 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2004Nikon 50mm f4.0 vs. 50mm f2.8
Hi All, Thank you all for your great contribution to this NG. I am looking to improve the quality of my prints and I was wondering if upgrading to a Nikon 50mm f2.8 or similar 6 element lenses you might recommend would show an appreciable difference? I use Tmax 100 in Tmax Rs and print to 11x14. Regards Shawn... > Thank you all for your great contribution to this NG. > I am looking to improve the quality of my prints and I was wondering if > upgrading to a Nikon 50mm f2.8 or similar 6 element lenses you might > recommend would show an appreciable difference? FWIW: I had a 50/4.0 which I sold with my old enlarger and a 2.8 I bought with my new one. I can't tell the difference in the prints I made with one lens or the other - and that's with 11x14's examined under a 30x stereo microscope (the only thing to use when spotting prints!). The 2.8 is one stop faster, but I normally use f8 for printing, so I never noticed the speed advantage. Maybe the 2.8 works better at f5.6. I am sure it works better at f4.0. And it is easier to focus. But better prints? - can't prove it by me. As usual YMMV. There can be a lot of variability in lens performance from unit to unit and so others may have had different experiences. Remember: Some of the world's greatest pictures have been taken by some of the world's worst lenses.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. There is reason the F4 costs less. I have one of the 50mm f2.8 and love it. There is that much of price difference between the two and since any print you goes through the enlarger lens its not the place to scrimp. As with all things the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The final print is what matters, but it can to achieve with lesser equipment. Most six element enlarging lenses are far better than 4 element lenses. The main difference is usually is contrast in fine, especially at the edges. The El- Nikkor 50mm 2.8f is bargain at its price. Sheldon Strauss www.shel.focalfix.com > There is reason the F4 costs less. I have one of the 50mm f2.8 and > love it. There is that much of price difference between the two and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > contrast in fine, especially at the edges. The El- Nikkor 50mm 2.8f > is bargain at its price. I do not have one, and I very much doubt they were made in 50mm focal length, but I betcha an Apo-Artar would be a fine enlarging lens. And they were dialytes: 4 air-spaced elements, IIRC. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 8:40pm up 49 days, 8:01, 2 users, load average: 2.19, 2.19, 2.12 > The El- Nikkor 50mm 2.8f is bargain at its price. Any comments on a comparison to the El-Nikkor 63mm? > > The El- Nikkor 50mm 2.8f is bargain at its price. > > Any comments on a comparison to the El-Nikkor 63mm? All El-Nikkors are quality 6-element designs except the 50mm f/4 and the 75mm f/4. The El-Nikkor 63mm would be excellent for 35mm so long as you don't need to enlarge past 11x14 on your baseboard. The longer focal length might make it harder to make very large prints with most enlargers. > > > The El- Nikkor 50mm 2.8f is bargain at its price. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't need to enlarge past 11x14 on your baseboard. The longer focal length > might make it harder to make very large prints with most enlargers. I agree! I was just curious what others might say. I use the 63mm for 35mm and the 80mm for 6x6. It's arguable that there's less light fall-off at the edges. I don't really know, having not made a comparison test. But, I'm happy with my lenses. Cheers! > > > Any comments on a comparison to the El-Nikkor 63mm? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Cheers! There is definitely less light fall off at the edges of your prints, since with the negative size you use for these lenses (which is less than the rated negative size), you are not using the edge of the lens. Resolution is better also. >The El-Nikkor 63mm would be excellent for 35mm so long as you >don't need to enlarge past 11x14 on your baseboard. One should never over-enlarge a negative anyway. 35mm looks best at 7X9. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email depend on the film, processing, quality of the camera and enlarger and lens. Tri-X I think does best for small prints but then I usually don't over 8x10 anyway. Anyway some people like grainy blurry photographs. Sheldon Strauss www.shel.focalfix.com >Anyway some people like grainy blurry photographs. Sometimes it works. My favorite such image I photographed a couple walking along the Atlantic City surf holding hands using a Soligor 80~180 /3.8 zoom with two cheap 2X converters on it. Film was Kodak Gold 1600 which I exposed with the lens wide open. Perhaps a little over-exposed but then that film was very low in saturation anyway. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email >> The El- Nikkor 50mm 2.8f is bargain at its price. > >Any comments on a comparison to the El-Nikkor 63mm? It'll be better at the edges. One of the labs here in town (Chromatics) has used the 63mm on all of their enlargers. This lab is known to be the very best in the area and they don't compromise on quality. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email >Thank you all for your great contribution to this NG. >I am looking to improve the quality of my prints and I was wondering if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Regards >Shawn... I would doubt that you would see any difference at all in B-&-W and probably not even in color negative. Perhaps in printing Cibachrome or color separations you might notice a small degree of increased contrast with the 2.8 version. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Regards > Shawn... Provided 1/ your enlarger is aligned 2/ you use glass negative carrier 3/ you avoid diffraction (small apertures eg F16 etc) 4/ The F2.8 lens is a Good Sample You should see substantial improvement! The best approach is to get the lens on approval and test it! Rgds Emerson O.K. I can hear the sighs from here, but how do I align an Omega DII enlarger? Is a glass carrier required as well in 35mm format? > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Regards > Shawn... > O.K. I can hear the sighs from here, but how do I align an Omega DII > enlarger? Is a glass carrier required as well in 35mm format? Glass carrier isn't necessary for 35mm IMHO. If you enlarger isn't aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher. The DII has 4 sets of rollers on which the head slides on. There is a bar connecting each set, and this bar has a hole in the center. By loosening the screws, and sticking a screwdriver in the hole, you can change the alignment. Do your best...with just the negative carrier you should get a perfect rectangle (not a trapezoid) >>O.K. I can hear the sighs from here, but how do I align an Omega DII >>enlarger? Is a glass carrier required as well in 35mm format? > > Glass carrier isn't necessary for 35mm IMHO. It depends. You migth see quite differences when grain becomes visible and is all but sharp in the corners. With smaller print-sizes the differences become less important. > If you enlarger isn't > aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher. I tried thos once. You will not get sharp grain even in a 8x10" print if your enlager is slightly out of alignment. Stopping down as far as your lens allows (approx. f32, beyond the marked range on that old componon) was not sufficient to solve this problem. Anything but aligning it asap ist a waste of time IMHO. best regards Stefan >> If you enlarger isn't >> aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was not sufficient to solve this problem. Anything but aligning it asap > ist a waste of time IMHO. I honestly have no idea if my enlarger is aligned or not. I transported it in the car and assembled it without aligning. My prints look fantastic. Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture of newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness). > >> If you enlarger isn't > >> aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture of > newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness). As well as not being equally sharp (with a glass carrier and a quality lens) an out of alignment enlarger will not be able to reproduce round objects as perfectly round. There will be foreshortening and an out of alignment enlarger will produce more oval shapes or round objects. it is best to assume that an enlarger is not in perfect alignment until you have actually tetsed it and seen that it is in or out of alignment. A tool like the Zigalign tests alignmets to about 1/5000". SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. See here for an inexpensive way to align: http://www.photonet.demon.nl/align.html Jorge > I honestly have no idea if my enlarger is aligned or not. I > transported it in the car and assembled it without aligning. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture > of newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness). On 2/27/2004 8:33 AM Jorge Omar spake thus: > See here for an inexpensive way to align: > > http://www.photonet.demon.nl/align.html Yes, that's "my" method. Works like a charm. >> I honestly have no idea if my enlarger is aligned or not. I >> transported it in the car and assembled it without aligning. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture >> of newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness). SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 >Glass carrier isn't necessary for 35mm IMHO. If you enlarger isn't >aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher. I wonder what the diffraction limit is on a 50mm enlarging lens ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email John, I can't give you an NBS traceable test result on your diffraction question, but I can tell you what happens with my old f/4 50mm El Nikkor. Running the enlarger up to 12x and watching the grain with a 10x grain focuser, as the aperture gets down to f/8, the grain is still visually sharp. Somewhere between f/8 and f/11 it begins to get soft, and at f/16 it is mush. And that was in the print center. As for glass carriers -- in an enlargement to 11x14, the depth of field at the negative is just a couple of tenths of a millimeter. (A sheet of typing paper is roughly a tenth of a millimeter thick.) Hold a glassless negative carrier up to the room light so that the light is glancing off the back of the negative. You will be able to see the warp in the negative. Glass carriers are needed for enlarging 35mm negatives beyond 8x10. Bob p.s. Spammers should get the hell out of my e-mail. ----------------------- > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email Get POPFile - free and darned efficient! Jorge HypoBob <hypobob@pacbellhell.net> wrote in news:40464188.6030503 @pacbellhell.net: > p.s. Spammers should get the hell out of my e-mail. > ----------------------- On 3/3/2004 12:35 PM HypoBob spake thus: > As for glass carriers -- in an enlargement to 11x14, the depth of field > at the negative is just a couple of tenths of a millimeter. Small correction: you mean depth of focus, not depth of field. Similar but different animals. (Depth of field is on the subject side of the lens, in this case the print.) SignatureThe Bush administration should restrain itself from its imperial arrogance that has so alienated countries around the world. Their contempt for the United Nations in the dash to war with Iraq; their support of the coup in Venezuela in April 2002, and the continuing hostility toward President Chavez; the pressure on nations of the world to exempt the US from the International Criminal Court, now joined by their contemptuous attitude toward President Aristide must be halted. It is time for the people of the USA to make this point clear even if the administration continues to walk around with wax in its collective ears, with eyes closed, and ranting about its version of the world as defined by Bush. - Excerpt from TransAfrica statement on the situation in Haiti, 2/17/04 (http://www.transafricaforum.org/) David, When enlarging, the negative is the subject and the focus limits around it are in the depth of field. The print acts like the film and is in the focal plane of the lens, so the terminology down there is the depth of focus. It sounded a little strange to me too, but I saw that nomenclature in a few references, one of which is on page 292 of Ralph Lambrecht's book "Way Beyond Monochrome". It is quite a good book, by the way; one of the few really good new photo books I have come across lately. Ralph used to contribute to this ng, but I haven't seen him on it lately. I am in complete agreement with the sentiments in your signature block, but I fear that The Little Moron has a huge supply of money and dirty tricks that will carry the day. I hope you live in a swing state where your vote will count for something. I live in California where our votes don't count, but TLM's energy buddies love our $2.25 a gallon gasoline. Bob ------------------------ > On 3/3/2004 12:35 PM HypoBob spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but different animals. (Depth of field is on the subject side of the > lens, in this case the print.) On 3/4/2004 9:21 PM HypoBob spake thus: > When enlarging, the negative is the subject and the focus limits around it > are in the depth of field. The print acts like the film and is in the > focal plane of the lens, so the terminology down there is the depth of > focus. It sounded a little strange to me too, but I saw that nomenclature > in a few references, one of which is on page 292 of Ralph Lambrecht's book > "Way Beyond Monochrome". Thanks for pointing that out and setting me straight. > I am in complete agreement with the sentiments in your signature block, but > I fear that The Little Moron has a huge supply of money and dirty tricks > that will carry the day. I hope you live in a swing state where your vote > will count for something. I live in California where our votes don't > count, but TLM's energy buddies love our $2.25 a gallon gasoline. Nope, California too: hell, I can vote for Ralph (again) for all the difference it will make here. SignatureThe Bush administration should restrain itself from its imperial arrogance that has so alienated countries around the world. Their contempt for the United Nations in the dash to war with Iraq; their support of the coup in Venezuela in April 2002, and the continuing hostility toward President Chavez; the pressure on nations of the world to exempt the US from the International Criminal Court, now joined by their contemptuous attitude toward President Aristide must be halted. It is time for the people of the USA to make this point clear even if the administration continues to walk around with wax in its collective ears, with eyes closed, and ranting about its version of the world as defined by Bush. - Excerpt from TransAfrica statement on the situation in Haiti, 2/17/04 (http://www.transafricaforum.org/) >I am in complete agreement with the sentiments in your signature block, but I fear that The >Little Moron has a huge supply of money and dirty tricks that will carry the day. Letsee, he spends $180,000,000,000 on a war with a country that supposedly has one of the largest oil reserves available and our gas prices are projected to hit a national average of $3.00/gallon over the next 3 months. I'm sure that's just a coincidence ! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Paleeeeze! Let's leave the the politics out of this newsgroup! >>I am in complete agreement with the sentiments in your signature block, but I fear that The >>Little Moron has a huge supply of money and dirty tricks that will carry the day. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com On 2/25/2004 9:48 AM Mike spake thus: >> O.K. I can hear the sighs from here, but how do I align an Omega DII >> enlarger? Is a glass carrier required as well in 35mm format? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > alignment. Do your best...with just the negative carrier you should get a > perfect rectangle (not a trapezoid) So you can use the extremely simple and extremely accurate alignment method I used for my Beseler 23C. I adapted the method given by Conrad Hoffman (http://members.rpa.net/~choffman/beseler01.htm), which uses two mirrors to set the negative stage and baseboard plane-parallel to each other. Basically, you cut one large piece of mirror and put it on the baseboard. The other piece is cut in a narrow strip that gets clamped in the negative carrier. This piece extends out the side of the enlarger and has a hole in it through which you can view the other mirror. (My modification to his method was to simply scratch the reflective coating of the mirror off in a small spot, rather than going to the trouble of drilling a hole in the mirror. Worked fine.) You shine a light up at the upper mirror and view through the hole. The idea is to make the "hall of mirrors" effect--multiple receding reflections--collapse to a single reflection (in both X and Y axes), at which point you can be sure that both mirrors, and therfore the enlarger parts, are in perfect alignment. Forget the Zigalign and its vaunted 0.00000000005" alignment claims. SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 O.K. I got it. "The hall of mirror" idea took to me to back to high school physics days.... I also have a Schneider 80mm WA lens which I can use for 35mm enlargement. The problem is that I can't raise my enlarger to it maximum hight due to a low ceiling in my darkroom. Anyway, thank you all for all your help.. Regards Shawn.. > On 2/25/2004 9:48 AM Mike spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > in perfect alignment. Forget the Zigalign and its vaunted 0.00000000005" > alignment claims. RE: "Shawn H" <shawn90067@yahoo.com> The shape of the projected image must be the same as the negative being projected AND the image must be in focus at all points. The only equipment needed is a ruler and a square and an easel will do for the square. The proof of a good alignment is the projected image. Am I making myself clear? Dan On 2/28/2004 2:29 PM Dan Quinn spake thus: > RE: "Shawn H" <shawn90067@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The proof of a good alignment is the projected image. Am I making > myself clear? Dan That method will work; however, I think the two-mirrors method is even more accurate, as it can detect extremely minute angular shifts from parallel. But certainly the is-the-image-square? method is a lot better than nothing. SignatureIt's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a dustpan and broom. - Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_ (http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03 > Dan Quinn spake > > The shape of the projected image must be the same as the negative [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The proof of a good alignment is the projected image. Am I making > > myself clear? > That method will work; however, I think the two-mirrors method is > even more accurate, as it can detect extremely minute angular shifts > from parallel. But certainly the is-the-image-square? method is a lot > better than nothing. Personally I would'nt trust to a method other than one using a negative in the negative carrier or the carrier itself, and an image projected upon the paper holder in it's usuall position. My objection to other methods stems from an awarness of mechanical imperfection. Also, there's the simple matter of "more things that can go wrong". My instincts are for fewer moveing parts. But there again I'm the minimulist. I was only trying to make clear that a good alignment can be done without purchasing anything. Further more, nothing need be fabricated. I favor a No buy No build approach to wadeing into this and other endeavors. I think that approach should be at least mentioned, and more often, where it does apply. For example, when the subject is ventilation how often do you see someone suggest "do without". Case in point: I've an air leaky darkroom and use oderless, fumeless chemistry. That said, I and some others don't need a ventilation system. An in room HEPA air filter will do me. Dan I once had an Omega 66 (way back when they coal-fired) and when aligning it up, I noticed that its alignment would change slightly with the head height. I haven't noticed that behavior with my current equipment, but it was enough to make me now check at various head elevations when bothering to check alignment. Have you ever noticed this behavior? I now have my column end stabilized to the wall as well and this likely is helping to prevent that, too. >RE: "Shawn H" <shawn90067@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The proof of a good alignment is the projected image. Am I making >myself clear? Dan > I once had an Omega 66 (way back when they coal-fired) and when > aligning it up, I noticed that its alignment would change slightly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this behavior? I now have my column end stabilized to the wall as > well and this likely is helping to prevent that, too. Slightly out of alignment with changes in head height. I've never checked for that. Your column is stabilized top and bottom. One thing and another, I'd say a three of four position check would be good insurance. The increased torque on the baseboard from raising the head will increase distortion in the baseboard. That distortion may be most or all of the problem. Overall I think enlarger column strengths are up to the load. I like Beseler's four point column support. The torque though is still there. Of course with today's thin sheet metal, condenser-less enlarging heads, the load is little. So for some time we've been seeing shallow broad support at the base. I don't like them. Meopta though has not changed. They are still turning out CAST aluminum heads; nearly all metal construction. Dan > > The shape of the projected image must be the same as the negative > > being projected AND the image must be in focus at all points. > > The only equipment needed is a ruler and a square and an easel will > > do for the square. > > The proof of a good alignment is the projected image. Am I making > > myself clear? Dan > Meopta though has not changed. They are still turning out CAST > aluminum heads; So Kaiser uses an aluminum magnesium alloy casting. And Durst is similar also. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.