What are/were the primary differences between the Schneider Componon and Componar enlarging lenses?

-- Clark Farrar (cfarrar@southwind.net), June 26, 1998

Answers

Componon are more expensive and higher quality. Componon-S are even more so. See http://www.schneideroptics.com/ for the technical details of the current range.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), June 26, 1998.

Alan provided you with correct information. Please allow me to expand on his response. The Companon-S is a six element enlarging lens; the Companar is a cheap four eliment 'student' quality lens. Please resist the temptation to save money! The quality of the image from a Companon-S is remarkably superior to that from a Companar. Why spend thousands of dollars on cameras and taking lenses just to throw it away at the enlarger? Buy the best! Period. Sacrifice meals in restaurants, dates, new car, whatever it takes to acquire the finest tools you can find. Otherwise, how will you know how good you really are!

There are some very excellent enlarging lenses from Japan. Computar lenses are spectacular, and are available used for bargain prices. It seems that few people have discovered this 'sleeper.' Nikor's multicoated EL-Nikkors are very good, too. Avoid the old uncoated ones; they never achieved much above the level of mediocrity.

I hope this is helpful.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), July 02, 1998.

I agree absolutely with Michael. Think of the photographic process as a chain: the final quality depends on the weakest link. In fact, a high quality enlarging lens can "pep-up" a negative from a low-quality camera lens, but a poor enlarger lens will always turn out a bad print. Unfortunately, the market for enlarger lenses is quite small, so they are expensive.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), July 03, 1998.

Alen,

You stated that "...the photographic process as a chain: the final quality depends on the weakest link.". Maybe, BUT is it the camera body, lens, film, development, enlarging lens, or the PHOTOGRAPHER?

I spend some time as a salesman at a photo equipment store - and I have noticed this tendency of photographers to believe that the only obstacle between them and eternal fame is the quality of their equipment. Poor ones... (and rich shop owner). Instead of spending time and money on studying photography, reading books or experimenting - thy poured their entire budget into a useless Nikon F4. Why useless? Because they did not use even 20% of its futures and potential. Nor did they come even close to exploit the real strength of Nikkor lenses  they just PAID for it. Most of them never printed a print larger than 10"x8" - they could achieve same results with any fair camera and lens.

So, I think that advising to go only for the best (as Michael D Fraser does)  in most cases is a bad one. My advice is to match equipment to photographer's needs and skills.

Regarding to your statement that: a high quality enlarging lens can "pep-up" a negative from a low-quality camera lens, but a poor enlarger lens will always turn out a bad print  I really disagree on that. No enlarging lens can bring back lost contrast, details, composition, drama, interest, or whatever makes a fine photograph. Poor enlarging lens (?)  it is really difficult to find one coming from Nikon or Schneider  stop down any lens to f:8 (there is no practical limit on exposure time in the darkroom) and you will not see any difference on prints below 18~20 (diagonal). Light fall-off at the corners  90% of this is caused by poor enlarger optics (especially the condenser type).

Yes Alan, the chain is as strong as it's weakest element, but it is as extravagant as it's strongest (and most expensive) element.

Regarding the original question - opt for the four elements Componar. The high-end Componon and Componon-S are justified in a commercial dark-room for the most critical professional work. Does this matches the intended usage???

I personally prefer the Nikkor EL 50mm f/2.8 since it is easier to preview and focus at f/2.8. I print at f/8 since above that it is defraction limited.

-- Ze'ev Kantor (zeevk@netvision.net.il), July 11, 1998.

Enlarger lens quality

I have just been checking out a leitz 50/4.5 versus my normal Jessop(UK chain store) 4 element 50/4.5. At 10X magnification by F8 there is no discernable difference. There is far more difference in the rest of the variables. The test negative is a informal snap of my daughter taken with flash, Pentax 50/1.7 at 5.6 on Ilford Delta 400/ ID11 1+1. At this magnification the grain is just visible in midtones at a very close viewing distance. So for a selective 10x8 a four element lens stopped down a couple of stops is the least of my problems. The four element lens has better contrast.

-- Richard Saunders (r_m_saunders@yahoo.com), August 17, 1999.

The flip side to the small market for enlarging lenses is that used ones are relatively cheap. I have purchased four EL Nikkor lenses for my darkroom for a total of $1,000 US. This gives me coverage from 35mm to 4x5. I found a 150/5.6 mounted on a Beseler board for $375, half the new price of the lens alone. Take your time, look carefully and buy the best as advised above.

-- Darron Spohn (sspohn@concentric.net), July 06, 1998.

I think I should move to the States... :-}

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), July 06, 1998.

"Componar vs. Companon"

Clark asked: >>What are/were the primary differences between the Schneider Componon and Componar enlarging lenses?<<

The Companon lenses are of 6-element construction, the Componars are 4-element, the Comparons are 3-element. The more elements, as a general rule, the higher quality, i.e. more sharpness, less fall off and so on.

My advice is to not bother with the lesser lens

-- Bob O'Shaughnessy (bob.os@columbus.rr.com), July 08, 1998.

My remark about regarding the photographic process as a chain was mostly about the technical aspects of, for example, retaining image definition. A common mistake is to use superb camera lenses, and to lose the edge from a poor enlarging lens. In some sense, the quality of the enlarging lens should "match" that of the camera lens. Another common mistake is, I agree, to spend lots of money on expensive equipment in the search for the "magic bullet". The photographer is indeed far more important than the equipment.

Although I agree that an enlarger lens cannot restore detail or anything else that has been lost, I stick to my statement that a good enlarger lens can "pep-up" a negative from a poor camera lens, but a poor enlarger lens will always lower the quality of the image. The "peping-up" includes capturing the film grain on the print. Although this may be a personal preference, I always prefer prints that are this way round.

I won't comment on whether the Componar is ever good enough; I have never used one.

I will add that if someone is forced to scrimp on materials in order to pay for the more expensive lens, I would recommend buying the cheaper lens and spending more on materials.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), July 13, 1998.

In addition to the remarks above, I believe that the Componar lenses were recommended for smaller scale prints - 4X, whereas the Componons were recommended for larger scale prints - around 10X. Maybe the recommendations were made in regard to the limitations in performance rather than that the lenses were computed for those magnifications. I would opt for the Componon, since its performance at 4X would probably be equal to or better than the Componar. I doubt that at that magnification one would see any difference with any enlarger lense at their optimum aperture, probably f8 or f11.

-- Eilert Anders (eilert@dav.com), July 22, 1998.

I've always used Componons, mostly because I obught them before the creation of the Componon S line. I've observed subtle variations between lenses of the same type and maker. E.g. there are Componons and there are Componons. So finding the best enlarging lens is not only a matter of brand, it's a matter of finding the best lenses within that brand. Harry

-- Harry Gehlert (cantabene@aol.com), February 18, 1999.