Schneider Componon 35mm F2.8 2.8/35 LINE SCAN LENS TEST

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Schneider Componon 35mm F2.8 2.8/35 LINE SCAN LENS TEST

Post by RobertOToole »

In the past 6 months I've been trying some older lenses that were just average performers, and I'm being generous calling them average performers, lenses like Schneider Componons, that I actually tried to sell for awhile but they I failed to receive any bids or offers on Ebay. I got lucky.

These lenses like the 2.8/35 Componon were just okay on extension, sharp in the center but the IQ always dropped off towards the edges and there was always some CAs around also. You can see a test here: https://www.closeuphotography.com/4x-lens-test-part-3

But over the last 6 months I've had time to try these old lenses in a stacked set-up and now I feel really lucky the lenses didn't sell!

On extension the performance was just okay but stacked the performance is fantastic, very consistent from corner to corner and sharp edge to edge and with no visible CAs that I can see.

Below are some test results of the 35mm f2.8 Componon V-mount lens at 3.4x. Be sure to click on the un-cropped wafer image to see the 2500px version, its fantastic.

For more details see the full test with more images: https://www.closeuphotography.com/schne ... onon-35mm/


Image


Test Setup

Front lens: Schneider Kreuznach 2.8/35 Componon lens reverse mounted inside the Thorlabs SM2 tube
Rear lens: Schneider Kreuznach 5.6/12 Makro-Symmar Line Scan Lens set to f.5.6 forward mounted focused at infinity mounted inside the Thorlabs SM2 tube
Stacked lens nominal aperture: f/3.1
Stacked lens effective aperture: f/9.9

Image

My favorite way to mount stacked lenses; the Schneider Makro-Symmar 120/5.6 mounted inside a 52mm extension tube using a V38 to 42mm x 1.0mm adapter to Thorlabs SM2 to 42mm to 1.0mm adapter. Another 42mm x 1.0mm adapter goes on the front of the 2.8/35 and that mounts to the Thorlabs SM2 to 42mm to 1.0mm adapter and the lens also mounts inside the 52mm extension tube directly in front of the Makro-Symmar lens tube. The lenses are set to touch front lips. FYI the lens hood or shroud is mounted on the rear of the lens in the photo above.

Camera: Sony A6300
Sensor size: APS-C. 23.5 × 15.6 mm. 28.21 mm diagonal. 3.92 micron sensor pitch
Flash: Godox TT350s wireless flash x 2 with one Godox X1s 2.4G wireless flash transmitter
Vertical stand: Nikon MM-11 with a Nikon focus block

The test image was a stack of 4-5 images using 3 micron and processed using DMAP in Zerene Stacker

2500 pixel image sample

Click on the image below to view a larger version in a new window where you can right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As to save and view the image full size.


Image

Crop areas outlined

Image

100% View Center Crop

Image

100% View Edge Crop

Image

100% View Corner Crop

Image

Over the next couple weeks I will be posting a few more lenses, some even better than the 2.8/35.

FYI, the 4/35 Componon should also work well in stacked set-up, but since the 2.8/35 sharpness peaks around f3.1 there technically should be some performance loss with the slower f4 lens.

More new and interesting tests results coming soon.

BTW there was an very good Ebay seller in Korea with these lenses new in the box as new old stock for $350 and free DHL.

Comments and questions welcome.

Robert

Macrero
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Stacking/coupling lenses is one of favorite methods to improve overall performance and especially coverage of "not good enough" lenses. In most cases, it works.

I see you use the front lens straight mounted, instead of reversed, as "macro coupling" implies. That could make sense with reversely assembled lenses, such as M-Componons, but AFAIK, the Makro-Iris variations are regular (enlarging) Componons in an "industrial" barrel.

"The optical components of Schneider's megapixel, enlarging lenses are inserted into a compact and robust diaphragm body, which makes it possible to adjust and to lock the aperture and to use accessories such as filters. Because the interface is identical on both sides, the lenses can be reversed for magnifying images."

Have you tried mounting the 2.8/35 lens reversed on front of the Symmar?

Best,

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

It is reversed, Mac, if you look carefully you can see the "back" of the lens inside the "outer" part which is removable (hex screws).
the lens hood or shroud is mounted on the rear of the lens in the photo above.
I didn't realise what the hex screws were for when I first looked.
Chris R

Macrero
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Ah, well, although Schneider's info is quite confusing :? if that's the case, Robert's combo is set right.

I owned the 35, 50, 80 and 90 of those, but at the time I had not started looking into lens coupling. Peformance on bellows was not impressive.

I currently have an Apo-Componon 2.8/40 Makro-Iris pending to test. Will report how it does in combo when I find time to test it.

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Macrero wrote:Ah, well, although Schneider's info is quite confusing :? if that's the case, Robert's combo is set right.

I owned the 35, 50, 80 and 90 of those, but at the time I had not started looking into lens coupling. Peformance on bellows was not impressive.

I currently have an Apo-Componon 2.8/40 Makro-Iris pending to test. Will report how it does in combo when I find time to test it.

- Macrero
Yes thats correct, the lens is reversed and the hood affixed to the rear of the lens in the picture.

My findings were similar as yours on extension, nothing special enough to even mention.

The APO-Comp 2.8/40 might be a good one for stacking because the MTFs from SK look extremely poor at 0.3 to 0.5x, but at something like 0.05 they look really decent even at f2.8.

I have tested the 4/45 and that lens is a much stronger performer stacked.

Best,

Robert

elimoss
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:31 am

Post by elimoss »

Is it a given that the Componon should be reversed in this setup, since it is image is being focused on at infinity?

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3417
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

elimoss wrote:Is it a given that the Componon should be reversed in this setup, since it is image is being focused on at infinity?
It's not just that the lens is used as an infinite. All enlarging lenses are designed to work from a small negative at "rear" of the lens, and larger print at the "front". Used as a taking lens, this is the situation when magnification is <1, so the lens should be mounted "forward". If the magnification is >1, then to keep the proper optical relationship, the lens should be reversed.

Rudi
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:37 am
Location: Temse, Belgium

Post by Rudi »

Hi Robert,
interesting test again, thanks for posting.
I wonder iff you compared this combo with the Lomo 3,7x/0.11 on the Makro-Symmar ?
Kr, Rudi
Always looking at the bright side of life,
Kr, Rudi

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Rudi wrote:Hi Robert,
interesting test again, thanks for posting.
I wonder iff you compared this combo with the Lomo 3,7x/0.11 on the Makro-Symmar ?
Kr, Rudi
Hi Rudi,

I think this would compare pretty well with the lomo on the Makro-Symmar. The only weak area for the Lomo is the extreme corners but thats not too important in the real world but the Componon has a flatter field. The Lomo needs a really big stack since its not plan corrected.

I think the Lomo might be better in the center and the Componon better in the extreme corners. I should run a comparison when I get some time. :-)

All the best,

Robert

Rudi
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:37 am
Location: Temse, Belgium

Post by Rudi »

Thanks for the info Robert.
Always looking at the bright side of life,
Kr, Rudi

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic