In the 60 is it could be truth, but today its more important to use the sharpest f stop of the lens then anything else!
You have also to know thad the MF enlarging lenses are made for less enlargingfactors then the 35 mm lenses, because MF has not to be so much enlarged then a 35 mm neg normaly!
I work with the Schneider 40 mm APO Componon and I'm very happy with it and could not see an improvement in corner sharpness against the Rodagon 80mm which is for MF a very fine lens!
Just my 2 cents Armin
I could be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that using different focal-length lenses at the same aperture gives the same exposure, or in other words, what you suggested doesn't work, because using a longer lens doesn't change anything exposure-wise.
Using a longer lens than what the format normally would call for, in this case a 50mm for 35mm film can have another advantage if the enlarger collumn i tall enough.
Let's assume that the OP have a specific print size in mind and have determined that the lens performs best at f8. Depending on the negative density it could make the exposure to short for complex doding and burning.
Using a longer lens and thereby raising the head up further would extend exposure time and perhaps make it easier to perform the task at hand.
I like to use my 75mm lens for 35mm because 1, it's always on the enlarger, and 2, it is easier to print up to 8x10s because the enlarger head is higher.
You are right, BetterSense. While the distance is greater, the aperture area is greater also. The f/stop is the ratio of the aperture to the focal length. When we change focal lengths on our cameras, the amount of light delivered to the film remains the same at any given stop, like say f/8. Same with the enlarger.
Originally Posted by BetterSense
There may be some difference, though, if the extension factor differs for the focal lengths in comparison. I haven't looked at this, and probably won't bother, but anyway, it won't be a great difference.
Seeing as such a dense negative would already have compromised quality, I'm not sure it's such a big advantage just to target f/8 on the lens. So I consider it false economy.
Originally Posted by JLP
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
I started a giant thread dealing with the issue of enlarger bellows factor and whether it matters or cancels out. The more informed opinion is that the bellows factor of enlargers cancels out and at a given magnification, there is exactly no difference between different focal length lenses. I'm still not sure why, however.
There may be some difference, though, if the extension factor differs for the focal lengths in comparison.
I haven't looked at this, and probably won't bother, but anyway, it won't be a great difference.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
To my knowledge, the 60 mm lens is the wide angle version of the 80 mm lens (both suitable for medium format negatives), same way the 40 mm lens is the wide angle version of the 50 mm lens (both suitable for 35 mm negatives). All these wide angle versions allow to obtain the major enlargements without raising to much the enlarger column, a nice plus for those who have compact enlargers and/or in order to contain at minimum level the vibrations. However, the wide angle enlarger lenses work very best with diffusion head enlargers. With a condenser enlargers are not so good, than the normal enlarger lenses.
True decades ago when such good 50mm lenses were not available. Any 6 element 50 will be perfectly alright.
Greetings. Absolutely all enlargers need to be aligned. The original factory/manufacturer machined settings are only approximate, and always need to be corrected over time and use. The negative stage needs to be parallel to the easel. And likewise, the lens stage needs to be parallel to the easel. Without verifying your enlarger alignment, you cannot possibly achieve the optical performance your enlarging lens was designed for.
Originally Posted by gamincurieux
With your very nice Durst M605, it is a relatively easy task. You need to first align the negative stage parallel to the easel using the enlarger head focusing lock knob. Loosen the enlarging head lock knob and you can move the head and negative stage incrementally and minutely side to side from the factory set detente position.
Once you have aligned the negative stage, you then need to align the lens stage. On your M605 this can be accomplished by loosening the lens stage bellows knob and moving the lens stage minutely side to side from the factory detente position in order that the lens stage is parallel to the easel.
You may also need to use thin mylar adhesive strips on the top of your Durst siriotub lensboard to achieve perfect lens stage alignment.
In any case, I use a laser alignment tool, the versalab parallel, to quickly and accurately align my enlargers, one of which is a Durst M605 Classic. If you can take the time, and expense, to check your own M605 enlarger alignment, you likely will be surprised at how much it can be improved? Good Luck.
A fact decades back when 50 mm lenses were not as good as today. The idea was you used only the better center area of a longer lens.
I have tried and found no advantage unless I was making small prints and needed more distance.
Align the enlarger, get a flat neg with glass carrier, and a 6 element enlarging lens and you are good to go.
What about glass?
Although it's a pain keeping four more surfaces clean, I found changing to glass neg carriers did the most to improve across the frame sharpness, given that everything else is parallel and the enlarger column is secured to the wall ... all reasonable enlarger lenses are designed to be flat field, but 35mm and 120 negs never are in my experience.