</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tschmid @ May 14 2003, 09:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> BTW: the 180mm lenses officially do cover 13x18cm (which equals 5x7" quite exactly) - so it's not really the same situation here </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Just to add a note of confusion: 13x18cm measures exactly 5" by 7", but 5x7" film is measurably smaller. Take a look at Schneiders spec's for f:6,8/120mm Angulon... They claim it covers 5x7", but not 13x18cm!
There are also different lens series, with different coverage. Most 180mm cover 5x7, some do not. Some 135mm's cover 4x5", some only 9x12cm, some do not...
Besides, we're not talking about infinity here. This far the biggest enlargement I've made from a 5x7" neg is 11x14", just a bit more than 2x (and that's big enough for me). Whether the lens covers 5x7 when enlarging 20x is irrelevant to me, as I'd have to rebuild the entire house to get the working distance!
Check the specs for the lens you're thinking of buying before you buy.
I used, for years, an older 135 mm Schneider Companon (Chrome barrel). I enlarged 16X20's with it and noticed no appreciable light fall off. I now use a 150 mm El Nikkor and the increased sharpness and contrast is apparent, not that the Schneider was a "bad" lens, just that the more modern lens is better.
Depending on the subject matter, I might be inclined to use the older lens at times. Portraiture, if I did it, would probably be an application that I would try the older lens.
Yes, that does make sense. I think the light falloff is very much subjective. Some people have not noticed at all and others find it intolerable...kinda like requiring a center filter for wa lenses.
I would not buy the Apo Rodagon for thad price.
The MTF of the Rodagon is at f11 better then thad from the APO!
Only wide open the Apo is very tiny bit sharper.
Some years ago I asked Rodenstock what would be the best f stop for my Rodagon, they told me I get best results with 2-3 stops closed.
And for the Apo it is only 1-2 f stops closed.
I'm so happy with my 6 lens Rodagon I giv it not away for an Apo!
But some tests in Germans Fotomagazin and in Color Foto showed in 35mm and MF categories was the winner in sharpness always either a Schneider or a Rodenstock and the nikkors was always on 3. place!
But they where all very near each other! But 6 lenses are very important in thad case!!
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ May 14 2003, 10:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>its the 105mm. What size enlargements does it do? I was hoping to do all sizes with it. This summer I am concentrating on 16x20's</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The data I have at hand is for Rodenstock Enlarging lenses. According to them, the 105 Rodagon (I would not expect the Schneider Componar to be much different) is *designed* for a field of 6cm x 9cm - or more coherently, a circular area with a diameter of 10.8cm. A 4" x 5" (or, if you are in Jolly Old, 5" x 4") negative would have a diagonal of 15cm... So I would not expect it to "cover" - at least not without fall-out and optical "badness" at the extremes (read: corners).
135mm and 150mm are designed with a 9cm x 12cm (4" x 5", or .. see previous ... ) field as a criteria ... so I *would* expect them to be appropriate. There is another choice - the Rodenstock "WA" lenses (I would guess that "WA" stands for Wide Angle - and I'm sure that Schneider and Nikon have equivalent wide angle enlarging lenses) where their 120mm f/5.6 Rodenstock WA is recommended for 4" x 5" ... The shorter focal length translates to a larger image at shorter column heights.
The easel on my Omega D5500 measures something slightly over 16" x 20" - with a 6cm x 6cm negative, I'm close to the top limit of the column, using an 80mm Rodenstock Rodagon, at this magnification. With the "regular" Rodagon, I can expect an enlargemt of 20" x 20" to fall within the lens design criteria. If I was to use a 60mm RodagonWA (also recommended for 6cm x 6cm) in its place, I could expect a limit of 30" x 30" - at a "something similar" column height.
I hope this helps - at least a little. It is difficult to be more specific without the data sheets for each individual lens. By massaging the information through some - really rather simple formulae - I could be more specific...
Uh ... but .... I think you would do well to consult Schneider or Rodenstock, or Nikon or ... whoever... rather than to trust these rather worn fingers on these keys.
Thanks again for the information. More than I can ever use lol
Ansel Adams books recommend using a larger lens then is required. So for 4x5 that would be 150mm. Why compromise on the enlarging lens when we put so much emphasis and money in the quality of the taking lenses? An enlarging lens is just as important!
I personally use a 180 componon for my 4x5 negatives and can print up to 16x20 easily. Though I have to hoist my enlarger pretty high, which is wall mounted anyway, high enough to give me what I want.
There is no fall off what so ever and I get sharp prints edge to edge, corner to corner since I am projecting through the best part of the lens.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RAP @ May 17 2003, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is no fall off what so ever and I get sharp prints edge to edge, corner to corner since I am projecting through the best part of the lens.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I have often heard that opinion. I agree that this may be a solution to fall-off problems. It may even help getting better sharpness in the corners, if you experience some alignment problems with your enlarger. But it is not generally better and wise to use a longer lens.
First, all decent el-lenses do not fall-off significantly in the corners, if stopped down 2-3 f-stops. Second, if you look at the specs of (el- or LF) lenses, you will find that MTF (and thus resolution and sharpness) decreases as the focal length increases. However, MTF "multiplied with coverage" (i.e. the amount of information projected thru the lens) increases (the reason why LF actually has more resolution and sharpness). But if your lens has more coverage than you actually use, then you will waste some performance. What is left is the lower MTF for the coverage you use.
This usually does not have much impact to LF in practice. Nor does fall-off of a 150mm or 135mm lens have. However, everyone who prints 35mm can easily verify how performance drops with longer focal el-lenses.
That said, what is the minimun size print you can make with the 180 mm lens? At this minimum size, what then is the lens-to-film distance?
This question is asked because I am wondering what the longest F.L. of enlarging lens is possible with the Beseler 45?
Since you quoted me I will throw in my 2 cents. It really depends on the length of your griders on your enlarger, or , how high you can raise your enlarger head? I personally work with an old jalopy of an elarger, an Omega D2. WHAT A BOMB! It reminds me of an old Chevy Nova I once drove. The bellows is even home made, a bag type bellows from some black vinyl I sewed up, but it is light tight, rock steady, cold light head and a good lens.
I once recieved an order for some 16x20 prints but at a time, with my 180mm, I could only get 11x14 prints. So I had to either, lower the enlarging table, or raise the height of the enlarger. I chose to raise the enlarger. It is bolted to a 1" thick piece of shelving which is bracketed into the studs, and double turn buckled into the wall. Solid, and level!
With my 180mm lens, I can get prints from a 4x5 negative ranging from 5x7 to 16x20.