Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]When I bought my enlarger, I picked up a used first generation Schneider Componon 50/4 (circa late 1960s?). For a couple of years this is the lens I used. Prints looked fine with it. Then I succumbed to the "Leica disease", and decided that I must have the best, and bought a Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 50/2.8. My prints made with that lens also look fine. I honestly see no difference. I suspect that the apo lens will do a decent job if used wide open at f2.8 (perhaps better than the older lens at its widest opening of f4), but I never shoot at that opening, so in my case it is a moot point. Both lenses are optimized at 10x magnification, so I don't think the argument that you might see a difference with huge prints holds up. I do like the newer lens and continue to use it for its modern conveniences (also available in modern non apo designs) such as preset stops and lighted aperture scales (missing from my old componon). But from a performance standpoint, I highly recommend looking for a used componon (not componar or comparon). IMHO, enlarger alignment and critical focusing are the main factors determining print quality. Dan C. ps....I parenthesize (spelling?) too often, sorry! At 07:36 AM 27-02-00 -0500, Gary D. Whalen wrote: > Seeing as how (like myself) most of the people in this group are lense >crazy I have a question. > > I am trying to decide between an APO enlarger lense vs. a non-APO >enlarger lense. I will only >be doing B&W but I have had some, seemingly knowlegeable people, tell me >that the APO is worth the extra money and other knowledgeable people >tell me that I will see no difference. Anyone here have any definitive >information concerning this topic? Thanks. > > >