Enlarging lens question

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:25:16 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:


I wouldn't spend money on lenses for the kid when he may
not get hooked by darkroom work. As a first lens either of
these is great. Play 'Princess and the Pea': if the kid
complains about sharpness then you know he is on the hook.

I picked up the enlarger a few weeks back without lens for $5 at a
yard sale and got both lens yesterday for $1.
The boy seems interested so I don't have much invested if he doesn't
stay with it.

--
Colyn Goodson

http://www.colyngoodson.com

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 01:44:38 GMT, Colyn
wrote:


I picked up a couple of enlarging lens today at a yard sale and was
wondering about the quality.
One is a Beslar 50mm f/3.5 and the other is a El-Omegar 50mm f/3.5
Are these lens worth using or should I dump them??

They're fFine for small enlargements and B-&-W. I'd be concerned about
color quality a little if printing RA-4 but haven't bothered with that
in years.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

Colyn wrote:
I picked up a couple of enlarging lens today at a yard sale and was
wondering about the quality.
One is a Beslar 50mm f/3.5 and the other is a El-Omegar 50mm f/3.5
Are these lens worth using or should I dump them??

--
Colyn Goodson

http://www.colyngoodson.com

These are both basic 3 element lenses. Not quite as bad as some of the
replies make out. Running at f/8 or f/11 will give pretty good results.
The next step up is the 4 element tessar design which yields vg
quality, then the 6 element lens which is slightly better, then the apo
version, with extra color correction (and a whopping price)
gr

"Colyn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 05:18:23 GMT, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:


Schneider mounts vary with age. Earlier, chrome barrel
versions of the Componon are not Leica thread mount (39mm
mount), later ones are, at least up to 105mm. While the
later versions of this lens are better than the older ones
even the chrome barrel Componon is nothing to snear at.
These were the best enlarging lenses available at the time
they were made and are still very respectable. Similar
Rodenstock lenses are also very good to excellent but are
not very common on the used market.

I started off with a Schneider with a small mount (don't
recall the
size) then went to the newer versions with 39mm. I
currently have a
50mm and 75mm. Both are as sharp as any I have seen.

One lens I wish I had kept though was a 50mm Rokkor-X
Minolta
enlarging lens.

--
Colyn Goodson

http://www.colyngoodson.com

I also have a 50mm El-Rokkor, its an excellent lens. I
don't use it because I have a Componon-S in that focal
length. I am not certain what type of lens the Rokkor is, I
think a Heliar. Kodak Enlarging Ektars are also excellent
and often cheap used because they are so old.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

In article ,


but Apo-Costalotagons don't improve anyone's photographs.

No, they just make sharper prints over a wider range of magnifications
and over a larger range of optimal apertures. They also deliver better
color saturation in color and sharper lines in B&W.

But to get optimal results from any enlarging lens, regardless of the
quality of the lens you MUST print with a glass negative carrier and a
properly aligned enlarger.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Colyn wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:25:16 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

I wouldn't spend money on lenses for the kid when he may
not get hooked by darkroom work. As a first lens either of
these is great. Play 'Princess and the Pea': if the kid
complains about sharpness then you know he is on the hook.

I picked up the enlarger a few weeks back without lens for $5 at a
yard sale and got both lens yesterday for $1.
The boy seems interested so I don't have much invested if he doesn't
stay with it.

Sounds to me like an opportunity for a wonderful learning
experience, that you can easily "arrange" for!

Let this young fellow get started using the two lenses you have.
Certainly if the idea of making prints in a darkroom happens to
light his fires, to begin with he won't come even close to
noticing the deficiencies those lenses have. Or, at least it
won't for quite some time. (As a teenager 45 years ago it took
me 3-4 weeks to discover that a 50mm Vivitar enlarging lens was
a real limitation.)

Hence, if he only goes to all the trouble of making prints 3 or
4 times and then moves on to something that does interest him,
you don't need to invest in a better lense. But if he's got the
enlarger cranked up at every opportunity... set up a scenario
to /cause/ him to discover the limitations of those lenses.

First, get a couple more lenses! One should be 75mm, and can be
another $1 special, because edge sharpness will not be
important. But do spend $25-50 on a used example of one of
the better 50mm enlarging lenses.

Then propose a project to photograph something that will
demonstrate sharpness at the edges. Try copying something that
is rectangular with important detail in the corner, such as a
page of text, a painting, or maybe best of all a line drawing of
some sort. Then try to make an 8x10, or larger, print.

The lessons that follow from this will demonstrate the effects
on sharpness as the cheap lens is stopped down (not only is the
center a little sharper at f/8 or f/11, but due to a greater
depth of field the edges will be *greatly* improved)... but it
will not be possible to get a print with sharp detail in the
corners (you can expect a thin line to be 1/4" wide!).

That's time to haul out a cheap 75mm lense!

The print won't use the edges of the 75mm lense... but to get an
8x10 requires a lot more distance between the lense and the
paper too. Hmmm... it can be done, but is sure isn't
convenient! (Might be time for a magnifier focusing aid, too.)

And that's the time to haul out the $30 example of a *good*
50mm lense!

A few experiments will show that when stopped down to the
sharpest f/stop, the edges are just as sharp on the print as is
the center, and a full sized 8x10 doesn't require wall mounting
the enlarger either!

For a very small investment, there's an awful lot of "eye
opener" that can be directly transfered to how the lense on a
camera works too.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson spake thus:

That's time to haul out a cheap 75mm lense!

Just one small question: why do you insiste on spellinge it "lense"?


--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

Richard Knoppow spake thus:

... Kodak Enlarging Ektars are also excellent
and often cheap used because they are so old.

We may have been over this before, but what do you think of the
predecessors to those lenses, the Projection Anastigmats? (Apart from
their not being coated.) I've got a bunch of these (cheap from eBay)
that I've gotten excellent results from.


--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 17:37:04 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


Sounds to me like an opportunity for a wonderful learning
experience, that you can easily "arrange" for!

I wanted to compare these lens to my Schneider and Summitar so I made
8x10 B&W prints from the same negative using each lens.

The Beslar lens is now in the trash. Image enlargement at 8x10 was
poor with no sharpness whatsoever. It wouldn't even make a good soft
focus portrait.

The El-Omegar compared well with the Schneider with just a trace of
edge softness but the best of the bunch was my trusty Leica Summitar.
The image was razor sharp from center to edge with no trace of edge
softness and contrast was outstanding.

BTW: This lens has worked well when enlarging 35mm slides.

I've used this lens for years having gotten the idea from my granddad.
He used a Summar 50mm f/2.

I may have to try my screwmount Summicron next.

--
Colyn Goodson

http://www.colyngoodson.com

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson spake thus:

That's time to haul out a cheap 75mm lense!

Just one small question: why do you insiste on spellinge it "lense"?

Correct spelling that has effect is a good policy.

And I'm not religious.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)