I've had some badly fogged, by carefully pulling the front group, it comes out in one big block. Go to your kitchen sink and use dishwash detergent and scrub 'em. Also clean the rear cell of the front group, you can get everything off on those without removing them from the barrel, so leave them alone. Usually just the front lens set needs cleaning and this is not in any way difficult or unusual to do yourself.

Then you have "Best Possible" Componon and if bought milky some would simply throw them away or sell them for next to nothing. They have a lot of life left in them.

I use them for copying and for pictorial work too. Even for sharp portraiture. I think they are outstanding when cleaned up and fully tested!

I have a few Durst and I see no real difference.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51129528463_18b36c0593_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kU9cuc)Lens Pairs for Twin Lens Norma so far (https://flic.kr/p/2kU9cuc) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

[Drew Wiley]

That might be a nice introductory system for learning b&w printing, so no criticism is being implied in that respect, but that gear is otherwise certainly a far cry from precise, and is indeed useless for analytic comparison between respective lenses. Therefore, in that respect, you will probably not see any significant advantage to newer or pricier enlarging lenses, provided the ones you are using are in good condition. And the negative carriers included are incapable of holding film truly flat, so you have no firm standard of comparison there either. Don't worry about it. If you enjoy what you are doing, and like the results you are getting, that's all that matters. But objective analysis of specific lenses is a fussier topic, requiring a whole different level of equipment.

[neil poulsen]

Not knowing for sure, we all recall the Linhof select Schneider lenses. I wonder if Durst did similar exercise, where they might have cherry-picked lenses that had the best performance as their Componon-Durst lenses?

[ic-racer]

Not knowing for sure, we all recall the Linhof select Schneider lenses. I wonder if Durst did similar exercise, where they might have cherry-picked lenses that had the best performance as their Componon-Durst lenses?

Durst literature of the very early enlargers only indicates the DURST branded lenses have the mounting plate to fit on the 3-lens turret. No mention of superior performance or special selection.

From the L184 and L1840 onward, there is no mention of DURST branded lenses at all.

It probably makes no difference at all because all the silver Componon lenses I have encountered are foggy. Though, as Daniel pointed out above, sometimes the fog will wipe clean. But sometimes not.

BTW that collection of silver Componons is the nicest I have ever seen. I only have 3 silver ones like that : 150, 210, 360

[Paul Ewins]

I wonder if Durst did similar exercise, where they might have cherry-picked lenses that had the best performance as their Componon-Durst lenses?

Kind of been here before, but that was not what Linhof did. There was no pool of lenses to pick from, Schneider manufactured to order and delivered a batch of lenses. As per Bob's explanation in a previous thread Linhof then retested all the lenses supplied to them and returned those that didn't make the grade. Going on the batch sizes they were getting - initially 105 or 210 lenses and later around the 95 lens mark - the failure rate was on average 5%.

Durst were getting a lot of lenses from Schneider; for the 50mm it could be anything up to 1000 lenses in a batch and 500 lenses for the 80 and 105. It may have been feasible to retest the longer focal lengths but overall it would have made more sense to work with Schneider to ensure that the pass mark for Schneider QC matched their own.

[Tamas]

Nice collection Daniel, thank you for the advice. What do you use to take off the front group?

[Tamas]

Thanks Drew! I see your point, but I can say, I do not have problem with sharpness, I was looking for the special character in tonality.

[interneg]

I was looking for the special character in tonality.

For the large part this isn't something 'special', instead It's simply the result of the effects of higher flare levels from the older lenses. A small adjustment in print grade used will more than likely land you where you want to go. Overall I can't say I've seen any unique properties about old Componon lenses, other than that they seem to run out of really sharp optimisation range faster than Rodagons or Componon-S and later lenses.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Nice collection Daniel, thank you for the advice. What do you use to take off the front group?

I have a set of rubber stoppers that can usually remove the front ring which is not slotted but is threaded. Then you need an adjustable spanner wrench to loosen the retaining ring, which holds the front group in. Generally they come out fairly easily but be very careful. I wouldn't suggest doing this yourself if you are not good with your hands. And take notes and digital pictures as you go.

[Drew Wiley]

A "special look" might require some innovation. Look around for cheaper old graphics barrel lenses, either single-coated or uncoated. That kind of thing is easier to achieve in camera to begin with, though I have personally fiddled with darkroom options too. Old tricks like a bit of very loose woven fine fabric over the enlarging lens can also be tried. Or you could deliberately introduce excess flare by placing pieces of white cardboard inside the enlarger bellows - another old trick.

[Tamas]

Thanks Drew, I thought of the uncoated lenses! I will try it, and also will try the ones you mentioned.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Tamas,

The 150mm F9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar is a special tiny gem of a lens IMO. I have three of them; one for Plaubel Makiflex and two matched pair for Sinar.

I've paid $50 recently and there are some on Ebay right now. If no retaining ring I metal epoxy it to the lensboard. If done cleanly all is perfectly good :)

It's really a 2x3 lens but cover bigger close up.

I have a set of Kern Arau Apo-Repro lenses (210mm 300mm 360mm) and those are special to me too.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51388835143_90497ae23a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mi4dk2)Inner Cleaning 240mm Componon (https://flic.kr/p/2mi4dk2) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

It took me all of fifteen minutes total to disassemble and clean the interior glass in this 240mm Schneider Componon. You can use a spanner, but this rubber block (from Ebay) unscrewed the front ring no problem. Turned the lens upside down, and gave it a gentle shake; and the front group dropped right into my hand. Then to the kitchen sink, squirt with Dawn dishwashing soap and rinse thoroughly. Still a tiny bit of milkiness remains, but it is way better than it was, and totally usuable IMO. Really it looks OK to me now and this is worth doing and really a piece of cake to do.

Jason Lane (the dry plate guy) disassembled and cleaned the milky front and rear cells on a nice chrome 240mm f5.6 Schneider Symmar Compur, recently .Really reasonable and fantastic work. Thanks Jason. Dan Daniels CLA'ed the compur and now it should be good for another sixty years

[sculptorBradP]

Will this lens work for a 5x7 Durst 138 S / G139 with CLS-301, and or CLS-1000 Head -Groß- / large format Prototype Schneider-Kreuznach - Jos. Schneider & Co. Optical works / Kreuznach 2, Prototyp Schneider-Kreuznach Componon Tele Xenar, f: 4,5 / F: 240mm., Normalkorper - mount – shutter, nbr. of. Lens : #7107320, nbr. Of. Shutter: Rb362
Telephoto Lens, Screw thread 74mm, Prime Lens, Manual focus, Product weight: 784g, Type: Fixed focal length, Unique!!! for collectors!
from a collection:
Response from the sellar is that the lens is Front side thread is 62mm, Rear thread is around 72 mm. Also from another seller, a fabricator for new Durst Lapla plate to use with a Durst 138 S - Thread should be designated by major diameter and pitch. Commonly used pitch for 72mm diameter is 0.75mm, but this is not guaranteed. We can make such plate, but will not accept return if it does not fit. - thanks, - Brad

[sculptorBradP]

I actually didn't realize that the Rb362 indicated a shutter until after I looked more carefully at the accompanied picture of the posted item next to an old box that it was originally packed in. I added that info from the box on an edit here with my question after I had initially posted. I am the proud owner of this lens now though. It's in transit from Germany. So, perhaps it will prove useful as a lens for photos of my traditional charcoal figure drawings - generally 18 inch x 30 inch or so. Or maybe a good lens for another use on my 4x5, or 8x10 view camera of my sculpture photos?, - Brad

[Drew Wiley]

No, don't go with any kind of tele unless you really want to be a guinea pig, or else the lens is so cheap that you have nothing to lose by trying.