KW Praxidos enlarger

I just purchased a KW Praxidos 6x9 cm enlarger on eBay -- it was $31.99,
shipped, which I figured offset the fact that it's old and the wiring
may not be up to current standards -- I can rewire it, it's no worse
than a lamp. And yes, it's a diffusion type -- which is what I learned
on, 35 years ago; I don't know that I've ever used a condenser enlarger.

Question I have is about the quality of the (presumably 105 mm) lens
that was sold with these enlargers, and what mount it uses? I'd like to
get a 50 mm and possibly a 28 mm or shorter, for use with 35 mm and 16
mm negatives. Bearing in mind my very limited budget ($200 for a Bogen
or Omega 4x5 would have been out of the question, even if I could avoid
shipping charges with a local pickup), can anyone suggest acceptable
budget lenses to look for?

Alternately, does anyone have experience with adapting to use lenses
from a 35 mm SLR on an enlarger? I have high quality M42 mount lenses
in 50 mm and 28 mm; I'm aware that camera lenses aren't designed for
high ratio imaging (bigger than about 1:10), but I've gotten good images
with the 50 mm in macro up to nearly 1:1. I can easily get an
"inop/parts" camera in M-42 to take a mount from, and I'm pretty certain
I can adapt the mount to the Praxidos enlarger's lens board or mount --
the question is, will the enlargements produced be worth the effort?
Would I get images as good or better with quality cameras lenses as with
budget enlarging lenses?

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls schrieb:

Would I get images as good or better with quality cameras lenses as with
budget enlarging lenses?

In short, no. You´ll probably have to throw the lenses away in short
time. I know someone who usually buys all M42-lenses he can get his
hands on cheaply to use them on his Krokus enlarger - he hasn´t found
a cheap adapter yet and hadn´t thought of the Amar/Janpol Color lenses
designed for that enlarger (by the same producer, PZO).

The lenses usually work for half a year, then the cement breaks and
the elements separate - the cement isn´t design to stand the heat and
light.

If you want to keep your M42 lenses and use them in the future -
forget it.

Optically, it is less than ideal. The "photo lenses" are designed for
large distances, the enlarger lenses for a flat field at a short
distance.

Look out for a Janpol Color 5,6/50, it comes in M42 and has built in
color-filters... I got one out of curiosity (15EUR, incl. shipping)
and at normal enlargement ratios (up to 20x30cm) I can´t distinguish
prints made with this from those made with my Rodenstock Rodagon
2,8/50.

On the shorter focal length - there is a 4,5/30mm Anaret made by
Meopta, designed for 16mm and 35mm half frame. I use it for Minox
negatives.

You´ll need to adapt the distance filmlens... in comparison to the
105mm lens for 6x9, you´ll have to shorten the distance for 50mm or
30mm.

HTH.

Gruss, Roman
--
"A man should always keep two things in mind:
one is that he is a fool; the other is that he is going to die."
(Gurdijew)

On 4/20/2004 9:47 PM Donald Qualls spake thus:

I just purchased a KW Praxidos 6x9 cm enlarger on eBay -- it was $31.99,
shipped, which I figured offset the fact that it's old and the wiring
may not be up to current standards -- I can rewire it, it's no worse
than a lamp. And yes, it's a diffusion type -- which is what I learned
on, 35 years ago; I don't know that I've ever used a condenser enlarger.

Question I have is about the quality of the (presumably 105 mm) lens
that was sold with these enlargers, and what mount it uses? I'd like to
get a 50 mm and possibly a 28 mm or shorter, for use with 35 mm and 16
mm negatives. Bearing in mind my very limited budget ($200 for a Bogen
or Omega 4x5 would have been out of the question, even if I could avoid
shipping charges with a local pickup), can anyone suggest acceptable
budget lenses to look for?

In answer to this last, that's easy: Kodak [Projection] Anastigmats. Plentiful
(at least on *Bay), cheap, and very good. Uncoated (except possibly for some
later ones), but very good. I got a 161mm with my humungous Elwood 5x7
Spaceship Mars enlarger, and it makes excellent images (I use it for 9x12 and
4x5).

So far as what kind of mounts these lenses have, apart from telling you that
they have screw mounts, I have no idea what size they are. I just drill a hole
that will fit them.


--
I was quickly apprised that an "RSS feed" was not, as I had naively
imagined, some new and unspeakable form of sexual debauchery practised
by young persons of dubious morality, but a way of providing news
articles to the cybernetic publishing moguls of the World Wide Wait so
they can fill the airwaves with even more useless drivel.

- Cynical shop talk from comp.publish.prepress

Roman J. Rohleder wrote:

Donald Qualls schrieb:
=20
=20
Would I get images as good or better with quality cameras lenses as wit=
h=20
budget enlarging lenses?
=20
=20
In short, no. You=B4ll probably have to throw the lenses away in short
time. I know someone who usually buys all M42-lenses he can get his
hands on cheaply to use them on his Krokus enlarger - he hasn=B4t found=

a cheap adapter yet and hadn=B4t thought of the Amar/Janpol Color lense=
s
designed for that enlarger (by the same producer, PZO).

The lenses usually work for half a year, then the cement breaks and
the elements separate - the cement isn=B4t design to stand the heat and=

light.
=20
If you want to keep your M42 lenses and use them in the future -
forget it.

This I find hard to believe -- first, this Praxidos is a diffusion
enlarger, and I wouldn't expect to see a lot of heat transfer into the
lens as might be the case with a condenser unit that doesn't include IR
reflective glass; the more so because it's a 6x9 enlarger, but I would
be using these shorter lenses with a mask for 35 mm or the 10x14 mm
frame of Minolta 16 negatives. The enlarger already has an original
lens, probably 105 mm, for enlarging 6x9 (and probably 6x6, given my
budget). And second, there's little or no UV in the light from an
incandescent enlarger lamp, so I wouldn't expect to see damage to the
lens cements from the light alone -- after all, a lens has focusing
light as it's reason for being, why would opticians assemble it with
cement that can't take prolonged exposure to light?

I do want to keep at least some of these lenses; however, I have a 50 mm
f/2.0 Jupiter (Russian) and a 28 mm f/3.5 Auto Rikenon that are surplus
to my needs, and both are much faster than the usual enlarging lenses,
which would help cut down on exposure times extended by high
magnification and dumping 80% of the light in a mask. I wouldn't expect
them to compete with the finest enlarging lenses -- but the $20 variety
that I can afford? I don't know; how bad can an enlarger lens be?

Optically, it is less than ideal. The "photo lenses" are designed for
large distances, the enlarger lenses for a flat field at a short
distance.

I'm very aware of the different optimizations; I was considering that a
camera lens that produces nice macro images with an extension tube might
be better than a cheap enlarging lens that has focus shift on stopping
down and soft corners. Flat field doesn't worry me -- a camera lens
needs a flat field, too, or all the effort camera designers put into
holding the film flat would be wasted. Yes, I've seen curved film
planes in some old 6x9 box cameras and in a couple seriously cheesy 35
mm P&S simple cameras I own ($1 each at thrift stores, I bought them for
experimentation), but never in a quality camera like the Pentax and
Ricoh cameras these lenses were made to fit.

Look out for a Janpol Color 5,6/50, it comes in M42 and has built in
color-filters... I got one out of curiosity (15EUR, incl. shipping)
and at normal enlargement ratios (up to 20x30cm) I can=B4t distinguish
prints made with this from those made with my Rodenstock Rodagon
2,8/50.

I don't yet know if this enlarger is M42, M39, or something else -- I
can tell from the pictures that it hasn't got a large flat lens board
like most 4x5 enlargers; it looks like a metal mount that would accept a
flange and retaining ring similar to what holds the shutter in a lot of
medium and large format cameras -- but adapters aren't terribly hard to
make, especially with "inop-parts" a standard camera description on eBay.=


On the shorter focal length - there is a 4,5/30mm Anaret made by
Meopta, designed for 16mm and 35mm half frame. I use it for Minox
negatives.

That sounds pretty close to what I'm after. I'll try to keep an eye
open for the Janpol and Meopta lenses. Unfortunately, with my budget, I
suspect I'll either be scrounging, or just planning on buying $10
Jupiter lenses once or twice a year for a while.

You=B4ll need to adapt the distance filmlens... in comparison to the
105mm lens for 6x9, you=B4ll have to shorten the distance for 50mm or
30mm.

Obviously -- I'll know what needs to be done there when I can examine
the focusing mechanism; I might simple need to extend the existing rack,
or invent a simple way to move it up or down; I'm sure the bellows will
take up enough shortening to get close, at least with the 50 mm. An
alternative would be to emulate the Enla units that used to be sold for
Minox, and put the smaller negative carriers at the bottom of the
bellows, using the built-in focusing helicoid of the camera lens with a
"macro extension" (since I won't need infinity focus anyway) to focus
the projected image.

I'll know more when the enlarger arrives, of course -- likely to be
another week, possibly a little longer.

--=20
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls schrieb:

This I find hard to believe -- first, this Praxidos is a diffusion
enlarger, and I wouldn't expect to see a lot of heat transfer into the
lens as might be the case with a condenser unit that doesn't include IR
reflective glass;

The example I stated was with a Krokus 69 Color, a condensor enlarger.

You could lessen the danger with a heat filter.

budget). And second, there's little or no UV in the light from an
incandescent enlarger lamp, so I wouldn't expect to see damage to the
lens cements from the light alone -- after all, a lens has focusing
light as it's reason for being, why would opticians assemble it with
cement that can't take prolonged exposure to light?

´cause there are limits to light the cement can stand. ;-)

And UV light doesn´t seem to be the problem. Modern cements harden
under UV light.

I do want to keep at least some of these lenses; however, I have a 50 mm
f/2.0 Jupiter (Russian) and a 28 mm f/3.5 Auto Rikenon that are surplus
to my needs,

As a Sovkam user you are scaring the hell out of me. ;-)

But there is a lens that might serve your purpose - the Industar 50
has a high resolution and a very flat field. There is a Y/U variant of
it, I50Y, indicating a enlarger design.

and both are much faster than the usual enlarging lenses,
which would help cut down on exposure times extended by high
magnification and dumping 80% of the light in a mask. I wouldn't expect
them to compete with the finest enlarging lenses -- but the $20 variety
that I can afford? I don't know; how bad can an enlarger lens be?

An ordinary three element enlarger lens (Meopta Belar for example) can
suck at 18x24cm. A decent four element lens like a Anaret or Janpol
has some limits at higher magnifications, but compete with the
6element breed at normal sizes.

The Anaret 4,5/80 competes with current Rodagons or Componons. And it
is dirt cheap. Even if bought new.

And today even those Rodagons are affordable. Sometimes they come in
for free with the enlarger kit you buy. Sometimes you can get them for
20EUR.

holding the film flat would be wasted. Yes, I've seen curved film
planes in some old 6x9 box cameras

Agfa Clack. #-)

The one element meniscus lens sometimes deliver stunning results.

I don't yet know if this enlarger is M42, M39, or something else --

http://homed.inet.tele.dk/riess/kw.html

http://homed.inet.tele.dk/riess/praxidos.JPG

This indicates that your enlarger might be 60 or 70 years old and a
Dresden breed. But why do you think it is a diffusion head?

medium and large format cameras -- but adapters aren't terribly hard to
make, especially with "inop-parts" a standard camera description on eBay.

Ack. If in doubt, cut a hole a sheet, insert the lens and hold it with
a screwed in makro tube in place.

On the shorter focal length - there is a 4,5/30mm Anaret made by
Meopta, designed for 16mm and 35mm half frame. I use it for Minox
negatives.

That sounds pretty close to what I'm after. I'll try to keep an eye
open for the Janpol and Meopta lenses. Unfortunately, with my budget, I
suspect I'll either be scrounging, or just planning on buying $10
Jupiter lenses once or twice a year for a while.

No, the Anarets come at that price. I paid 15DM! new for the 4/30...
in Prag, close to the Altstaedter Ring, in a shop that had "tourist
trap" all over it". That was in 1999.

Don´t rush. Take your time, use the Rikenon and exchange it when you
can afford it.

Another chance - look out for the Industar enlarger lenses. There are
some very fine examples at very low prices and shipping costs from
Russia aren´t that bad for stuff at that size.

You can distinguish the enlarger type from the Y in the name. Some are
still made, like the I100Y, a very decent, multicoated lens that can
be compared with the Componon of same focal length (105mm).

I got it for 10EUR at a flea market. Well, 30EUR including a Jupiter12
for my Kiev. But the asking price was 10EUR for the brand new lens.
,-)

The I96Y in 50mm came with my "emergency enlarger", a UPA suitcase kit
I use in my student flat. It is somewhat crude in finish, but performs
quite nice.

This I23Y (Tessar design) is one of the lesser products, the I100Y is
certainly better.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

I don´t know the seller, and I don´t like the lens. ;-)

The producer of the I100Y is LZOS of Lytkarino, near Moscow. They are
kown for their telescope mirrors (for Zeiss/Schott, the ESA), the
mirror lenses (MTO500/1000 and others).

http://www.lzos.ru/en/main.htm

Enlarger lenses:

http://www.lzos.ru/en/photozoom.htm

Price list:

http://www.lzos.ru/en/price.htm

5000USD minimum order, but you can walk in the office and get
individual items. ;-)

Oh, here, the full production list of Meopta enlarger lenses,
including diagrams:

http://www.meopta.cz/products/lenses/enlarger/

They should be available via Ebay... and you might want to contact J&C
- Fotoimpex sells these Meopta lenses in Berlin and since the two
companies cooperate... the odds are quite good.

If you get a Meopta lens, ask what lens mount comes with it. They are
made in M23,5 and usually equipped with a M39 adaptor - that is
sometime lost or forgotten.

I'll know more when the enlarger arrives, of course -- likely to be
another week, possibly a little longer.

Lot of work to be done with it. Keep us updated.

I hope this is of help to you.

Gruss, Roman
--
"A man should always keep two things in mind:
one is that he is a fool; the other is that he is going to die."
(Gurdijew)

Roman J. Rohleder wrote:

Donald Qualls schrieb:
=20
=20
This I find hard to believe -- first, this Praxidos is a diffusion
enlarger, and I wouldn't expect to see a lot of heat transfer into the
lens as might be the case with a condenser unit that doesn't include IR=

reflective glass;=20
=20
=20
The example I stated was with a Krokus 69 Color, a condensor enlarger.
=20
You could lessen the danger with a heat filter.

Okay, so we're at least on the same page -- heat (and to a lesser extent =

simple light flux) are less of a problem in a diffusion enlarger.

light as it's reason for being, why would opticians assemble it with
cement that can't take prolonged exposure to light?
=20
=20
=B4cause there are limits to light the cement can stand. ;-)
=20
And UV light doesn=B4t seem to be the problem. Modern cements harden
under UV light.

Well, but I wouldn't consider the cements in my pre-1970 Super Takumar,=20
just to mention my best 50 mm, to be "modern" -- I think Canada balsam=20
was still being used in most optical factories at that time; the modern=20
epoxy based and UV hardening cements were only starting to become=20
available in the early 1970s. I don't know the vintage of the Jupiter=20
and Auto Rikenon lenses, other than that the Auto Rikenon is probably=20
post-1970 -- the first one I owned came with a Ricoh Singlex II that was =

probably made between 1974 and 1978.

And I do know balsam softens with heat, but see above that we're in=20
agreement on heat being less of a problem with a diffusion enlarger, and =

further, I don't expect to run the light continously for hours at a time =

-- a couple minutes to compose and focus, and then up to a minute or so=20
for each exposure, with lots of cooling time in between. I'd have heat=20
problems in the lamp house before I'd see problems with heat in the=20
lens, I'd think.

I do want to keep at least some of these lenses; however, I have a 50 m=
m
f/2.0 Jupiter (Russian) and a 28 mm f/3.5 Auto Rikenon that are surplus=

to my needs,
=20
=20
As a Sovkam user you are scaring the hell out of me. ;-)

Well, I don't honestly expect to damage the Jupiter lens -- and in fact=20
I only have it because it came with a Singlex II body I bought, thinking =

it worked (it didn't -- I now have two with different problems).

I wouldn't expect
them to compete with the finest enlarging lenses -- but the $20 variety=

that I can afford? I don't know; how bad can an enlarger lens be?
=20
=20
An ordinary three element enlarger lens (Meopta Belar for example) can
suck at 18x24cm. A decent four element lens like a Anaret or Janpol
has some limits at higher magnifications, but compete with the
6element breed at normal sizes.

Okay, there's what I was after -- with the shorter lens, the 28 mm, I'll =

be enlarging a 10x14 mm negative, so even getting to a 4x6 (10x15 cm)=20
"standard" print is a 10x enlargement, equivalent to 10x14 inches (25x35 =

cm) from a 35 mm negative. So, I need a lens with reasonably good=20
quality; I know the Auto Rikenon produces good images when focused=20
inside two feet at ratios down to about 1:10, without macro tubes. The=20
prices I've seen on enlarger lenses suggest I can probably afford=20
something decent in 50 mm, but I've seen very, very few 35 mm or shorter =

enlarging lenses in a recent search on eBay, and most are out of my=20
price range -- which was well suited by paying $32 shipped for this=20
Praxidos.

The Anaret 4,5/80 competes with current Rodagons or Componons. And it
is dirt cheap. Even if bought new.
=20
And today even those Rodagons are affordable. Sometimes they come in
for free with the enlarger kit you buy. Sometimes you can get them for
20EUR.

Yes, in 50 mm and longer I've seen lenses with Buy It Now at under $20=20
that, based on the names, ought to be good. Not Rodagons, but=20
Componons, El Nikkors, and similar. It's the shorter lenses that are a=20
problem -- and the shorter lenses I really need, because I can't get=20
much of a scan from a 10x14 mm negative with a scanner that only has=20
1200 ppi optical resolution. Yes, I should have bought a better scanner =

-- but when I bought this, I'd almost forgotten I even had these Minolta =

16 cameras, much less considered actually loading cassettes and putting=20
them back in service, and the 2400 ppi setting, with interpolation in=20
one direction and micro step in the other, does a pretty good job on 35=20
mm negatives; it's more than fine on larger negatives (when I bought the =

Arcus 1200, I was shooting 120 and 9x12 cm exclusively).

holding the film flat would be wasted. Yes, I've seen curved film
planes in some old 6x9 box cameras=20
=20
=20
Agfa Clack. #-)

And at least one Kodak box I had as a kid.

The one element meniscus lens sometimes deliver stunning results.

The consistently best images I get are with a double meniscus in my=20
Ansco B2 Speedex Jr. Fixed focus, 1/25 shutter, and I get sharp images=20
from five feet to the horizon, little or no motion blur -- images as=20
good as the average from my Moskva-5, though the best from the Moskva-5=20
are better. But the Speedex Jr. produces the same quality on every=20
image, unless I just plain move the camera or grossly foul up the exposur=
e.

I don't yet know if this enlarger is M42, M39, or something else --
=20
=20
http://homed.inet.tele.dk/riess/kw.html
=20
http://homed.inet.tele.dk/riess/praxidos.JPG
=20
This indicates that your enlarger might be 60 or 70 years old and a
Dresden breed. But why do you think it is a diffusion head?

It is at least 45 years old, since the KW logo was discontinued in 1959. =

I'm guessing it's newer than WWII, however, because before then the=20
Praxidos most likely accommodated the 9x12 cm negatives from the larger=20
Patent Etui, which was KW's main claim to fame before the Praktiflex=20
(the Pilot Six was the first 6x6 SLR, but wasn't really very common).

And that's why I'm not sure what lens mount it has -- practically every=20
enlarger since 1960 has used either M32, M39, M42, or a lens board like=20
a view camera for the 4x5 breed. Before then, as with cameras, pretty=20
much anything went; there were no real standards, as far as I can see.

medium and large format cameras -- but adapters aren't terribly hard to=

make, especially with "inop-parts" a standard camera description on eBa=
y.
=20
=20
Ack. If in doubt, cut a hole a sheet, insert the lens and hold it with
a screwed in makro tube in place.

That's certainly an option, at least for initial testing or temporary=20
use, though I do use my macro tubes occasionally, so I wouldn't want to=20
tie up up permanently (at least without buying another set so I'd still=20
have some to use).

On the shorter focal length - there is a 4,5/30mm Anaret made by
Meopta, designed for 16mm and 35mm half frame. I use it for Minox
negatives.

That sounds pretty close to what I'm after. I'll try to keep an eye
open for the Janpol and Meopta lenses. Unfortunately, with my budget, =
I
suspect I'll either be scrounging, or just planning on buying $10
Jupiter lenses once or twice a year for a while.
=20
=20
No, the Anarets come at that price. I paid 15DM! new for the 4/30...
in Prag, close to the Altstaedter Ring, in a shop that had "tourist
trap" all over it". That was in 1999.

Things have changed -- for one thing, there's no place near me where I=20
can walk in and look at used enlarger lenses at junk sale prices. The=20
only place I know that has any used lenses at all has them priced above=20
eBay (though somewhat above is acceptable, since I can handle the lens=20
and verify its condition before buying, don't have to wait for shipping, =

and have a local dealer to go back to if there's a major problem). I=20
haven't been to a camera show in decades -- no time, even if I had any=20
inkling when and where they are in this area.

And I'm in America, so anything with the KW logo was relatively rare=20
here; even the Praktisix and other Praktica branded cameras weren't as=20
popular in this company, because they were made in East Germany during=20
the Cold War.

Don=B4t rush. Take your time, use the Rikenon and exchange it when you
can afford it.
=20
Another chance - look out for the Industar enlarger lenses. There are
some very fine examples at very low prices and shipping costs from
Russia aren=B4t that bad for stuff at that size.

Okay, that's potentially useful, though I don't recall seeing any of=20
those when I checked eBay the other day.

Oh, here, the full production list of Meopta enlarger lenses,
including diagrams:
=20
http://www.meopta.cz/products/lenses/enlarger/
=20
They should be available via Ebay... and you might want to contact J&C
- Fotoimpex sells these Meopta lenses in Berlin and since the two
companies cooperate... the odds are quite good.
=20
If you get a Meopta lens, ask what lens mount comes with it. They are
made in M23,5 and usually equipped with a M39 adaptor - that is
sometime lost or forgotten.

That Anaret 4.5/30 should do what I want; even if I get a Kiev 30 the=20
frame size is still only 13x17 mm. Question is price -- what a lot of=20
other people consider "dirt cheap" in photography turns out to be my cue =

to scrounge and improvise. Still, if I can find one on eBay, it might=20
be affordable.

I'll know more when the enlarger arrives, of course -- likely to be
another week, possibly a little longer.
=20
=20
Lot of work to be done with it. Keep us updated.
=20
I hope this is of help to you.

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I got -- it's been more than 20=20
years since I've used an enlarger, and then it was 35 mm, already set up =

with the 50 mm lens, just turn on the lamp, put the negative in the=20
carrier, and start focusing and cropping -- no choosing focal lengths,=20
no futzing with negative carriers (or making them). We'll see how this=20
goes, I might decide it's simpler to buy a $10 Minolta or Kiev camera=20
and take it apart to get a negative mask and lens already in the correct =

relationship (though I'd have to find a way to focus and/or extend the=20
focus range) and build something like an Enla.

--=20
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls schrieb:

Well, but I wouldn't consider the cements in my pre-1970 Super Takumar,
just to mention my best 50 mm, to be "modern" -- I think Canada balsam
was still being used in most optical factories at that time;

True, I know. I didn´t know the term, I didn´t expect that "Canada
balsam" is the same in english. ;-)

the modern
epoxy based and UV hardening cements were only starting to become
available in the early 1970s. I don't know the vintage of the Jupiter
and Auto Rikenon lenses,

There should a serial number on the Jupiter, the first two numbers
indicate the year of production. I have never seen a J8 without a
serial number. The producer should be KMZ of Krasnogorsk... is the
logo a prism, with a beam passing straight through it?

And I do know balsam softens with heat, but see above that we're in
agreement on heat being less of a problem with a diffusion enlarger, and
further, I don't expect to run the light continously for hours at a time

I don´t and parts of my Kaiser enlarger melted and blocked the filter
drawer permanently..

The
prices I've seen on enlarger lenses suggest I can probably afford
something decent in 50 mm, but I've seen very, very few 35 mm or shorter
enlarging lenses in a recent search on eBay, and most are out of my
price range -- which was well suited by paying $32 shipped for this
Praxidos.

As I wrote before, there aren´t that many enlarger lenses of short
focal length designed for that task - most are wide angle lenses and
they are still very expensive.

Yes, in 50 mm and longer I've seen lenses with Buy It Now at under $20
that, based on the names, ought to be good. Not Rodagons, but
Componons, El Nikkors, and similar. It's the shorter lenses that are a
problem -- and the shorter lenses I really need,

There aren´t that many built and sold.

Oh, the PZO Janpol I mentioned was sold by Beseler in the USA. The
good thing are the built in color filters - with a diffusion type
enlarger they were designed to serve instead of a color head.

I plan to use it with Multigrade papers.

because I can't get
much of a scan from a 10x14 mm negative with a scanner that only has
1200 ppi optical resolution. Yes, I should have bought a better scanner
-- but when I bought this, I'd almost forgotten I even had these Minolta
16 cameras, much less considered actually loading cassettes and putting
them back in service,

I am thinking of getting a Kiev or Vega in short time. We´ll see.

The one element meniscus lens sometimes deliver stunning results.

The consistently best images I get are with a double meniscus in my
Ansco B2 Speedex Jr. Fixed focus, 1/25 shutter, and I get sharp images
from five feet to the horizon, little or no motion blur --

Feed it with slide film and prepare for a nice surprise (proven with
the Clack).

images as
good as the average from my Moskva-5, though the best from the Moskva-5
are better.

So you know the problems the Industar 24 has - same applies to the
I23Y.

The most important thing when using the M5 is to transport the film
just prior to shooting. Open the bellow, transport, set exposure,
focus, shoot - don´t give the bellow a chance to suck the film off the
film plane. But you probably know that. ;-)

That's certainly an option, at least for initial testing or temporary
use, though I do use my macro tubes occasionally, so I wouldn't want to
tie up up permanently (at least without buying another set so I'd still
have some to use).

What about making it a lensless enlarger? ;-

http://www.stanford.edu/~cpatton/pe.html

And I'm in America, so anything with the KW logo was relatively rare
here; even the Praktisix and other Praktica branded cameras weren't as
popular in this company, because they were made in East Germany during
the Cold War.

Try the Kiev Report.. I know there are people accustomed to KW gear.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/kievreport/

(Russian enlarger lenses)

Okay, that's potentially useful, though I don't recall seeing any of
those when I checked eBay the other day.

I noticed. Odd, usually I see them there in hordes, listed for 5USD
plus shipping..

That Anaret 4.5/30 should do what I want; even if I get a Kiev 30 the
frame size is still only 13x17 mm. Question is price -- what a lot of
other people consider "dirt cheap" in photography turns out to be my cue
to scrounge and improvise.

Don´t rush, take your time, you may find a bargain sooner than you
expect.

Still, if I can find one on eBay, it might
be affordable.

They are uncommon at best. Good luck with it.

Gruss, Roman
--
"A man should always keep two things in mind:
one is that he is a fool; the other is that he is going to die."
(Gurdijew)

Roman J. Rohleder wrote:

Donald Qualls schrieb:
=20
=20
Well, but I wouldn't consider the cements in my pre-1970 Super Takumar,=
=20
just to mention my best 50 mm, to be "modern" -- I think Canada balsam =

was still being used in most optical factories at that time;
=20
=20
True, I know. I didn=B4t know the term, I didn=B4t expect that "Canada
balsam" is the same in english. ;-)

Well, there are quite a number of words in other languages that are=20
derived from, or simply incorporated as English words. The Spanish word =

for a safety razor is "gillette" (with Spanish pronunciation, of=20
course), just to name one hideous example. In a thousand years,=20
philologists will curse whoever it was who thought it would be simplest=20
to just use the English word instead of finding their own language's=20
words with the same meaning -- and they'll think the same in a dozen or=20
more modern languages.

the modern=20
epoxy based and UV hardening cements were only starting to become=20
available in the early 1970s. I don't know the vintage of the Jupiter =

and Auto Rikenon lenses,
=20
=20
There should a serial number on the Jupiter, the first two numbers
indicate the year of production. I have never seen a J8 without a
serial number. The producer should be KMZ of Krasnogorsk... is the
logo a prism, with a beam passing straight through it?

Okay, I was confused, because the lenses weren't the reason for my=20
purchse, I was after what I though was a working Ricoh Singlex II body=20
(and still am, for that matter); what I have are a 28 mm f/3.5 Auto=20
Rikenon with a couple significant chips in the front surface, a 50 mm=20
f/2.0 Auto Rikenon, and a 50 mm f/2 Helios. So I don't have the surplus =

28 mm M42 lens I thought I did; the only one I have is an Auto Rikenon=20
in good condition that I use with my Spotmatic. I have a couple decent=20
50 mm lenses, but they won't help me that much in getting above 10x with =

a 10x14 mm negative.

As I wrote before, there aren=B4t that many enlarger lenses of short
focal length designed for that task - most are wide angle lenses and
they are still very expensive.

Aye, there's the rub. It might well be cheaper to buy a half dozen M42=20
38 mm SLR lenses than a single 28 mm enlarging lens of any mount -- and=20
an additional advantage of the SLR lenses is the retrofocus design; they =

can be about 43 mm to 50 mm (depending on the camera they were made for) =

from the film and still provide an angle of view (or projection) like a=20
28 mm conventional lens.

Oh, the PZO Janpol I mentioned was sold by Beseler in the USA. The
good thing are the built in color filters - with a diffusion type
enlarger they were designed to serve instead of a color head.
=20
I plan to use it with Multigrade papers.

I did see one of those on eBay -- for $70 to start, which is at least=20
$50 out of my current budget.

because I can't get=20
much of a scan from a 10x14 mm negative with a scanner that only has=20
1200 ppi optical resolution. Yes, I should have bought a better scanne=
r=20
-- but when I bought this, I'd almost forgotten I even had these Minolt=
a=20
16 cameras, much less considered actually loading cassettes and putting=
=20
them back in service,
=20
=20
I am thinking of getting a Kiev or Vega in short time. We=B4ll see.

I'm still thinking about getting a Kiev 30 or 30M and hacking it to=20
install the shutter from a Minolta 16 II -- which goes B, 30-500 instead =

of 30-300 like the Kiev shutter, all versions. The focusing lens, 13x17 =

frame, and the better shutter would make about the best push-pull camera =

one could imagine short of the incredible lenses in the Minox B and C=20
models -- which are also out of my price range.

The consistently best images I get are with a double meniscus in my=20
Ansco B2 Speedex Jr. Fixed focus, 1/25 shutter, and I get sharp images=
=20
=20
from five feet to the horizon, little or no motion blur --
=20
Feed it with slide film and prepare for a nice surprise (proven with
the Clack).

I don't have a good way to view 6x6 cm slides, or I'd probably have done =

it already. I made some 6x9 cm chromes when I was about fourteen (is=20
that really thirty years ago?) that were simply amazing, and I made them =

in a box camera, fixed shutter, fixed aperture, fixed focus. OTOH, I=20
did make some Super Slides (4x4 cm from 127 film) about that same time=20
frame -- awesome images, and almost enough to tempt me to get a Baby=20
Rolleiflex or similar, since one of two 127 emulsions still available is =

a chrome. The prices of the cameras, and then the price of film and=20
processing, though...

So you know the problems the Industar 24 has - same applies to the
I23Y.

Actually, my example has no problems; it's as good as any Tessar copy=20
I've encountered, and my front standard appears to be solid and=20
correctly aligned as well. The main problems with images from my=20
Moskva-5 are camera movement (the 105 mm lens magnifies movement=20
compared to the 80 mm on the Speedex Jr., and I'm always pushing the=20
limits on shutter speed trying to get more depth of field) and problems=20
with the rangefinder due to vertical misalignment (which I need to fix=20
sometime when I have time to dig into things). When I nail the focus=20
and get a good hold, the Industar is as almost as good as my Super=20
Takumar 1.4/50.

The most important thing when using the M5 is to transport the film
just prior to shooting. Open the bellow, transport, set exposure,
focus, shoot - don=B4t give the bellow a chance to suck the film off th=
e
film plane. But you probably know that. ;-)

I haven't noticed it to be a major problem, but I open the camera gently =

to cut down on the dust that gets deposited on the film before exposure, =

which automatically reduces the effect on film flatness. I can't=20
advance before exposure; I have too many cameras without double exposure =

prevention (despite the Moskva-5 having a pretty good system), and need=20
to keep the habits the same, so I advance after exposure, not before.

What about making it a lensless enlarger? ;-
=20
http://www.stanford.edu/~cpatton/pe.html

I've considered that, but everyone keeps telling me it'll just be=20
unsharp at all settings. I think it depends on the size of the pinhole=20
and the enlargement factor -- but it does have advantages for tiny=20
negatives, because I could put the negative in front of the pinhole,=20
instead of between the diffuser and the lens as would normally be the=20
case. The bad news is, the pinhole size would be huge relative to the=20
negative size for the 10x14 mm Minolta 16 frame, which is where I really =

need the help.

And I'm in America, so anything with the KW logo was relatively rare=20
here; even the Praktisix and other Praktica branded cameras weren't as =

popular in this company, because they were made in East Germany during =

the Cold War.
=20
=20
Try the Kiev Report.. I know there are people accustomed to KW gear.
=20
http://forums.delphiforums.com/kievreport/
=20
(Russian enlarger lenses)

Have to take a look at that...

Okay, that's potentially useful, though I don't recall seeing any of=20
those when I checked eBay the other day.
=20
=20
I noticed. Odd, usually I see them there in hordes, listed for 5USD
plus shipping..

The Soviet cameras come and go, too -- seems like people happen on a=20
stash of them, sell them off, and disappear, then a few months later=20
someone else find a bunch of them in a warehouse and sells them off, etc.=


That Anaret 4.5/30 should do what I want; even if I get a Kiev 30 the=20
frame size is still only 13x17 mm. Question is price -- what a lot of =

other people consider "dirt cheap" in photography turns out to be my cu=
e=20
to scrounge and improvise. =20
=20
=20
Don=B4t rush, take your time, you may find a bargain sooner than you
expect.

Sooner than I expect I can believe -- sooner than I need is another story=
=2E

Still, if I can find one on eBay, it might=20
be affordable.
=20
=20
They are uncommon at best. Good luck with it.

Yeah. There is a way -- I just have to figure out what it is. Just to=20
show there *is* a way, I saw a negative mask for Minox format in a=20
Beseler 4x5 inch enlarger go by on eBay just a week or two ago. Seemed=20
a rather odd looking item, huge carrier with this little bitty hole...

--=20
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.