Durst Componon and Componon. What is the difference?

[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.

Lens Pairs for Twin Lens Norma so far by Nokton48, 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?