|
|
|
-
I know that a 55m enlarger lens is best for 35mm and a 105mm is better for 6x7 but what are the negative effects of using a 50mm with 6x7 negatives? I have printed this way and it works but I am not sure what using the 50mm rather than the 105mm does?
-
stradibarrius:
A 50mm enlarger lens isn't designed to cover that large a negative. So if you want to print the whole 6x7 negative, all but the centre bit is likely to be unsharp and probably lighter (in the print) than the centre of the image.
For some 50mm lenses, the corners might even be blank.
Also, the higher magnification of the 50mm lens will mean for 8x10 or smaller prints you will have uncomfortably close working distances (the enlarger head will be too close to the paper).
You can use the 50mm lens if your intention is to crop heavily, and just print something like a 24mm x 36mm part of the 6x7 negative, but you need to be sure that that part is centred in the negative carrier.
Matt
P.S. for the same reason, you cannot normally use the lenses for your 35mm camera on your 6x7 camera. The 35mm lenses don't cover the film area.
-
What is a good lens speed for a 100 or 105 lens?
-
I have 2 Rondenstock 105mm. One is f/5.6 and the other f/4.5. I think the f/5.6 is a better lens.
-
So what happens when you do the opposite, use a 90mm lens to print 35mm negs?
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
 Originally Posted by randerson07
So what happens when you do the opposite, use a 90mm lens to print 35mm negs?
You get small prints  .
Or, if you are somehow able to get the lens far enough away from the paper to get bigger prints, you will find that you are using the lens at a magnification that it probably wasn't designed for, so your prints won't be as sharp and/or the contrast will be poor.
Matt
-
Well yeah I certainly cant make large prints, largest I can go without projecting on to the floor is about 8x5.25. But I haven't noticed any sharpness/contrast issues, my prints are mediocre at best anyways.
|
|
Adv Reply
