 |
 | 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 / June 2005Lens medium format for enlarger, need help
Hi all, I would buy a good lens for my enlarger to print, from medium format, up to 24 x 36 cm. Durst Neonon 80/4, Rodagon 80/4 and Rodagon 80/5,6, which one? Thanks Sam I got almost new El Nikkor 80 / 5,6 for 50 Euro on eBay and I'm really happy with results. Best wishes, Igor http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop > Hi all, > I would buy a good lens for my enlarger to print, from medium format, up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks > Sam >i all, >I would buy a good lens for my enlarger to print, from medium format, up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thanks >Sam Neonon. Better than the Rodagon and probably cheaper. I have one (a 50mm) and it's one of the best lenses I've ever used. I think it was $15 on Ebay. JD - www.puresilver.org : >i all, : >I would buy a good lens for my enlarger to print, from medium format, up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : >Thanks : >Sam : Neonon. Better than the Rodagon and probably cheaper. I have one (a 50mm) and it's : one of the best lenses I've ever used. I think it was $15 on Ebay. I also have a 50mm Durst Neonon and find it excellent. It's noticeably sharper than the f4 Schneider Componon that it replaced. I think the word is out on these lenses though, because the last few I've seen on eBay have sold for more than $15. Warren B. Hapke : JD - www.puresilver.org >Hi all, >I would buy a good lens for my enlarger to print, from medium format, up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thanks >Sam But if you want the best get the Schneider 100/5.6 APO-Componon. JD - www.puresilver.org > Hi all, > I would buy a good lens for my enlarger to print, from medium format, up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks > Sam Is the Neonon really a 80/4? ....my is a 80/5.6 and it is good. My favorite is a Schneider Componon S 80/4 and I think the Rodagon 80/4 has same performance so this would be my choice of the 3 lenses you mention. I print using masks.....so I can use the extra stop.....I print at 5.6 (using glass carrier of course). Max This topic gets discussed in this note file often. If you search the archive you will find lots of hits. Here are some general notes. 1. The ideal enlarging lens is the taking lens, since it would tend to correct any errors. (Assuming it's a good taking lens.) 2. Short of that, the standard enlarging lens is the "normal lens" for the film medium. That's typically the image diagonal, or about 50mm for 35mm film and 75 or 80 for 2 1/4 square. 135 is often used for 4x5 and so forth. 3. Enlarging lenses of small focal length (80 and shorter) tend to be very sharp and relatively inexpensive, so get a good one. 4. Most makers -- Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock in particular -- offer both 4-element and 6-element enlarging lenses. Take Schneider... The Componar is 4 element and the Componon is the 6 element offering. Don't waste your time with a 4 element lens. 5. Enlarger makers, in general, don't make their own enlarging lenses. So Omegarons and Neonons, and such are actually made by one of the big three. 6. On your list you left off the Companon 80mm which is one of my favorites. 7. On your list, I think that the Rodagon 80/4 may be an Apo lens, and is therefore superior (and lots more expensive). Have fun. The taking lens thing has got a lot of comments over the years, the theory is that printing with the same lens that took the picture will "cancel" any optical aberrations of the lens, maybe in 1920 and with a simple four element lens like a classic normal focus Tessar-type but how about that super-tele or extreme wide angle. A well corrected 6-element enlarger lens can often be had for the less that the price of an adapter for the taking lens. I suspect that a 4-element Componar stopped down 3-stops is more than equal to a taking lens used at less than it's optimum corrected distance of focus. I have used several Componars for years and didn't have a gripe with them, medium format enlarging just doesn't require as much from a lens as "miniature" (35mm) or "sub-miniature" (anything smaller than 35mm). I am upgrading to El-Nikkors but only so I have a matched set of lenses for aesthetic reasons and because it would be (at current prices) stupid not to upgrade.  Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > This topic gets discussed in this note file often. If you search the > archive you will find lots of hits. Here are some general notes. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Have fun. > The [using] the taking lens [in the enlarger] thing has got a lot of > comments over the years, the theory is that printing with the same > lens that took the picture will "cancel" any optical aberrations > of the lens Actually, this is the _worst_ thing you can do: Imagine a lens that is sharp in the middle and fuzzy at the edges - the print will be sharp in the center but _twice_ as fuzzy at the edges. All the lenses aberrations are _doubled_. The best one can do on this score is to have an enlarging lens with a 'complimentary' [not the right word] aberration. In the example above if the enlarger was fuzzy in the middle but sharp in the corners you would at the least get a uniformly fuzzy print. Geometric distortion can cancel but the reduction to the negative in the camera must be exactly equal to the magnification in the enlarger, i.e. a life-sized print. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ The taking [camera] lens may be the worst choice of enlarging lens. The best resolution and minimum aberations of a lens are designed with its magnification use in mind. A taking lens is commonly designed to perform best at a subject range between 12 feet and infinity. An enlarging lens is designed to optimize arounf a much smaller reproduction ratio, commonly 6x to 10x, or a couple of feet at most for comparision. The alternative justification of cancellation of aberations is bogus, as explained by Mike [doubles up any negative effects]. There were some optics in the 1930s - '40s for large format which at some usage both as a taking and enlarging lens, but I think that was more reflective of the limitations of the times mixed with myth - certainly nothing you'd strive for today. > The taking lens thing has got a lot of comments over the years, the theory > is that printing with the same lens that took the picture will "cancel" any [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 1. The ideal enlarging lens is the taking lens, since it would tend to > > correct any errors. (Assuming it's a good taking lens.) >There were some optics in the 1930s - '40s for large format which at some >usage both as a taking and enlarging lens, but I think that was more >reflective of the limitations of the times mixed with myth - certainly >nothing you'd strive for today. Actually good process lenses are still being made and are capable of both enlarging and usage as a primary optic. This might include Rodenstock's Apo Ronar which I believe is a 4/4 lens much like the 203/7.7 Ektar which was used by some as a closeup lens for 8X10 cameras. JD - www.puresilver.org > might include Rodenstock's Apo Ronar Sorry, they are no longer being made. 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.