Enlarging lenses as close-up taking lenses [Archive]

View Full Version : Enlarging lenses as close-up taking lenses

cyberjunkie

25-Apr-2010, 11:23

I just purchased my first DSRL body, a Pentax K10D. My renewed interest on photography made me review all the photographic stuff i own, deciding which item are still of some interest and which could be sold - my budget is much more limited now, than what used to be:-(
Unfortunately going digital with MF and LF involves the purchase of a decent flatbed scanner, it looks like any choice below an Epson 4990 would be a disappointment.
Unfortunately those (or better quality) scanners are still quite expensive, so i am forced to part with some photographic equipments i own.
One of the fields where i have no great interest, nor the needed place at home, is the darkroom. Apart from the "portable darkroom" that is needed to place sheet films on the chassis , ehm... film holders, and for the Jobo drum (if only i could find where i stored it...) that could be still used to develop some B&W films (up to 4x5" format), all the remaining stuff must be either sold or even given away for free! I am thinking about three large format vertical tanks, that can be used to develop at once a lot of sheet films. They are HUGE, and are still in the basement of a friend, who's impatiently waiting the day when those "things" would go away!
Back to the serious stuff now.
I own some enlarging lenses, from a 28mm Componon to a 100mm one, and i would like to know if it could be worth to find a shutter, and test them for macro work, or maybe it would be better to keep them for the bellows of a DSRL or a 6x7 film camera.
Please give me the a link, or at least some basic infos, about the ratio they are optimized for, and which would be the coverage at those image to film ratios.
The lenses are:
Componon T 4/50
Componon 4/28
Componon-S 5.6/100

I love old lenses, and i still have at home other enlarging lenses, the longer focal is a not-so-noble Componar f4.5 10.5cm.
The lens is quite old, the barrel is "silver", and as far as i remember there are no clicks for the iris values. The focal length should be good for moderate macros, better if used with a 6x7 or 6x9 film backs, with moderate bellows extension.
The lens comes fitted to a flange, with three mounting holes. The thread on the lens itself is a strange 38,4mm, not 39mm, and the thread is very thin, unlike the classic LTM.
In the end, if the performance of the lens is at least decent, it would be nice to look for a cheap shutter, and have an adapter ring machined to front-mount the lens to the shutter.
If the expected performance isn't worth all the fuss, i'd be happy to get at least some infos about it.
I don't know if it's a triplet, or it's already a tessar-type, optimized for short distances.
Is there anybody with the right answer?

I must say one thing, though, i have just purchased on the bay a small suitcase with Tominon/Polaroid MP-4 lenses and tubes. The two missing items where the shutter, and the 17mm lens. Within a short time i could find the shutter (Polaroid branded Compur with 40.5mm front thread for all the lenses), and probably i will get soon the missing lens, the f4 17mm.
If, or when, i will own the complete kit, my need for close-up to micro photography should be covered. The lenses range from 17mm to 135mm, all with f4 aperture, and all are front-mounted on a Compur 0. From what i have read online, the Tominons used as taking lenses are mounted the conventional way, part in front and part behind the leaf shutter (i know of a 117mm and of a 135mm), while these repro lenses are all front mounted.
I could make no test myself, as the shutter came in very poor conditions, stuck or greatly slowed at all the slow speeds, so i sent it immediately for a CLA.
I would be very grateful if somebody wants to share his knowledge about the Tominons. We know very little about them here in Europe, because the Polaroid MP-3 and MP-4 were mostly used across the Atlantic.
So all my (rather small) knowledge comes from the Web, and i've never seen a reference on how they perform if pitted against good enlarger lenses.
AFAIK they are all reversed Tessars, but one (probably the 50mm, that should have a 6-elements design). I have read some posts where the Tominons were called "good", and found an interesting scheme from the original documentation about the optimal film to subject ratio for each of the lenses.
Should i stick with the Polaroid lenses, or give also a try to the enlarging lenses, older and newer?
I love to compare the result of old lenses, but if the mentioned enlarging lenses would only be a duplicate for the Tominons, i could save the money for a couple of old shutters, and for the work of a photo mechanic, for something better.

I am open to any advice, and i will postpone to future postings all the other questions i have in mind :-)
Just a very small one:
does anybody know what's the coverage of a Sekor 75mm wide angle for the Mamiya Super 23/Universal?
The example i own looks very recent, as new, unlike the battered Universal body (with foldable normal lens) i bought the lens for.
Just in case there were more than one versions of the same lens....

have fun

CJ

Dan Fromm

25-Apr-2010, 12:45

The Tominons offer good value, reasonable performance. I've had all of the MP-4 Tominons except the 105/4.5. All but the 135/4.5 were made to be used above 1:1 and all are designed to be used mounted in front of a #1 shutter. The 135/4.5 was sold as a "general purpose lens" to be used at all distances. Recommended range of magnifications for each lens turns out to be the range of magnifications it will deliver on a standard (not XL) MP-4.

If you're going to use your Tominons in front of a shutter, you want an MP-4 #1 shutter. This for two reasons. It has an open shutter lever, so doesn't have to be set to "T" for viewing and then to some other speed for shooting. It has no diaphragm, so isn't very useful and is therefore usually the least expensive #1 shutter to be found. Easily recognized, says "Polaroid MP-4" on the face plate.

Construction? Per Polaroid's data sheets: 17/4, 6/4 double Gauss; 35/4.5, 75/4.5, reversed Tessar; 105/4.5, 135/4.5 tessar; 50/4.5 "six-element symmetrical triplet".

Per Schneider, Componons are optimized for 8x - 12x enlargements (that would 1:8 - 1:12 taking, facing normally, and 8:1 - 12:1 reversed). Comparons for 2x - 6x. For most closeup/macro situations a Comparon would be a better bet; I've used a 105/4.5 Comparon as a macro len, its OK and there are better lenses.

The MP-4 Tominons aren't the best macro lenses around. Zeiss Luminars (BRD) and Mikrotars (DDR), Leitz Photars, Reichert Neupolars all beat them by a lot. I've never tried a Milar, have tried one Summar, the 25/2.8 for the YELUU projection microscope attachment for some Prado projectors. It is superb above 10:1. But MP-4 Tominons are usable and usually much less expensive than better lenses.

Good luck, have fun, buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography,

Dan

ret wisner

25-Apr-2010, 13:39

i have a reversed 210 componon on my 10x8 hobo box camera and its ok, not brutally sharp , nice contrast im happy with it and it covers, just

39891

cyberjunkie

25-Apr-2010, 14:30

Per Schneider, Componons are optimized for 8x - 12x enlargements (that would 1:8 - 1:12 taking, facing normally, and 8:1 - 12:1 reversed). Comparons for 2x - 6x. For most closeup/macro situations a Comparon would be a better bet; I've used a 105/4.5 Comparon as a macro len, its OK and there are better lenses.

Dan

Thanks for the infos about the Tominons, and about Shneider enlarging lenses.
For the Tominons i have already got the Polaroid/Compur #1, that came with an extra 135mm lens.
For the Componons, as son as possible i will try them the usual way, and reversed.
From which reproduction ratio should i start to use the lenses reversed?
In the past i have experimented a little with reversed lenses, namely:
- a Volna 80mm from a Kiev 60 fitted on an original Pentacon Six bellows adapted to a Pentax 6x7 bajonet
- a Som Berthiot 25mm "normal" for 16mm video cameras, that used in reverse position, and with the right aperture, became a cheap subtitute for a true micro lens.
So all my experiments involved "normal" non-symmetric lenses, optimized for infinite. I don't know which is the theory behind the use of a reversed enlarging lens. A simple rule of thumb would be enough...

Last thing, you commented on Componons and Comparons.
The longest focal enlarging lens i own is an humble Componar 4.5/105mm (well, it says 10,5 cm.). Being VERY old, i don't even know if it's a tessar-type or simply a triplet. Is it worth the time and effort to try to fit it on a shutter?

have fun

CJ

ret wisner

25-Apr-2010, 15:03

you will be ok just with coverage with the 105mm if your using it fo closeup/macro.

you have the lens, poke a hole in some cardboard and wack it on the camera.

Dan Fromm

25-Apr-2010, 15:24

Cyberjunkie, I think that Polaroid didn't use Compur shutters. Prontor Press on the MP-3, Copal Press on the MP-4 and Gel Cams.

Simple rule: if the lens is intended to be used with small negative behind and large subject/print in front, then use it facing normally (front towards subject/print) when taking at < 1:1/printing at > 1x. Reverse when taking at >= 1:1/printing at <= 1x. This makes best use of the lens' optimization.

You say you have a 100/5.6 Componon-S. It has to be a better lens than a 105/4.5 Componar. Forget the Componar, try the Componon-S. The Componar should be a triplet.

Good luck finding a 17/4 Tominon. They're not common, are the most expensive of the MP-4 Tominons when bought used. Play with your 35 Tominon before starting to shop seriously for a 17. If you can get the magnification needed with the 35, there's no point getting a 17. Remember that the 17 will give very short working distance.

BUY THE LEFKOWITZ BOOK! You come across as knowing too little to be safe or efficient.

So you used a SOM cine lens for high magnification work. Good. I don't know which one you used, suspect that the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II shot reversed at f/2.8, not wide open, will do better. I know that the 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar beats the 50 Tominon and the 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektar beats the 75 Tominon, all lenses mounted normally. These two Enlarging Ektars are heliar types, symmetrical, so don't have to be reversed when used above 1:1. But try y'r Tominons before rushing out to get anything else, they're usable.

Cheers,

Dan

Don Dudenbostel

25-Apr-2010, 19:58

CJ I've used a 135mm componon s in a copal 0 for copying art on 4x5 for the past thirty years and had excellent results. Making a 4x5 neg from a 16x20 piece of art is exactly the same as making a 16x20 print from a 4x5 neg. The only difference is the direction the lightis traveling. It makes no difference and works as well for copy work as it does for enlargement. The field is also very flat.

cyberjunkie

29-Apr-2010, 22:25

So you used a SOM cine lens for high magnification work. Good. I don't know which one you used, suspect that the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II shot reversed at f/2.8, not wide open, will do better. I know that the 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar beats the 50 Tominon and the 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektar beats the 75 Tominon, all lenses mounted normally. These two Enlarging Ektars are heliar types, symmetrical, so don't have to be reversed when used above 1:1. But try y'r Tominons before rushing out to get anything else, they're usable.

I don't have the cine lens at hand now, but i think that you guessed right!!
It's definitely a 25mm f1.9. And when used in reverse position had an almost conical shape that was very good for lighting the subject even when the lens was very close to it.

I am getting old, that's thesad truth, and my post will confirm it bejond any reasonable doubt. I realize that many things you (and the other very helpful members of the forum) are telling me are not new at all! Iam, well...rediscovering many things i already knew, and that i have forgotten long time ago!
After all, i used LF equipment for a very short time, and i haven't tripped the leaf shutters of my LF lenses since nearly twenty years! No suprise if some are stuck and most have very bad slow speeds.
Of course the Compound still works OK :-)
What's really unbelievable is that i have some lenses i didn't remeber at all, and at the same time i didn't find two lenses i was quite sure to own!
I expected to find a Tele-Arton and a 150mm Apo Lanthar, but probably i have sold them, cause they are not there. But even more amazing, there are two lenses i didn't remember at all! It's a 270mm Rotelar and an incredibly bulky, and heavy, Tokina 152mm f2.8. I even have a Super Angulon 8/75mm, very strange, cause i remembered only an Angulon 6.8/90mm that originally came with my Technika III.
No wonder if i'm asking stupid questions, and getting answers i realize i already knew...

Bah, i'm feeling a little ashamed, but i couldn't refrain from writing about it, cause it's really incredible :-)

Nack to the original thread now, and sorry for the detour.
Speaking of enlarger/repro lenses adaptable for LF use, i found also a Repro Claron 210mm. That's not a suprise, i knew about its existence, but reading some posts on the forum i have realized that it could be worth the time and effort to find a way to mount it on a shutter, and use it either with a 4x5 or with a 5x7.
My lens is exactly the same one as the barrel-mounted Claron portrayed on the pdf available on Schneider web site. I found the URL on this forum, and elsewhere.
The lens has a mounting flange, and has both a conventional iris, plus some slot-in diaphragms. A few are missing, but i have the adjustable one.
The minimum f value available is abysmally small. Of course after a certain point the diffraction should play an adverse role, but i guess that this lens is less prone to diffraction than conventional ones.
Of course, mounting the Repro-Claron on a conventional shutter that has already a diaphragm, i would say good-bye to all those minimal f/stop values, and probably i would not get that perfectly round aperture provided by the many leafs that compose the original iris mechanism.
The other choice would be to try to find an old big, cheap, shutter, and have an adapter ring machined to front mount the lens, using the thread that screws onto the flange.

I'm here, all ears, waiting for your precious feedback.
Please don't spare directions about what makes sense, economically speaking. I must admit that i don't know the current pricings, and that i don't know anymore somebody who could do that kind of work on the cheap, as a part time job.

have fun

CJ

Dan Fromm

30-Apr-2010, 07:06

cyberjunkie

1-May-2010, 20:34

CJ, for Repro-Clarons go here: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/repro_claron.pdf They are 4/4 dialyte type process lenses, in the same family as Apo Artars, Apo Ronars, and some but not all Apo Nikkors. The 210 covers 178 mm at infinity. Its cells should go directly into a #0 shutter. The barrel should be threaded M53x0.75 at the rear.

I've had a 55/8, fine lens but not so good for the application I had in mind for it because f/8. I wanted to use it above 1:1, the small effective aperture would have guaranteed poor resolution. Diffraction bites, and hard. Buy the Lefkowitz book! But y'r 210 should do well for closeup work below 1:1.

My Repro-Claron is exactly the same as the lens portrayed on the picture of the pdf you linked. It's a very old model, and i am afraid that it would not keep the correct lens placement if the front and rear cells are mounted on a standard #0 shutter.
But i hope i'm wrong.
I own it since quite a long time, but i never used it, cause the adapter i made for the Pentax 6x7 had a small problem, it just needed a small lathe filing, but was never fixed...
Now i hope to bring a new life to it.
From what i have read on the forum, and elsewhere, the Repro is as acceptable as the G-Claron at infinity, just less coverage.
An interesting thing i've read about the G-Claron is that it can be used as a convertible. Better if with B&W film and with a yellow filter.
The two Clarons are both symmetric in design, but the Repro is only a 4-element lens, and i don't know if it's worth or not to experiment using only the front cell.
Sheet films are expensive, and i don't want to waste them with senseless experiments.
On the other hand, i'd like to get a longer focal, at least 300mm, to be used with my old Fatif 5x7 camera. The Fatif came with the adapter for Linhof lens boards, so i could use some of the lenses for both 4x5 and 5x7. The cheapest lens i found is a Nikkor-M 300mm, with a modern Copal shutter. That would be nice, but if i could use the front element of the Repro-Claron as portrait lens, i could postpone the purchase and maybe save enough money for a Soft Focus long focal (no. 1 on my wish list), and then some kind of cheap Tessar-type long focal for general use.
BTW, why all SF lenses are so expensive?

Thanks for your kind support

have fun

CJ

Dan Fromm

2-May-2010, 05:20

CJ, please visit the LF Home Page and read the lens articles.

Your Repro-Claron was made after WW-II. Its cells should fit a modern #0 and the spacing should be right. The 210 will not cover 5x7 at infinity.

Schneider did not recommend using single cells of Repro Clarons or G-Clarons. That's a very strong hint. That said, many people practice lens abuse.

I'm astonished that the least expensive 300 you found is a 300/9 Nikkor-M.

Why are SF lenses so expensive? Not that common and there's a small but still growing soft focus cult.

neil poulsen

2-May-2010, 12:49

You can check with Schneider Optics tech support to verify, but I believe that your Componon-S 100mm lens will work in a Copal 0 shutter. Just remove the cells from the Componon-S barrel and screw them into the Copal 0 shutter.

Depending on the focal length of the lens for which the Copal 0 shutter is intended, you may need a correction factor in order to dial in a correct aperture. If the focal length is known, this is easy enough to calculate.

cyberjunkie

16-May-2010, 16:27

I am waiting for a few shutters, either expensive (Compur No. 0 and Compur Electronic No. 1), and cheaper (a couple of Polaroid/Prontor and Polaroid/Copal, either for ON shutter or IN shutter lens mounting).
I'll soon be able to experiment with all my enlarger and repro lenses, plus a G-Claron 240mm on barrel i've just got.
Thre are a few lenses that have the same or very similar focal length, i will try them all on cheap 120 film, and scan a few test pictures, to realize what's best and what's not, and eventually sell the optics i don't like.
I have already a small optical target, i think i've cut it from an old Kodak leaflet, long time ago. But it's very small, so if somebody knows about an optical resolution target avalable online, that would be nice. I would just need a .pdf of the target, and print it on an A4 paper sheet. It would be bigger, and good for pictures shot from a distance. Better if used with lenses that are optimized for infinity focus.
Coming back to enlarger and repro lenses, i would like to know if i'm right about enlarger lens use with LF cameras.
While the various Tominons for the Polaroid MP-4 have an optimal reproduction ratio (available from the macrophotography guide for the MP-4), as well as all the Clarons (for which Schneider provides PDF's with full specs, unfortunately in german language!), the enlarger lenses have an advised projection ratio, but no comments whatsover about their use as taking lenses.
As far as i understand there should be no difference in the way the light travels, if a lens is optimized for enlargements of about ten times the size of the film, the same lens should be good as a LF taking lens for tabletop/still life use. If we take the ratio of 1:10, and a 4x5" film , the lens should perform well with a subject of a width of about 1.2mt., if there is enough coverage, of course.
Following the same rule, some Apo lenses optimized for wall projection on very big enlarging papers, should perform better with infinity, or close-to-infinity focusing.
Am i right?
Or maybe i'm just overlooking something... i'm not very experienced.
I've just used shorter enlarger lenses on bellows, with 35mm cameras, but never exceeding 1:1 macros, because i had a reversed 25mm prime for 16mm video camera, or a Canon lens with microscope thread, that were a better choice for extreme macros.
Of course the reproduction ratio means totally different things if different film formats are used. A 1:2 on 35mm means to fill the frame with a big dragonfly, with 4x5" means protraying a small vase with a flower!:eek:

I will do my tests, but would be very grateful if somebody tells me if i'm right or wrong

have fun

CJ

Dan Fromm

16-May-2010, 17:15

cyberjunkie

17-May-2010, 18:55

The magnifications recommended for MP-4 Tominon macro lenses in Polaroid literature are simply the magnifications they'll give on a standard (not -XL) MP-4. These are attainable, not the best ... I found the 17 mm to be best at around 20:1, the 35 variable from example to example and best between 10:1 to 20:1, the 50 around 9:1 to 12:1. the 75 best around 4:1, and the 135 simply horrible. At its sharpest, each focal length is sharper than the next longer one at its sharpest.

Ok.
Thanks for advice.
It's more or less the magnification ratios i was guessing for those lenses.
The nice thing is that, having the same thread in common, and being front mounted on the shutter, they're easily usable with other cameras/film formats.

If you must test lenses above 1:1, buy a USAF 1951 on glass target from Edmund Industrial Optics. The inexpensive one goes up to 228 lp/mm.

I thought I told you that Schneider says Componons are best for enlarging from 8x to 12x, Comparons from 2x to 6x. That corresponds to taking at 1:8 - 1:12 and 1:2 - 1:6 facing normally, 8:1 to 12:1 and 2:1 - 6:1 reversed. They also say that each is better in its good range than the other.

I will use the resolution target i have already, having a target shipped from abroad would cost too much, and i'm not willing to spend too much money on tests that have too much variables to be truly significant. Even MTF lens tests made by magazines/Internet sites, with expensive hardware, are often criticized for being too little scientific or for overlooking something important.
In the end, if you are an amateur and practice LF photography for your own pleasure, it's you who pay the money for lenses, and it's you who must be satisfied about them:)
Unfortunately testing a new lens on the field takes time and some expensive film, so doing some kind of homemade test could be of some help, but it has to be seen if it's more on a psicological level than on a practical one. :)

I did remember your previous answer about suggested reproduction ratios for Componons and Comparons. I was simply asking for a confirmation. The simple fact that it's not important if the light is traveling in one direction or the other, made me consider that in practice the same reproduction ratio means different things, if different film formats are used.
With a 35mm, a 1:6 ratio is a semi-macro (or, more correctly, a close-up), while the same ratio on 10x12cm. film, could mean a table-top picture.
I love shooting still life compositions, and i was striken by the idea that an enlarger lens for 4x5" printing could become a nice taking lens for that kind of pictures.
So i was asking if the practice confirms it, and if some forum users have enjoyed that kind of lenses as still life optics .

Scanning film before measuring image quality is stupid. The scan can't be better than the raw film. Shoot your targets, examine the negatives at high magnification. Use a microscope, 50x should be enough.
For the nth time, buy and read the Lefkowitz book I think I recommended earlier in this thread before you ask more questions or take a single picture. You'll get a better education from it than from short answers to badly posed questions.

Then lots of people are stupid.
The Internet is full of pages where any kind of different theories about lenses/scanners/films are supposedly demonstrated by ... guess what, film scans!
I have seen scans made with cheap flatbed scanners, enlarged to a point where the film grain was evident, without too much image degradation. So i suppose that something sgnificant can be gotten out of it.
I'm not saying that a scan, whichever the machine used for scanning, could be better than the film itself!
The real thing is the real thing, and a digital representation of the original is not on par with it.
But if you want to do a quick evaluation of a new lens, and you have no microscope at home, performing a quick scan and doing a simple on-screen enlargement of the file, could be used as a quick-and-dirty test, with no additional tools required.
Maybe i'm not sophisticated enough, after all i came to this forum to learn, not because i was already an expert!

I understand your advice about the Lefkovitz book, but i live on the other side of the Atlantic, and not all books are available. As soon as i find it without having to pay for the shipment from USA, i will definitely buy it. I love photographic theory, and books that go in depth, so i'm sure that i will enjoy it.
About "badly posed questions"... maybe it has more to do with writing in a foreign language, than with any other thing. After all nothing i have written was wrong or meaningless. I was just asking for a confirmation about what i understood, maybe in a way that's just a little bit naive. Nothing more.

have fun

CJ

Dan Fromm

18-May-2010, 05:04

Have you looked for the book?

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=4166756&keyword=lester+lefkowitz&qsort=p&matches=19&cm_sp=works*listing*buyused

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0817421300/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274183527&sr=1-1&condition=used and look at shipping rates. If you can't afford $US 25 for the book you can't afford to take pictures.

The targets you can download don't have the fine detail needed to assess how well a lens performs in the close-up (magnification 1:10 - 1:1) and macro (magnification > 1:1) ranges. Tests with the wrong target won't help you make decisions.

A simple resolution test (actually a series) will find the range of magnifications at which the lens is good enough to use. Implicit in that is whether the lens is good enough to use at all. I own some lenses that aren't good enough to use.

cyberjunkie

27-May-2010, 14:47

Thanks Dan!
I was not aware that used books could be purchased so cheap, using Amazon search engine.
The book is on its way to Italy, i hope to get it soon.

But another advice i was given proved to be misleading:
my old Repro-Claron 210mm, in barrel mount (with slot-in variable diaphragm for extra-small f stops), couldn't be fitted in a No. 0 shutter, as per Schneider literature.
To put it simple, it couldn't be fitted in a No. 1 either, cause the thread diameter is too big. If i correctly remember, my caliper gave me a measure of around 43mm, including thread. So it's too small for a No. 3 and too big for a No. 1.
Looking at the two (identical) cells i had just removed, in dim light, i thought that the thread was around the smaller internal lens. So without looking further i promptly tried to screw the cell on a Compur No. 0 i had on the table. It didn't fit! The thread was around the bigger (outer) lens. So it's evident, as i checked later, that the Repro-Claron cells used for barrel mount are not the same ones, mechanically, as the shutter-mounted ones. In fact, looking at the pdf about Repro-Claron lenses produced after 1972, available from Schneider web site, you can easily see that the barrel-mounted lenses have no indication about which barrel is used. The same lenses in "verschluss" (shutter) have all the infos about shutter size and threads diameters. Other pdf's about different (mostly newer) Schneider lenses have both references about barrel No. and shutter No. and i could personally check that a lens in a No. 0 barrel would easily fit in a No. 0 shutter without any need for shims to correctly space the cells. I just did it with my Componon-S 100mm, early eighties i think, and a 240mm G-Claron; both were easily fitted on a No. 0 Synchro-Compur and a No. 1 Compur Electronic, keeping the same dimensions they had when they were fitted on their original No. 0 and No. 1 barrels. Of course this is confirmed by the relevant pdf's.
It's very nice to have the documentation of old Schneider lenses available online.
On the other hand, Rodenstock barrel lenses have no neither online documentation nor standard barrel mounts, as far as i know. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Coming back to my Repro-Claron, the cheapest solution that comes to my mind is to have two custom-made adapter rings that would keep the correct lens spacing.
Unfortunately a No. 1 shutter seems to be a little too tight, because the rear thread is more or less the same diameter of the internal element. Maybe the right ring/spacer would keep the element aat distance that would prevent vignetting, but i would feel more at ease with a bigger shutter. A standard No. 3 shutter would be too expensive (i don't own one), so maybe a better solution could be found in some oddball shutter, like an old No. 2, or one of those medium size US-made shutters that are easily found on Ebay, maybe with an attached Kodak or Wollensak press lens.
Those shutters can be quite difficult to find in Europe, only those mounted on Graflex press cameras are easier to find. So i don't know much about them, and i would be very happy if somebody helps me out, with a few suggestions about a cheap and viable option. Some of those shutters are already very expensive on the bay, expecially the bigger ones: i have seen Ilex No. 5 shutters, in barely decent condition, sold for more than 200 hundred bucks!

have fun

CJ