Nikon 50mm f4.0 vs. 50mm f2.8

"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!

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!

There is definitely less light fall off at the edges of your prints, since
with the negative size you use for these lenses (which is less than the
rated negative size), you are not using the edge of the lens. Resolution is
better also.

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

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

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:48:40 -0600, Mike
wrote:

Glass carrier isn't necessary for 35mm IMHO. If you enlarger isn't
aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher.

I wonder what the diffraction limit is on a 50mm enlarging
lens ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

If you enlarger isn't
aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher.

I tried thos once. You will not get sharp grain even in a 8x10" print if
your enlager is slightly out of alignment. Stopping down as far as your
lens allows (approx. f32, beyond the marked range on that old componon)
was not sufficient to solve this problem. Anything but aligning it asap
ist a waste of time IMHO.


I honestly have no idea if my enlarger is aligned or not. I transported
it in the car and assembled it without aligning.

My prints look fantastic.

Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture of
newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness).

In article ,
Mike wrote:


If you enlarger isn't
aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher.

I tried thos once. You will not get sharp grain even in a 8x10" print if
your enlager is slightly out of alignment. Stopping down as far as your
lens allows (approx. f32, beyond the marked range on that old componon)
was not sufficient to solve this problem. Anything but aligning it asap
ist a waste of time IMHO.


I honestly have no idea if my enlarger is aligned or not. I transported
it in the car and assembled it without aligning.

My prints look fantastic.

Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture of
newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness).



As well as not being equally sharp (with a glass carrier and a quality
lens) an out of alignment enlarger will not be able to reproduce round
objects as perfectly round. There will be foreshortening and an out of
alignment enlarger will produce more oval shapes or round objects.

it is best to assume that an enlarger is not in perfect alignment until
you have actually tetsed it and seen that it is in or out of alignment.
A tool like the Zigalign tests alignmets to about 1/5000".

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

See here for an inexpensive way to align:

http://www.photonet.demon.nl/align.html

Jorge


Mike wrote in
news
I honestly have no idea if my enlarger is aligned or not. I
transported it in the car and assembled it without aligning.

My prints look fantastic.

Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture
of newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness).

On 2/25/2004 9:48 AM Mike spake thus:

O.K. I can hear the sighs from here, but how do I align an Omega DII
enlarger? Is a glass carrier required as well in 35mm format?

Glass carrier isn't necessary for 35mm IMHO. If you enlarger isn't
aligned perfectly, just stop down to f11 or higher.

The DII has 4 sets of rollers on which the head slides on. There is a bar
connecting each set, and this bar has a hole in the center. By loosening
the screws, and sticking a screwdriver in the hole, you can change the
alignment. Do your best...with just the negative carrier you should get a
perfect rectangle (not a trapezoid)

So you can use the extremely simple and extremely accurate alignment method I
used for my Beseler 23C. I adapted the method given by Conrad Hoffman
(http://members.rpa.net/~choffman/beseler01.htm), which uses two mirrors to
set the negative stage and baseboard plane-parallel to each other. Basically,
you cut one large piece of mirror and put it on the baseboard. The other piece
is cut in a narrow strip that gets clamped in the negative carrier. This piece
extends out the side of the enlarger and has a hole in it through which you
can view the other mirror. (My modification to his method was to simply
scratch the reflective coating of the mirror off in a small spot, rather than
going to the trouble of drilling a hole in the mirror. Worked fine.)

You shine a light up at the upper mirror and view through the hole. The idea
is to make the "hall of mirrors" effect--multiple receding
reflections--collapse to a single reflection (in both X and Y axes), at which
point you can be sure that both mirrors, and therfore the enlarger parts, are
in perfect alignment. Forget the Zigalign and its vaunted 0.00000000005"
alignment claims.


--
It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but
don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman
Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of
the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after
them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has
come out with a dustpan and broom.

- Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_
(http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03

On 2/27/2004 8:33 AM Jorge Omar spake thus:

See here for an inexpensive way to align:

http://www.photonet.demon.nl/align.html

Yes, that's "my" method. Works like a charm.

Mike wrote in
news
I honestly have no idea if my enlarger is aligned or not. I
transported it in the car and assembled it without aligning.

My prints look fantastic.

Maybe I'll have to try a newspaper test or something (take a picture
of newspaper text, make a print, and check for sharpness).


--
It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but
don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman
Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of
the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after
them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has
come out with a dustpan and broom.

- Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_
(http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03