Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,199   Posts: 1,531,472   Online: 878
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by geostog View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't print large I don't have large enough trays and the paper is a bit expensive. For now, I print mostly at 8x10 (20x25 cm).

    So we agree. The Nikkors and the Rodagon are fine but the Componar isn't that good.

    I can't say the 50/4 is bad, it was my first enlarging lens and gave me beautiful pictures. But from a comparison I can see a difference with the 50/2.8 to be sharper to me. I haven't printed with the 50/2.8 yet, it is quite new I am sure that a difference in prints won't be visible.
    Yup! It'll be difficult to tell any difference at 8x10, and only very nice negatives will benefit all that much, but since you have the 2.8, print with it anyway.

    I got my 50 f/4 for free... I got it for $10 shipped online, and the seller sent it attached to half the head of a Durst F30. I tried to return the enlarger pieces knowing the enlarger would be useless without them, but the lady got confused and just gave me a full refund and didn't want the other stuff back...

    Best lens for 35mm 8x10's I've had, though!
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    971
    "But I have never made prints to check the performance of my lenses".

    Well, you should. I mean, that's all that counts, right? How the lens makes prints should be the only standard to go by.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    568
    The 50 2.8 Nikkor N is a very fine lens, even used at f4. The N, "new", version has the illuminated aperture. All of the 6 element Nikkors I've tried from that era or later are amazingly good. Other people apparently knew this back then, but I was a little late to realize how good they are. 4 element lenses are okay, but need to be stopped down much farther for corner sharpness.

    My results with 6 element German lenses have been much more mixed than I would have expected.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,044
    Enlarging lenses are subject to wear. They get banged around, and sometime something comes loose or slips out of alignment. That can affect the sharpness.

    Not all enlarging lenses with a given name are the same. The EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 is just plain a better lens than the 50mm f/4 version. I'm not sure about the Rodagon, but the design when it was made might be less shap over the field than Rodagons of a different era. The Componar is a low cost lens, not nearly as good as the Componons.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    454
    For tests of enlarging lenses, see Ctein,s book "Post_Exposure".

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Ioannina, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    35
    @fretlessdavis: I also got my 50/4 quite cheap, for just 30 euros including shipping. And the surprise is the 50/2.8: in absolutely mint condition, to me it seems new, for only 28 euros including shipping!

    @momus: I will surely will make some careful test prints to check both the center and the corners of a given aperture at various apertures of all my lenses. That will eliminate any subjective factor.

    @Mark: Yes, the Nikkor 50/2.8 I have has the illuminated aperture, so it is the N version. I wasn't sure because there is no N written on it.

    @nworth: I wish I wouldn't have bought the Componar, I found it quite cheap an bought it. It was cheap, so no big loss.

    @chip: I am reading that book and is really detailed. That man surely had some serious tests!

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    Quote Originally Posted by fretlessdavis View Post
    I was getting results like that with my enlarger lenses, but it was the film slightly sagging in the holder. Try using a glass carrier and compare. My EL-Nikkor 50mm f/4 is incredibly sharp on the entire frame @f/8. My Comparon 75mm (I know, not a componon... but it's optimized for the 8x10-11x14 range, and I couldn't tell a difference between it more expensive lenses at an 8x10) is also ideal at about f/8, except with Foma film, which needs f/16 because it's so curly and won't stay flat like FP4 and Acros do.
    I 'm currently enlarging small format to 8x12 with a Valoy 2 or 1c. No issues with alignment with the enlargers. I was shocked the El Nikkor 50/4 rendered images with less flair and increased contrast vs a 50/4.5 Focotar at f/5.6 & f/8. In fact, my perception was the 6 element (N) El Nikkor for this one enlargement factor and one negative was no better.

    The Focotar has dust, a few wipe marks, no fog and is in average condition. The other optic in mint condition. I also see a difference between the Nikkor 50/4.0 and Focotar under a grain focus device.

    I'm not saying a Nikkor 50/4 is better than a six element for all enlargement factors. My lens examples may be an anomaly. However, the late Barry Thornton writes in the book, Edge of Darkness, of a similar experience with his Anaret 50/4.5. I'm satisfied using the 50/4 for 8x10s to 8x12 on the Valoy. On the 1c I get vignetting at 8x if using a lens other than the Focotar.

    I'll go back and test the Companon, f/2.8, Nikkor f/2.8 against the Nikkor f/4.0 at 8x. But I would not be surprised if there was no real difference. Enlarge at 5x and surely the 6 element optics would be better.
    Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 03-11-2014 at 01:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    RJ

  8. #18
    PDH
    PDH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    My experience is similar to Richard’s. I have a Schneider and a Fuji 6 element 50mms but my old 4 element Wallensak rapid, (not so rapid at F4.5) appears to me to have more contrast and is sharper in the corners than either of my 6 element lens, at least up to an 11X14. On the other hand my 90mm Wallensak is not as sharp as my Schneider 105.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    568
    Slight haze is very common in 6 element enlarging lenses. Generally easily cleaned.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    258
    Recently I got hold of a dirty and clunky Rodagon 180/5,6 from the late Sixties for about $15. Aperture was sticky, stops barely clicking and blades had some oil. Took a bit of time to clean it and adjust as good as I could, but in the end I had a almost-nice looking lens, with a few small scratches. Put it on my Fujimoto under a 4x5" Efke neg and above a sheet of Ilford WT FB @f8-11 and BANG! - a fabulously nice 12x16" print.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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