Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

best enlarger lens ever
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:02 pm    Post subject: Focotar 50 4,5 = Componon Reply with quote
According to the Schneider production list, they made a large number of Focotar 50 4,5 which were ordered by Leitz. The note after the order says "Componon". The Componons at the time were listed as 50 f 4.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Focotar 50 4,5 = Componon Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
According to the Schneider production list, they made a large number of Focotar 50 4,5 which were ordered by Leitz. The note after the order says "Componon". The Componons at the time were listed as 50 f 4.

p.


Where did you fibnd this info Paul? I heard rumors about that but never found a confirmation. Also about that Focotar II 100mm which supposedly was a Componon-S 100mm. I measured both and they are NOT identical.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Componon-S 5.6/100, I have used it as a taking lens and I think it's superb, renders unlike a camera lens, which I think is due to the flat field, it's very sharp indeed but needs a hood as it's sensitive to flare.

I harbour thoughts of putting the cells in a shutter, but I'm not sure if the one I have is one of the models where the cells will fit a shutter, I think it may be the earlier Componons that have cells that will unscrew and then screw straight into a shutter.

I have seen some CZJ Dokumars for sale very cheap, not technically an enlarger lens. The 8/38 interests me, but I can't find any info about it, I need to know the image circle. Marco Cavina wrote that the image circle of the Dokumar 5.6/47 is 53.8mm, which covers 35mm but not 6x6, which is my interest in the Dokumar 8/38, the design is similar to the Super Angulon but Marco says the angle of coverage is much lower.

Does anyone know where I can find info on the Dokumars? Also, is the 8/38 the same lens as the 5.6/38 just with an internal fixed aperture disk to reduce the max opening down to f8? I particularly need to know the image circle, the flange focal distance and how well the corrections hold up at infinity, rather than the close distance they were intended for.



PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Schneider list as far as I recall, is thst of mr. Thiele. It is page after page of who bought what and when.

I used it to search for items bought by Pignons, but was surprised not only to find that the angulons and the shift lenses, the variogons and the 10mm cinegons were delivered to them, but also M-mount Elmarit 90es and Focotar/Componons.

I can fish out the page refernce when I get back to my library later today.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting discoveries. A collegue of mine (from the Leica R4-days) used to argue all his lenses were signifantly better than my Zuiko's. He shot Kodacolor II, I shot Kodachrome 25 and 64 and won back all that he lost, I think. Besides that, he couldn't be convinced that he actually was a Rokkor-lover Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
The Schneider list as far as I recall, is thst of mr. Thiele. It is page after page of who bought what and when.

I used it to search for items bought by Pignons, but was surprised not only to find that the angulons and the shift lenses, the variogons and the 10mm cinegons were delivered to them, but also M-mount Elmarit 90es and Focotar/Componons.

I can fish out the page refernce when I get back to my library later today.

p.


Thanks Paul. I have his books, need to look that up.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:21 pm    Post subject: numbers Reply with quote
When looking up Hr.Dr. Thieles information on Schneider, I also looked up Zeiss Jenas Dokumar numbers. There were 300 38mms produced with numbers from 10204691 to ...990 , logged on sept 24th 1976. A far more substantial number of this version, as well as other focal lengths were made over the years.

The Focotar/Componon info occurs on page 280 of the Schneider list and elsewhere. Note that it is not f.4 but has been stopped down a little. This particular instance was logged at sept 19th 1973 . A few lines further down, some new version Componons are produced as samples, Leitz had very strict quality control on products that were bought in. Rumour has it that so many Variogons meant for their Leicina 2x8 cinecamera, had to be adjusted, that this was a factor in switching to Angenieux.

p.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Visit ctein.com, download Post Exposure, and read it.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
According to the Schneider production list, they made a large number of Focotar 50 4,5 which were ordered by Leitz. The note after the order says "Componon". The Componons at the time were listed as 50 f 4.

Any idea if the Schneider Componar F4/50mm and F4.5/75mm is similar to the Focotar?
Thanks



[img][/img]


PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eyff wrote:
paulhofseth wrote:
According to the Schneider production list, they made a large number of Focotar 50 4,5 which were ordered by Leitz. The note after the order says "Componon". The Componons at the time were listed as 50 f 4.

Any idea if the Schneider Componar F4/50mm and F4.5/75mm is similar to the Focotar?
Thanks



[img][/img]


PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Componars are simple triplets, the cheapest of Schneider's enlarger lenses. They are decent lenses but not comparable to the Componons, Rodagons, Focotars and other modern plasmat types.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The point is fairly made back on page 3 that all these lenses are pretty damn good.

However, comparison of them as enlarger lenses tends to be a bit anecdotal . . . even Ctein's comments are somewhat gnomic: a top five marked out of ten, no mention of which lenses were actually tested - therefore does non-inclusion in the top five indicate sub-standard performance, or simply being unavailable? - and no pictures.

Sometimes on these forums, folks are asking what is 'best' or 'better' from different perspectives, too: 'better' as an enlarger? Macro lens? At 5:1, 1:1 or 1:2?

I'm really curious to see how rigorously 'scientifically' (AKA ivory tower) we need to examine these critturs as taking lenses to tell them apart - now we have jolly discriminating DSLRs.

I'm betting that you can tell more about the difference between a Focotar II, APO EL Nikkor and an Orthoplanar 105 by strapping them all to an A7R for half an hour than all the bearded sages have gleaned in two decades.

All I need now is someone to lend me the Zeiss and Nikon . . .


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
One thing I expect you'll find in your tests is that the best-corrected lenses, such as the 105PN and other APO lenses on your list, end up looking "sterile". They are designed specifically to not impart any character to the image that isn't already there. In general this should be the quality of any enlarging/duplicating/repro lens, ie they should simply enlarge/duplicate/reproduce, perfectly and without bias or modification. The place for art and creativity is in the taking. For enlarging lenses, I would personally define "best" as "adds the least to the process". Any aberration "adds".


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So how is that one then?



PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
One thing I expect you'll find in your tests is that the best-corrected lenses, such as the 105PN and other APO lenses on your list, end up looking "sterile". They are designed specifically to not impart any character to the image that isn't already there. In general this should be the quality of any enlarging/duplicating/repro lens, ie they should simply enlarge/duplicate/reproduce, perfectly and without bias or modification. The place for art and creativity is in the taking. For enlarging lenses, I would personally define "best" as "adds the least to the process". Any aberration "adds".

For sure. An aberration-free lens better represents reality - allowing the photographer (not the lens) to be the stylist. Personally, I wouldn't use the word 'sterile' in place of 'truthful'. A good lens is simply a good lens; its technical prowess allows greater latitude for expression - especially now post-production is such a major part of the creative process. You could even argue that a lens' job is to efface itself and report maximum information about a frame's-worth of reality to Photoshop.

Having said that, sometimes we want to exploit subtle differences in drawing styles, and might reach for a lens with a 'tone of voice' to create something not quite achievable in post: pastelly, low-contrast tones, a specific type of defocus effect or light star. There's even a slot in the toolbox for 'bad' lenses that 'glow' or have funky flare: aberrations can be fun! Just not in every picture: that's pretty limiting, creatively - sterile, maybe?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
I had owned an EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 up to that time. It was a very good lens, no doubt, but the Focotar-2 clearly is a better lens. I sincerely doubt it has been equaled. Really, not many of these lenses were made. By 'better' I mean sharper, especially in the corners

FluffPuppy wrote:
I saw things in the prints that I had never seen in the prints made with the EL-Nikkor. In particular, I saw separation of tones in shadow areas that I had never seen before. Sharpness in the center was not all that much different, but the corners were better.

I just read the above comments posted here in 2012. It's quite funny, because in my lab days, the 50mm Focotar-2 was considered to be a good lens, but Focotars were not reputed to have sharp corners, due to a rather curved field:

tobey bilek wrote:
The I version was optimized for 5x7 and 8x10 is a stretch for it.

The Schneider is easily recognized by the large front element and makes 16z20 with ease from a good negative in a glass top or full glass carrier. Works from 5.6 to 11 or 16

The Focotar 2 has a little more contrast, local contrast and pop, but gives up the nice flat field of Schneider to get it. You need to stop to 8 to negate the out of focus corners due to lack of a flat field.

Version 1 has nowhere near a flat field, but printed curved field mounted slides quite nicely. This thing was an embarrassment to Leica when larger prints were being made, so they worked with Schneider to get something decent.

Quote from tobey bilek on L.Camera Forum


Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
So how is that one then?


Outstanding. What lens?

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz !
Welcome back !


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
So how is that one then?


Beautiful image.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
...Having said that, sometimes we want to exploit subtle differences in drawing styles, and might reach for a lens with a 'tone of voice' to create something not quite achievable in post: pastelly, low-contrast tones, a specific type of defocus effect or light star. There's even a slot in the toolbox for 'bad' lenses that 'glow' or have funky flare: aberrations can be fun! Just not in every picture: that's pretty limiting, creatively - sterile, maybe?


Yes, if you are looking for a different expression those imperfect lenses can "add" qualities you can't easily achieve other ways. However, while that may affect the method or outcome of testing described in the other thread, I don't think this changes the outcome of this thread. I still believe the "best" enlarging lens is the one that "adds" least.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mir wrote:
Abbazz !
Welcome back !

Thanks Mir! Feels good to be here...

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice to see you back Abbazz!!!

Best enlarger lens what I have, what I don't have that is less good Smile


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Nice to see you back Abbazz!!!

Thanks, Attila!

Cheers!

Abbazz
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3