"Peter" <w2tga@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:9b5eb96f-126a-4455-b8b2-c3bf4407e2ac@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 7, 5:19 pm, "otzi" <x...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
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.
|
