Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,552   Posts: 1,544,909   Online: 926
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232

    Anybody know what this filter/lens is for?

    There's a nikon enlarger lens on ebay that comes with some sort of screw on filter/lens that attaches to the front. The seller doesn't know what it's for, but he says it's not just for protection (says it's optically corrected).

    Here's a link to it.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-105mm-f-5-...QQcmdZViewItem

    Any info would be appreciated.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,097
    Isn't a convex lens usually a close-up lens? I don't know why you would use it with an enlarger though. perhaps with the lens on a bellows for macro?
    Someone here will know.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    Co you think this could be a diffusion lens for portrait work. I can make out the letter "D" - just a thought. In itself without the filter it is a very good enlarging lens

    Mike

  4. #4
    phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Waltershausen, Thuringia, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    463
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
    Co you think this could be a diffusion lens for portrait work. I can make out the letter "D" - just a thought.

    Mike
    Don't think so. If you'd enlarge a negative through a diffuser, the blacks would diffuse out, an impression reminescent of drawing with coal. This has been done, but I haven't seen it in portraiture.

    Christoph

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by phaedrus View Post
    Don't think so. If you'd enlarge a negative through a diffuser, the blacks would diffuse out, an impression reminescent of drawing with coal. This has been done, but I haven't seen it in portraiture.

    Christoph
    I have a kodak portrait diffuser that came as part of a set with a Precision Enlarger, also Omega has a wire frame portrait diffuser for the D series enlargers.

    I agree it is best to use diffusion on the camera lens but there are enlarger attachments out there

    Mike

  6. #6
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    The screw-in is probably just a diopter to permit better performance at close focus. If so and it is a modern Nikon diopter then instead of the "D" it would probably have a label 2T or 4T or something like that on it. Sometimes people use the EL lenses for macro, and then you'd want the diopter. But it doesn't make too much sense shooting macro this way around, better would be to reverse the EL lens. Then it is good out to rather large reproduction ratios. Probably this person used the diopter in lieu of another EL lens for a different reproduction scale. Just a guess.

    Anyway it is a super enlarger lens, I have one.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  7. #7
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Oh, regarding the use of a diffuser on an EL lens, methinks it would be best to diffuse via a texturing material closer to the print rather than closer to the lens. Otherwise the lens will simply magnify the texture and flaws of the diffusing medium at the same rate as the negative itself is enlarged. Make sense? For finer diffusion I think one would want to put some plastic right over the paper, for example I recently experimented with the thin plastic used for negative sleeves in this way, and you get some finer diffusion. I tried using a diffusing screw-on once and... yuck. Quite different from shooting with a proper SF lens.

    N.b. I am not speaking from much experience, I spend most of my time trying to get sharper prints and good tone scales, not diffused ones
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  8. #8
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I once bought two used 40.5mm "Softeners" (that is the only marking on the filters) for $1 each, solely for the fact that they fit my Rodenstock enlarging lenses. Today, I consider these to be the most valuable enlarging accessories I own. They work *wonders* in portraiture, "removing" odd blemishes, minimizing "lines", etc. I have given up using softening filters on my cameras ... I would rather capture everything on film, and have the flexibility of removing what I don't want in printing.
    If there are any flaws in these filters, they are far enough away from the plane of the negative NOT to be seen in the final print.

    If the filters in question are, in fact, "curved", they will affect the focal length of the lens and filter system - probably to enable larger prints to be made with less distance from the negative to the paper.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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