How much difference in performance is there between a Componon 300mm f5.6 and a Componon-S of the same focal length and aperture. I noticed a big difference in cost in the used equipment market. Is the design different. The 150 Componon-S I have is multicoated. Are the plain Componons? Please elucidate.
I've used the Componon S, but not the Componon, so I can't compare their performance. Both exist with and without multi-coating. (My 80mm C-S is multi-coated, my 150mm isn't.) It's my understanding that the Componon-S performs best at about 3x, whereas the Componon perform best at higher magnifications of 6x-12x. (This would explain why current Componons are offered only in smaller focal lengths.) The development of the Componon-S is more recent. (70's?) While I'm not sure, I believe older Componon's exist that are uncoated.
Steve, I bought a used enlarger, came with a chrome Componon 150 mm. This lens i s a poor ferformer. It needs to be screwed up to deliver some sharpness in the corners.
In my own testing,anything with an S after the Componon name will out print a plain Componon sharper.Maybe that's what -s stands for.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks