If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
Hello,
I recently purchased a Elwood enlarger with a pair of Wollensak Graphic Raptar lenses. Specifically the enlarger is a late model, all cast aluminum 5X7 Elwood. While quite large it is also quite light and I can easily pick up the entire unit and move it without any disassembly. Regarding the lenses, the better of the two Graphic Raptars is 7.5 inch/192mm f/4.5 lens which is in very near mint condition. The 161 mm certainly appears to be in excellent condition as well but there are a couple of cleaning marks in the coating. Here's where my quandary starts. I also purchased a 180/5.6 Componon-S last year. While it was used, it's in mint condition and was shipped with all the original documentation and packaging. I've mounted this lens into a Durst lens cone which was subsequently mounted to the lensboard for the Elwood using screws at roughly 120 degree spacing. I selected a portrait of my son that I had shot on my 5X7 Linhoff using Kodak Tri-X which has a fabulous scale and prints wonderfully on a G2 Galerie. I made prints from this negative using the unusual 5X7 cast metal carrier of the Elwood complete with both upper and lower pieces of glass at the same magnification and using the same f/11 aperture. What I see in looking at both of these prints side by side and with a 6X loupe, is only a slight increase in contrast. That's it. Shouldn't there be other visible differences between what is acknowledged to be one of the best lenses available today and a lens that is generally considered to be mediocre and somewhat antiquated today ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
John wrote:
What I see in looking at both of these prints side by side and with a 6X loupe, is only a slight increase in contrast. That's it. Shouldn't there be other visible differences between what is acknowledged to be one of the best lenses available today and a lens that is generally considered to be mediocre and somewhat antiquated today ? Your findings are identical to my experiences. I compared a new Schneider Apo-Componon HM 4/150 with a silver Tessar-type Componar from the 60's, enlarging a extremely sharp 4x5" negative. When enlarged to 24x30cm (about 2.5x) you could see _no_ difference, even with a strong loupe. At 40x50cm (rougly 4.5x enlargement) the Apo was better at the edges, with a Peak grain focuser one can see it has a better flatness of field. Both lenses were used 2 stops down, the Apo at f8 and the Componar at f11. The Apo had visibily more contrast, a little more magenta took care of that (I think it is a difference of about 10-15 ISO-R or 1/2 grade). I think that even old LF-enlarging lenses are good enough. The real differences show with smaller formats, but even then you have to go pretty low to see big differences. A test with a 2.8/50 Apo-Rodagon, a 2.8/50 Componon-S, a 4.5/50 Focotar and a 4/60 Rodagon shows that it's only possible to identify the Focotar because it hat some curvature of field. (24x36 enlarged 10x to 24x36cm, all lenses stopped down two stops). It is easily seen with the 10x loupe of the Peak, but more difficult to identify on paper. The other three show only infinitesimal differences. A three lens Trinar was easily identified ;-) Martin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
In article ,
Martin Jangowski wrote: 2.8/50 Apo-Rodagon Or 50mm 2.8 Apo Rodagon-N? -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
Bob Salomon wrote:
In article , Martin Jangowski wrote: 2.8/50 Apo-Rodagon Or 50mm 2.8 Apo Rodagon-N? No. It was the "old" Apo-Rodagon without suffix. However, I had both the latest Apo-Rodagon "N" in 2.8/50 and 4/90 on loan here and compared them to my "old" Apo-Rodagons with the same focal length. With a carefully aligned enlarger, no differences visible, tested at 2x, 6x, 10x and 15x enlargement (90mm) and 4x, 8x, 12x, 20x (50mm). So I decided to keep my old glass. All my enlarging lenses are used at two f-stops down from full open. Ok, I will do a test with the 4.5/90 Apo-Componon HM, it is said this is the best enlarging lens in this focal length. We'll see... In the mean time I think the quality of my enlarging lenses is no real problem. Martin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
In article ,
Martin Jangowski wrote: Bob Salomon wrote: In article , Martin Jangowski wrote: 2.8/50 Apo-Rodagon Or 50mm 2.8 Apo Rodagon-N? No. It was the "old" Apo-Rodagon without suffix. However, I had both the latest Apo-Rodagon "N" in 2.8/50 and 4/90 on loan here and compared them to my "old" Apo-Rodagons with the same focal length. With a carefully aligned enlarger, no differences visible, tested at 2x, 6x, 10x and 15x enlargement (90mm) and 4x, 8x, 12x, 20x (50mm). So I decided to keep my old glass. All my enlarging lenses are used at two f-stops down from full open. In a glass negative carrier as the lenses are designed to be used with? Ok, I will do a test with the 4.5/90 Apo-Componon HM, it is said this is the best enlarging lens in this focal length. Who says? You will find as many, or more, saying the same about the 75, 80, 90 and a05mm Apo Rodagon N. -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
In article ,
Bob Salomon wrote: [... ] In a glass negative carrier as the lenses are designed to be used with? Bob, are you saying that the glass carrier is part of the optical formula? Does a glass carrier do more than simply keep the negative flat? Tell me it does so that I have some rationalization for the dust I put up with. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
"jjs" wrote
Does a glass carrier do more than simply keep the negative flat? Oh, absolutely: 1) Attracts dust: helps keep the rest of your darkroom dust free 2) Creates Newton's rings: Adds color and pattern to your pictures 3) Decreases contrast: Keeps those pesky highlights under control 4) Alters light path: Helps achieve that sought-after 'soft focus' look 5) Shatters when dropped: Maintains full employment in the glass industry -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
In article t,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote: 1) Attracts dust: helps keep the rest of your darkroom dust free Film also attracts the dust in your darkroom. 2) Creates Newton's rings: Adds color and pattern to your pictures Not when AN glass is used 3) Decreases contrast: Keeps those pesky highlights under control Says who? 4) Alters light path: Helps achieve that sought-after 'soft focus' look Nope. It is above the lens not below it 5) Shatters when dropped: Maintains full employment in the glass industry Butterfingers? -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The difference in enlarging lenses
In article ,
Bob Salomon wrote: The glass carrier does 2 things that are critical for optimal results when enlarging. 1: It holds the film flat over the entire area of the film that is being printed. 2: It prevents the film from moving during exposure. Okay, I knew that. I was wondering if there were some magic I had overlooked. As to dust I don't find it to be a problem with glass as if there is dust on the glass there would be dust on the film. And I would prefer to clean glass rather then film. My darkroom is pretty much stone-age, almost literally. The house is quite old for this part of the country (1886); stone basement and the house is small. Dust is problem. It does not help to have a woodworking shop next to the darkroom door. I'm really 'into' dust management, but that's an ariticle in itself. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|