Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,929   Online: 850
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47
  1. #11
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    I've used and own 4 different 150 mms: old and new El-Nikkor, old and new Rodagon. None of them Apo. There was not much difference between the two old ones, the new Rodagon was slightly better (sharper and more contrast) but the new El Nikkor (new=without the knurled ring design) beats the rest very visibly, being more contrasty, less fall-off, and sharper at the f8. Tested only with diffusion using a Ilford 500H light. YMMV...
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  2. #12
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,256
    Images
    73
    My preferred 4x5 enlarging lens is the 135mm unless I am making an 8x10 print, then the 150mm gets used. I don't know if you have a 120mm taking lens but if you do give it a try and see how you like the focal length.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    833
    Images
    42
    I am another 135mm Componon user. My Beselers will (just) extend fully without hitting the ceiling, but if I wanted to use a 150mm I would have to either drop the bench or use a step - I'm not that tall. Even if the 150mm offered better overall performance, I would have to temper that with ergonomics. I like to have a good working environment for the 'bread and butter' sizes between 10x8 and 11x14. If I was routinely working larger I might make a different choice.

    I also work in other formats - 75mm for 6x4.5 or 6x6, and 105mm for 6x9 - so the general setup needs to respect that.
    I feel, therefore I photograph.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,749
    Thanks everyone for the responses. Seems like quite a few of you like the 135mm focal length. I really have no complaints using the 150 from an image quality perspective. It's just kind of a pain having the enlarger head up so high and the bellows nearly fully extended to focus. So I was thinking a shorter focal length would be nice - as long as it doesn't cause me noticeable falloff issues (which obviously are not currently a problem with the 150). I thought maybe the 120 would be nice but not sure. On the other hand maybe I should just follow my own advice and leave well enough alone.

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,219
    The data is on the Schneider site. The 120 has more light falloff than the 150 when compared at the same magnification and aperture.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,749
    No doubt. It would have to. But I was wondering it the difference is noticeable. Actually as I write this I guess I've answered my own question.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,749
    By the way, off topic but noticed yesterday with an empty carrier inserted, if I look at the projected blank white light rectangle on the enlarger baseboard, I can see what looks like a faint projection of the bellows pattern outside the image rectangle. Strange.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    664
    We discussed the projection of bellows in 2012.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum41/1...-enlarger.html

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,749
    Right - I'm just wondering if the focal length of the lens/image circle/bellows extension changes this. That is, in the context of my original question, is this "bellows reflection" more likely to appear with a 150mm than with a shorter focal length?

    Just trying to wrap my mind around it.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    You get more illumination falloff with a shorter lens. Often this can be accommodated by using more edge and corner burning, or by grinding a
    custom diffuser to be fit in the head. I rarely use a 150 lens for 4x5 work - nearly always something longer, like a 180 or even 240. I sold my
    135 Rodagon, which was a good lens, but not in the same league as my other lenses. I don't see any sense using a short focal length unless
    your simply don't have enough headroom to raise the negative stage sufficiently high. There is no optical advantage, and really, a distinct
    disadvantage. I apply the same philosophy to all my other formats, whether 8X10 or MF or even 35mm. The notable exception is when I deliberately want to introduce a bit of excessive illumination falloff into the print.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin