Symmar = Componon ?

[monkeymon]

How similar are these lenses actually? I have a symmar 135mm and componon 135mm... i switched the rear cells and i see no difference on the ground glass.

So' being a cheap bastard that I am. I have bee looking for something like a cheap wide angle lens that would be needed to stop all the way for shooting, and as I have noticed that 100mm tessar gives just black corners on 4x5.. i begun to think that 6 element design does have more coverage, thus it might cover 4x5 at 100mm. And it seems symmar 100mm does indeed cover just about 4x5.

So my actual question is, would componon 100mm cover?

And is componon-s same as symmar-s? I have only older componons & symmars (cheap). I have read somewhere that the S componons would have greater coverage.

I know that on paper this all doesn't do.. 100mm symmar does not cover on paper. But in real life it seems to cover.

[Lynn Jones]

They are both 6 element but very different. Symmars are plasmats with a coverage of about 70 degrees while Componons are Gauss type enlarging lenses probably about 55 degrees. I have seen several Componons that were shutter mounted used for copy work and the are super but don't have the coverage of the wide field Symmars (similar to Sironars and S Caltars). The Componons are optimized for different magnifications depending on their focal lengths.

Lynn

[Dan Fromm]

Lynn, Schneider's published cross-sections show Componons (the original with no suffix and also -S) as plasmat types, i.e. enlarging Symmars. They also discuss optimizations, recommend Comparons (tessar types, i.e., enlarging Xenars) for small enlargements, Componons for larger. For a cross-section of an original Componon, see. e.g., http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/componar_componon.pdf

Monkeymon, like you I'm a cheap bastard. Unlike you, I've spent modest sums buying lenses to find out what they could do for me. I liked the idea of a 100/5.6 Symmar for peanuts, but for 2x3, not for 4x5. So I spent a few bucks and bought a 100/5.6 Componon-S and 105/5.6 Componon. They're both lousy at distance, and I have the test shots to prove it.

People have asserted here that long Componons and Rodagons make good taking lenses. On principle I doubt it, but the relevant questions are empirical and I haven't asked 'em. The questions are, "lens, how well do you shoot?" and "are long Rodagons and Componons scaled up versions of short ones or are they different designs?" I don't much care about the answer to either question for Componons or Rodagons, so haven't asked 'em. But I did ask the second question for f/1.9 Saphirs; it turns out that the longer ones are not the same design as the shorter ones.

What with bulletin boards like this one, there are few secrets. If there were a 100 mm enlarging lens that was inexpensive and covered 4x5 at infinity and was sharp at infinity everyone would know it. That you have to ask means that no one is acquainted with the cheap wonder lens you hope to find. This is because there's no such thing, not because the people who post here and elsewhere are good at keeping secrets.

Cheers,

Dan

[monkeymon]

Cheap usually means that it won't be as good as the expensive. I have shot with componon 135mm and the pictures looked really good. Much better than tessar taking lens. So' i think it's a cheap way to get a good lens.

As this whole symmar 100mm thing, i don't care about the corners or the resolution. All i need is a image that fills the whole 4x5 without black corners.

Reason to ask this, there are people who experiment and there are people who trust numbers. So, i don't think there is a secret lens, i just thought these lenses might do the job but would not be good enough for most peoples standards.

I may need to get a componon 100mm for printing anyway, but as for now i don't have extra money. And was interested if someone has tested these lenses on 4x5, did you try them on 4x5 or just 2x3? I'm only interested on coverage, not the quality. I know if i wan't quality i have to pay to get it.

I have a 100mm sekor from mamiya press, it costed 35$ on a flash synced shutter that goes to 1/500... it leaves small black corners. This is what i mean by cheap, you just need to live with the flaws, and enjoy the good things.. like the fact that it's f3.5 and costed almost nothing. You can just crop it to 6x12 and you have a faster wideangle than is available anywhere.

I'm also interested on the apparent simialirity of these lenses.

[Lynn Jones]

You are right Dan, the longer focal length enlarger lenses by schneider were plasmats only the shorter componons were gaussian. Also Comparons were tessar types and the componars were 3 element cooke varients (but surprisingly good).

Lynn

[Jim Galli]

Before I bought my 125mm Fuji I used to shoot all the time with a 135mm Componon S that I got in a piece of 2 inch allthread from some industrial junk company on Ebay. I think I paid about $2 bucks for it. The shutter was from a 105mm Tominon so it was probably under $20. YMMV but I found it every bit as sharp and nice as any Symmar on all kinds of landscape scenes. I never shot less than f22 with it.

[Keith Tapscott.]

How similar are these lenses actually? I have a symmar 135mm and componon 135mm... i switched the rear cells and i see no difference on the ground glass.

And is componon-s same as symmar-s? I have only older componons & symmars (cheap). I have read somewhere that the S componons would have greater coverage.

AFAIK, the Symmar is a Camera lens and the Componon is an enlarger lens.

[Paul Ewins]

FWIW, I compared my 1965 300 Componon with my 1968 300 Symmar convertible and the cells are exactly the same size. The only difference is that the barrel for the Componon has a different thread size and position to the Compur 3 that the Symmar sits in so you can't put the Componon cells into a shutter. The overall length of both looks to be about 90mm so it may just be the fine spacing that separates a Componon from a Symmar, i.e. one optimized for 1:1 and greater and the other for infinity.

[IanG]

Schneider sold Componon's at one stage shutter mounted as Macro lenses for LF use there's a PDF file with them listed on one of the Schneider websites.

Optically they shouldn't be any worse than the Claron's when used at Infinity.

Ian

[rdenney]

...it may just be the fine spacing that separates a Componon from a Symmar, i.e. one optimized for 1:1 and greater and the other for infinity.

That was always my understanding, too. Of course, for macro work, a Componon might be just the ticket. My small 50mm Componon, which I used for enlarging small format, has a star-shaped aperture that might produce rather interesting (in a bad way) bokeh. It's image circle is, as I recall, maybe a little over 50mm, and that's in the macro range.

On the more general subject of using enlarger lenses as taking lenses, I have tried using a B&L 139mm Tessar, which was my standard enlarging lens for 4x5, as a taking lens mounted on a Pentacon Six bellows. I've also done the same thing with a 105/5.6 EL-Nikkor. Neither really glowed in the dark at infinity, and both show bokeh suggesting somewhat overcorrected spherical aberration at infinity. But for copy work, they both exhibit the good sharpness, lack of distortion, and flatness of field one would expect for a good enlarging lens.

Rick "thinking a 4-inch Wollensak something-or-other would be cheaper and easier than an enlarging lens" Denney