Nikon 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...

"Shawn H" wrote

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.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
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

Sheldon Strauss wrote:
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.

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.

--
.~. 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

"Sheldon Strauss" wrote in message ...

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.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:03:47 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

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

"Mark A" wrote in message ...
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.

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!

On 25 Feb 2004 07:39:38 -0800, (J D B) wrote:

"Sheldon Strauss" wrote in message ...

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