I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & white printing over the Componon -S I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S curves seem flatter than the HM ones.
The Rodenstock charts seem to be a lot easier to understand, well they are marketed as such anyway. Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N enlarging lenses to be on a par with the HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter. What about bigger magnifications, say 12X.
Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series, perform equally to the eye.
"otzi" <x...@xxx.xxx.au> wrote: > I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. > The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & > white printing > over the Componon -S > I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S curves > seem flatter than the HM ones.
> The Rodenstock charts seem to be a lot easier to understand, well they are > marketed as such anyway. > Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N enlarging > lenses to be on a par with the > HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter. What about bigger > magnifications, say 12X.
> Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series, > perform equally to the eye.
Isn't the APO Rodagon-N intended for copy work as a taking lens?
-- Charles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson)
"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers, treehuggers, social climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies, and chronic petition signers that makes up the current Episcopal Church . . ." -‹Thomas Lipscomb
> I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. > The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & > white printing > over the Componon -S > I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S curves > seem flatter than the HM ones.
> The Rodenstock charts seem to be a lot easier to understand, well they are > marketed as such anyway. > Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N enlarging > lenses to be on a par with the > HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter. What about bigger > magnifications, say 12X.
> Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur series, > perform equally to the eye.
As I recall, the HM lenses permit a bit more magnification with a given set-up because they have a somewhat wider field. This permits using a shorter focal length lens and thus more enlargement.
If you need that, it would seem to be of interest. You may be right, that there is something given up getting the wider field.
Even so, extracting the last bit of performance from whatever lens is also an issue. You also need pretty good technique to see the advantage of a lens that is claimed to be better than the Componon-S (or a Rodagon). In particular, you need to eliminate vibration, eliminate any misalignment, focus accurately and avoid any curl or pop in the negative (for big negatives, this may mean a glass carrier).
> I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. > The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & > white printing > over the Componon -S > I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S > curves > seem flatter than the HM ones.
> The Rodenstock charts seem to be a lot easier to understand, well they are > marketed as such anyway. > Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N > enlarging > lenses to be on a par with the > HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter. What about > bigger > magnifications, say 12X.
> Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur > series, > perform equally to the eye.
As I recall, the HM lenses permit a bit more magnification with a given set-up because they have a somewhat wider field. This permits using a shorter focal length lens and thus more enlargement.
If you need that, it would seem to be of interest. You may be right, that there is something given up getting the wider field.
Even so, extracting the last bit of performance from whatever lens is also an issue. You also need pretty good technique to see the advantage of a lens that is claimed to be better than the Componon-S (or a Rodagon). In particular, you need to eliminate vibration, eliminate any misalignment, focus accurately and avoid any curl or pop in the negative (for big negatives, this may mean a glass carrier).
I just wondered if the HM was more for colour work, rather than B&W.
On May 7, 7:32 pm, "otzi" <x...@xxx.xxx.au> wrote: ...
> I just wondered if the HM was more for colour work, rather than B&W.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sometimes Bob Salomon posts on this board and he would have more details at his fingertips.
My opinion is that unless you need the extra coverage the obvious choice is whichever is cheaper. It wll be hard to see a difference in image quality between the lenses using either B&W or color. The Componon-S, the Rodagon, the Nikon and the HM Componon are excellent lenses (usually - individual variation or especially damage in a used lens is possible).
> I just wondered if the HM was more for colour work, rather > than B&W.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Sometimes Bob Salomon posts on this board and he would have more details at his fingertips.
My opinion is that unless you need the extra coverage the obvious choice is whichever is cheaper. It wll be hard to see a difference in image quality between the lenses using either B&W or color. The Componon-S, the Rodagon, the Nikon and the HM Componon are excellent lenses (usually - individual variation or especially damage in a used lens is possible).
One problem with "wide angle" enlarging lenses is light fall off. Fall off is due to geometric properties and increases with the image angle. It can be reduced to some degree in some types of wide angle lenses but I don't think this principal is used for enlarging lenses. As an example I use a 135mm lens for enlarging 4x5 negatives and must burn the corners. Standard for this format is 150mm but 180mm would be better for corner to corner uniformity, however, it would require a very long throw (tall column). I concur that unless you need a wide angle lens because of lack of projection space its better to use a longer focal length. As far as the MTF charts from the various manufacturers go they really don't tell you much. Rodenstock's chromatic correction curve shows that their "apo" lenses are not apochromatic but acromatic and AFAIK so are Schneider's. This really makes no practical difference because both lines are very well corrected. For the most part the older Schneider Componon-S is excellent and there is not a lot to be gained by using newer and much more expensive lenses although their performance is marginally better. BTW, one of the reasons for the redesign of both enlarging and camera lenses in the last couple of decades is the lack of certain kinds of optical glass due to some components being considered environmental hazards. For instance arsenic was a common ingredient in glass to clarify it and must not be used now. Since some of the glass constants have changed the designs have had to be changed. Not a big deal with computer assisted design but it does require making some changes. The original Tessar could not be built now because the glass types it calls for are no longer available.
-- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickb...@ix.netcom.com
On Thu, 08 May 2008 01:19:35 +1000, otzi wrote: > I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty > good. The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for > black & white printing > over the Componon -S > I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S > curves seem flatter than the HM ones.
> The Rodenstock charts seem to be a lot easier to understand, well they > are marketed as such anyway. > Would the lens folk of this community consider the APO-Rodagon - N > enlarging lenses to be on a par with the > HM series or the Componon - S series? And does it matter. What about > bigger magnifications, say 12X.
> Would all the modern (new) enlarging lenses, apart from the amateur > series, perform equally to the eye.
Perhaps, this might help solve your quandary or, at least, be enlightening.
Years ago, a friend of mine, a Rochester Institute of Technology graduate in the photo processing and laboratory fields, owned a pro lab, a dream of his. He had all manner of enlarging lenses of all makes and models-- Componons, Comparons, Rodagons, and some I'd never heard of. One day, the Rodagon rep came in and gave him a couple Apo-Rodagons to try out. They were a new design. To make a long story short: He ended up replacing EVERY enlarger lens in the lab with Apo-Rodagons for both color and b&w. He said that you could actually see the improved image quality with the naked eye even in an 8x10 print, and they did prints up to 8x10 feet. But to truly benefit from the superiority and flatness of field of the lenses, you had to use glass carriers to hold the film perfectly flat, and all the stages of your enlarger had to be in perfect alignment and parallel to the vacuum printing easel.
I've accumulated a large number of good lenses over some time and also recently got about 20 more in a purchase of a pro lab /business odd lot. I decided to test the most desirable ones for my own duty and took time with a Versalign rig to get all planes in proper alignment for a run through.
The 40HM, 45HM and Rodagon APO 50 were judged about equal and all were only slightly ahead of the standard Rodagons and Componon-S but only discernible at higher magnifications. The single Nikkor 50 2.8 was slightly less sharp than the others mentioned but this could easily be a single sample variation as these enjoy a good reputation. An odd Fujinon 49.9 EFS did very well and was nipping at the APO heels and I believe anyone would be happy with it. A 63mm Nikkor was also in this same class as was a 40WA Rodagon.
The Rodagon 80 APO and Componon HM 90 seemed equal to each other and in practice these show a very slight advantage for the Rodagon as there is something about how it renders mid tone/skin tones that is especially nice, at least with my materials and practices. Again, the standard Rodagons and Comp-S did well against these until more extreme enlargement sizes. A Nikkor 80 showed poorly but it had a bit of dust internally and may not have been a good sample. A single Componon S 100 did nicely and did slightly better than a pair of 105 Nikkors.
It was fun to have all of these nice chunks of glass all in one place for some comparisons. I learned that I could likely be happy with most any of them but use the APOs in general use for little more reason than the psychology of having the best glass on the machine. I would describe myself as "fussy" regarding optics and I'll admit that this entire exercise had me conclude that it is truly hair-splitting to discern any real world difference in any of these good quality choices. Perhaps if I worked in color, I would find characteristics that would favor one over another. In black and white, my best tools for quality in darkroom projection has turned out to be my alignment tool and grain focuser! Any of the differences I've highlighted were very, very slight and had me pondering long and hard to tell any difference.
On Thu, 8 May 2008 01:19:35 +1000, "otzi" <x...@xxx.xxx.au> wrote: >I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. >The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & >white printing >over the Componon -S >I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S curves >seem flatter than the HM ones.
Thanks for all the input folks. I was curious but unconvinced. Just wondered why so much was invested for so little gain. But these responses were very encouraging. Thanks.
"Craig Schroeder" <cr...@craigschroeder.com> wrote in message
> I've accumulated a large number of good lenses over some time and also > recently got about 20 more in a purchase of a pro lab /business odd > lot. I decided to test the most desirable ones for my own duty and > took time with a Versalign rig to get all planes in proper alignment > for a run through.
> The 40HM, 45HM and Rodagon APO 50 were judged about equal and all were > only slightly ahead of the standard Rodagons and Componon-S but only > discernible at higher magnifications. The single Nikkor 50 2.8 was > slightly less sharp than the others mentioned but this could easily be > a single sample variation as these enjoy a good reputation. An odd > Fujinon 49.9 EFS did very well and was nipping at the APO heels and I > believe anyone would be happy with it. A 63mm Nikkor was also in this > same class as was a 40WA Rodagon.
> The Rodagon 80 APO and Componon HM 90 seemed equal to each other and > in practice these show a very slight advantage for the Rodagon as > there is something about how it renders mid tone/skin tones that is > especially nice, at least with my materials and practices. Again, the > standard Rodagons and Comp-S did well against these until more extreme > enlargement sizes. A Nikkor 80 showed poorly but it had a bit of dust > internally and may not have been a good sample. A single Componon S > 100 did nicely and did slightly better than a pair of 105 Nikkors.
> It was fun to have all of these nice chunks of glass all in one place > for some comparisons. I learned that I could likely be happy with > most any of them but use the APOs in general use for little more > reason than the psychology of having the best glass on the machine. I > would describe myself as "fussy" regarding optics and I'll admit that > this entire exercise had me conclude that it is truly hair-splitting > to discern any real world difference in any of these good quality > choices. Perhaps if I worked in color, I would find characteristics > that would favor one over another. In black and white, my best tools > for quality in darkroom projection has turned out to be my alignment > tool and grain focuser! Any of the differences I've highlighted were > very, very slight and had me pondering long and hard to tell any > difference.
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 01:19:35 +1000, "otzi" <x...@xxx.xxx.au> wrote:
>>I am well aware that probably all modern enlarger lenses are pretty good. >>The question arises, is the Componon HM series any advantage for black & >>white printing >>over the Componon -S >>I am pretty thick about reading any graph curves but the Componon - S >>curves >>seem flatter than the HM ones.
> Craig Schroeder > craig nospam craigschroeder com
> Just wondered why so much was invested for so little gain.
The law of diminishing returns. When something is close to perfection the cost of even a miniscule gain becomes astronomical.
There is a universal "80/20 rule": you can get 80% of the performance for 20% of the cost.
The most cost-effective approach to improving photography is to buy a used Tessar-formula enlarging lens and spend the savings on something worthwhile that will make a noticeable and unequivocal improvement: a trip to someplace photogenic, a workshop, a really good timer ...
> Thanks for all the input folks. I was curious but > unconvinced. Just wondered why so much was invested for so > little gain. But these responses were very encouraging. > Thanks.
Lots of snipping here. There are a number of reasons for the newer lenses. One is simply that lenses have a very long lifetime so buying one often takes the buyer out of the market for some time unless a "better" replacement can be offered. Another is that computer aided design makes it easier to make new designs and evaluate them. Before computers the lens design procedure could progress only so far through mathematical analysis at which point a sample lens had to built and evaluated on the optical bench. The computer allows very complex analysis to be made quickly so that new designs can be brought much closer to optimum before one is made. Often the difference between a computer optimized lens and one designed by the older methods is slight. I also mentioned in an earlier response to this thread that the optical glass types available had changed necessitating redesign of many existing lenses. Since many of these were designed before computer optimization became generally available the redisign for new glass types also resulted in either improvement in the original design or a completely new design. Nearly all modern enlarging lenses are based on a generic type known as a Plasmat as are many large format camera lenses. These have several inherent advantages such as low astigmatism which is important for flat field applications such as enlarging. They are also have relatively wide coverage angles. Modern multi-coating also helps performance by increasing the image contrast. Keep in mind that any lens with fixed position elements can be optimized for only one object to image distance. The performance at other distances can be good but will not be quite up to the optimum distance. Most camera lenses are optimized for approximately infinity but enlarger lenses are optimized for whatever distance corresponds to the magnification the manufacturer thinks it will be used for mostly. Some manufacturers, Rodenstock and Schneieder particularly, specify the magnification range for their lenses. Whi
