Enlarger lens comparisons

[Donald Miller]

I am in the process of deleting some of my duplication in enlarger lenses. I am asking for input based strictly on lens design and performance. I don't care about personal preferences.

I have recently come by a 150 Rodenstock Rodagon and I already have a 150 El Nikkor as well as an older 135 Schneider Companon. Which of the first two lenses is the better lens apart from personal preference? I understand that the Companon is probably not up to the standards of the more recent lenses.

I also have a 240 Schneider Companon and a 8 1/4 inch Red Dot Apo Artar. Aside from focal length difference which of these two lenses would be preferable?

I have a 80 Rodenstock Rodagon and a 75 Schneider Companon. Which of these two lenses would be preferable?

Thanks for your information.

[Michael S. Briggs]

The Rodagon and 150 El-Nikkor are top-quality designs of 6 elements in 4 groups. This is true of all Rodagons and all El-Nikkors except the 50 and 75 mm f4 models.





How old are the Companons? The only names of enlarging lenses that I have seen in Schneider literature are Componon, Comparon and Componar, along with permuations that add a suffix letter, such as Componon-S. I have a few paper brochures, Schneider USA has posted some information on vintage enlarging lenses at http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/enlarging_lenses/ and Schneider Kreuzhnach has posted pdf versions of many older brochures of various ages at http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm. I don't see a Companon mentioned in any of these.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Don

In the last enlarger lens test of a german photomag where they tested lenses up to 105mm not longer sorry but the winner was a 60mm Schneider for 4.5x6 second was the new 45mm APO Rodagon 3. was the 105mm APO Rodagon just a tiny bit in front of the rest of the Schneiders and Rodenstocks and Nikkons. In the most focal lenghs nikons have been a very tiny bit behind the Schneiders and Rodenstocks re sharpness. But the differences are so small you never will see a difference with your eyes! I have a Rodenstock Rodagon and it is at f11 the sharpest lens even sharper then the APO Rodenstock if you study the MTFs, but I need a 135 mm Nikon now because of a lower seiling and I'm fully happy with it! The Nikon is a tiny bit contrasier and is the only chance to get a 40x50 cm print for my set up now! Good luck!

[Thilo Schmid]

Don,

Check whether your 150mm EL-Nikkor is MC or not (should be visible against a light source). If it is (they usually are), it might be slightly better than your 150mm Rodagon, which is usually only single coated (except for the APO- or G-Versions). If your 135mm Componon is an old one with a chromium plated brass barrel (heavy!), I would keep it. You would not get much for it and it might be useful for some applications. These older lenses do have slightly lower contrast (up to one paper grade, depending on mag-ratio).

[Bill_1856]

In enlarger lenses, there is more variation between individual lenses than between brands (within the same price category). The only way you're gonna know which is best is to test the ones you've got. My guess is that either a) you won't be able to tell the difference, or b) if there is any difference it's because the bad one(s) is really a "stinker."

[Donald Miller]

I'm sorry when I posted this late last evening I mistakenly misspelled the Schneider Componon lens and misidentified the 240 mm. The 240 mm is the Componon S. My El Nikkor is the multicoated version.

What about the 8 1/4 in. Goerz Red Dot Apo Artar?...which I assume is a process lens but has been mounted into a Durst lens board to fit the 138 S enlarger. Is it worth using?

[Ernest Purdum]

Don, regarding your Apo Artar question, thgere are several comments on Neil Poulsen's thread about the difference between process lenses and enlarging lenses which should be helpful.



The Apo Artar is indeed a process lens and a good one, quite tolerant of differences subject/image ratio.

[Michael S. Briggs]

The Rodagons, El-Nikkors and Componons (and Componon-S) lenses that you have are all very high quality and of a similar design of 6 elements in 4 groups. There isn't much to choose from them based on the names.

I would lean towards the 240 Schneider Componon-S over 8 1/4 inch Red Dot Apo Artar mainly because it is an enlarger lens with a faster aperture for focusing.

Unless the 150 mm focal length prevents you from making the enlargement size that you want, I would tend towards one of the 150s over the 135 Componon -- also because you say the Componon is older. The illuminiation will be a little more even and you will be using less angular coverage so the corners should be slightly better -- perhaps not noticably so.

Other considerations are the age of the lens and how well they have been treated. One from the past couple of decades is likely to have a better coating than an even older lens. As Thilo suggests, examine the lenses to see how they are coated.

But the real answer is probably only attainable by testing. Was their a slight manufacturing mistake on one of the lenses? Did someone store one of the lens in a hot area so that stuff evaporated and condensed on the inner glass surfaces, creating haze? Did someone drop one and disturb the alignment?

Ctein in his book Post Exposure describes a lot of possible tests. To be simple, I suggest using a negative with detail all over, focus carefully in the middle, and then to examine the corners at several apertures.

[John Kasaian]

Don,

Regarding using your Artar for enlarging: It will indeed work, but I find f/9 very dim for focusing. You've got so many excellent enlarging lenses as it is, why bother with it? Mount it on your 4x5 instead!------Cheers!

[kallitype]

Pardon me for being testy, but for God's sake man---you have the lenses! make comparison prints! Why are you wasting your time asking us??? Geez. Use your eyes. Better yet, send me all the lenses, and I will use them for a few months, and send them back with my conclusions.