Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,932   Posts: 1,585,455   Online: 1063
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,067
    I use longer lenses as standard: 80mm for 35mm; 100mm for 6x6 and 6x7 and 150mm for 4x5. I seem to remember reading somewhere, (could have been Fred Picker) that in using a longer lens you use only the central portion of it which results in sharper images. This was back in the days when I was setting up my first darkroom and whatever I read was "gospel" Since then, very little is gospel to me - but I still use the longer lenses! I do have a 50mm for those times when I want to print 11x14 or larger from 35mm - but it doesn't get a lot of use. I also have a fungus-ridden 50mm f2.8 that I use on an MF enlarger which is strictly for 8x10 contacts simply because the head can be set lower and I get shorter exposure times.

    Use you 80mm and have the fun, (and sometimes frustration ) that we all do.

    Bob H
    "Why is there always a better way?"

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,053
    Projection distance makes NO DIFFERENCE. 5.6 is 5.6. Exposure is the same.

    The difficulty is the head has to be very high to fill an 8x10. 80 mm is for 2 1/4 negs and will make 8x mag at full height. 8x for 35 mm is but 8x8.

  3. #13
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Moravec View Post
    Projection distance makes NO DIFFERENCE. 5.6 is 5.6. Exposure is the same.
    This is true. I've been using an 80mm Schneider Componon-S to print 35mm negatives for about 30 years now. What changes the exposure time is the magnification of the image. You should not have excessively long exposure times with this lens. I don't.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    You have a very good lens there and you will have no problems using it to enlarge 35 mm negatives. Maximum print size will be smaller than if a 50 mm lens is used, but that's only a problem if your enlarger is shaky when the head is high up on the column. With the setup I have, I often use an 80 mm lens for making small prints from 35 mm negatives. My enlarger will not allow the head to go low enough to make a 4x6 inch print from 35 mm negatives, and a 5x7 inch print just barely squeaks by.
    Frank Schifano

  5. #15
    olleorama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    526
    Images
    5
    How weird isn't this, I was about to ask the exact same question, then I thought I would do search first, after I checked the enlarging section, and this thread pops up. Eerie!

    Anyway, I also read somewhere that there were some pros of choosing a slighty larger lens. So now I can safely sell my 35mm enlarger and just use the big one. Maybe I'll pick up a 50 mm componon someday, but omega lens plates are rare here, so there are quite a few items on my shopping list before this one.

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