Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    26

    240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    The 240mm Componon-S is good for a 180 x 240 mm negative. I hope it is also good for a 8x10" negative, that is 203 x 254 mm.

    https://www.artisantg.com/info/Schne...1128153237.pdf

    Can someone confirm ?

  2. #2
    Eric Woodbury
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,512

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    I use a 210 Nikkor for 8x10. Pretty sure your Componon-S will be fine. Regardless, these focal lengths are short for 8x10 and thus the angles from the lens through the negative to the diffuser are wide. Be sure your lightsource is wide enough and the diffuser even enough to provide adequate illumination across the negative. Your are good to go. Carry on.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    26

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    Thank you for the information

  4. #4
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,284

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    Expect quite a bit of falloff, so you're either going to have to grind a diffuser thicker at the center than the edges, or burn in the corners proportionately during exposure. It also seems that 240's, being shorter than "normal", need to be about one more stop down than longer lenses for optimal corner sharpness. Test for this; but I'd expect f/16 to be the sweet spot, rather than f/ll like with longer lenses closer to the film diagonal.
    These seem to be a rather common lenses, vs the 240 Rodagon which fetches higher prices on the used market. I've tested my 240 Apo Nikkor, but have plenty of column height, so prefer my 305 or 360 lenses for 8X10 film due to their perfect evenness with the ordinary flat diffusion sheet. Basic burning-in of corners is no big deal in ordinary black and white printing, but can impose hell to do consistently in certain types of color printing.

  5. #5
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5,951

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    No question in my darkroom my Componon 240mm is not as sharp at the corners on a 16x20 projection when examined with my Peak 1 magnifier, compared to my 300mm lens. The 240 appears 'just ok' but the 300mm is pretty amazing with exactly the same resolution at center and every corner.
    However, I can't detect the difference in prints.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0225.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	42.4 KB 
ID:	214671

  6. #6
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5,951

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    Drew's comments about light falloff are very true. Realize, when looking at these graphs, they are normalized to 100% on the X-axis. The U-max (1/2 film diagonal) is set differently for each lens. To compare both on 8x10 you need to alter the scale. For example the 300mm lens data is plotted as if it is projecting film with a 370mm diagonal.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-04-08 at 6.14.49 PM.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	42.6 KB 
ID:	214672
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-04-08 at 6.14.40 PM.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	42.5 KB 
ID:	214673

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Madisonville, LA
    Posts
    2,316

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    I donít see significant fall off with my 240 Rodagon. I even use a 210 for small enlargements from 810.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,278

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    Print papers do not have any where near the resolution of film. This is partly why extreme high performance enlarging lenses are not always greatly beneficial. What is and can be visible is light fall off. Again, there are a long list of variables and factors that influence this. IMO, the proper way to deal with projection light fall off is to use a longer than typical or normal focal length enlarging lens and make sure the enlarger light source is properly configured and set up for the lens to be used and film size to be projected.

    8x10 = 300mm or 360mm

    5x7 = 210mm or 240mm

    4x5 = 180mm or 210mm



    That said, the needs of using a longer than normal focal length lens for projection enlargement often demands significant base board to projection head distance or a floor standing enlarger. Yet, most that do projection enlargements from sheet film insist on using a table top enlarger with the shortest focal length possible often due to base board to projection head distance limitations.


    Bernice

  9. #9
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,284

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    It's there, Luis. The practical effect diminshes at smaller f/stops. People who shoot wide-angle lenses a lot might not notice the falloff in the print because the falloff of their taking lens itself tends to compensate for it, a fortuitous characteristic deliberately employed by some practitioners. Or a compensating diffuser might already be in place in the enlarger housing. But if you objectively compared this to what you get with a longer longer lens, with each respective lens at the same f/stop like f/8, the native falloff of the 210 and 240 enlarging lenses would be quite evident.

    If this falloff doesn't bother you, Luis, then don't worry about it. But it would have been a deal breaker for me back in my high contrast Cibachrome printing days. Yes, I know big labs that used 240's for this very kind of work, but in turn they needed very aggressively contoured diffusers specific to individual lenses at certain f/stops, and then required a LOT of hot lumens to punch through all of that extra density making big enlargements. Grinding custom thick acrylic diffusers is a pain in the butt, but I've done it several times. And switching back and forth between different focal length lenses is so much easier to accommodate with a single flat diffuser, relying on various lenses of longer than normal focal length respective to film format, or at least in the "normal" range with modest corner and edge burning. For many of my projects, burning-in is simply not an option; I need the exposure light completely even to begin with.
    For example, I'll use a 150 lens for 6X9 film, a 180 or 240 for 4X5, and 360 for 8X10, although my 305 Apo Nikkor will also deliver me complete evenness of field for 8X10 from f/11 down.
    Fortunately, I have a very high ceiling in the room where my 8X10 color enlargers are, for sake of tall enlarger columns. My modified 5X7 enlargers are in a smaller room with a normal height ceiling, easier to keep warm in winter, where I do most of my 4X5 and MF printing, as well as film-specific work.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,278

    Re: 240mm Componon-S on 8x10 enlarger

    Right back to print goals, expectations and all related. Light fall off due to using a wide angle projection enlargement lens can compensate for light fall off of a wide angle taking lens, how good might this match be.. another long list of variables.

    BTW, still of the opinion APO process lenses (APO nikkor, APO artar, APO ronar) often do better than enlarger lenses.

    Then again how many image makers are that picky and care about these "details" today when field folder view cameras are pressed into projection enlarger duty using a tripod?


    Bernice

Similar Threads

  1. Schneider Kreuznach Componon-S 240mm Lens for 8x10
    By RedSun in forum Darkroom: Equipment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19-Sep-2012, 16:19

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •