Componon-S 2.8/50mm Variations

[themoleman342]

I have two Componon-S 2.8/50mms. Lever aperture. Green ring. Bodies look absolutely identical. One is from ~1983, according to the serial number, and the other is from ~1994.

1983 Version:
Front element is bigger in comparison to '94 model
Aperture blades form a 5-point star shape
@f2.8 the aperture blades do not fully retract - still visible in lens path - common with enlarger lenses
Back element sticks out 3mm past the mount

1994 Version:
Aperture blades form a typical hexagon
@f2.8 the aperture blades are not visible
Back element sticks out 6mm past the mount

The focus point is completely different between the lenses. The '94 version focuses considerably closer. Coatings looks almost identical.

Can anyone account for any of these changes? Anyone see an advantage of one over the other?

[patrickh]

I have three versions of the 100/5.6 and all three are completely different in make-up. I think they were constantly revising design for improvement and special uses.


patrickh
_________________
DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4

[ZoneV]

I suppose ROHS update to leadfree (and other hazardous things) glass.
This ROHS is a big problem for optics industry, because it is much effort to redesign lenses without these old glass with lead and such.
On a optics fair I visited I learned that optics industry (e.g. Schott) here in Germany still tries to get expeptions for optics.

Regaring the aperture I suppose the newer aperture is easier (cheaper) to build.
I love enlarger lenses - but don´t like the plastic iris housing on some newer ones, like Apo Rodagon D 75mm/4 :-/
_________________
Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
DSLR: Canon EOS 5D, EOS 350D with interchangable IR-Cut / IR-Pass filter / Grey filter
Lenses: Zeiss 50/1.4, 50/1.7, 85/1.4, 135/2.8 C/Y, M42, Converted Minolta Rokkor 35/1.8, 58/1.2, Converted Canon FD 50/1.4, 100/4, 300/2.8, Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, ..

[themoleman342]

That's interesting! Have you ever noticed a performance difference between the older lead-based designs and the new lead-free ones?