Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,953   Posts: 1,522,772   Online: 997
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    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?
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  2. #12
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,083
    Images
    60
    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.

  3. #13
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    What is a good lens speed for a 100 or 105 lens?
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,939
    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.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Pingree Grove, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    34
    Images
    4
    So what happens when you do the opposite, use a 90mm lens to print 35mm negs?

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,083
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by randerson07 View Post
    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

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Pingree Grove, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    34
    Images
    4
    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.

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