Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,481   Posts: 1,571,143   Online: 1168
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    georg16nik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    767
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by kobaltus View Post
    I would also say that the enlarger light source is the most important variable here.It is old enlarger question: diffusion vs condenser. In Darko s test focomat scan has better tonality, magnifax scan has higher contrast. High contrast and blocked tones in magnifax scan are result of condenser lens quality. My Magnifax has better condensers than my old Krokus, but it does not reach the quality of condensers in my Leitz enlargers. With focomat 1, valoy or focomat 2 very sharp prints with beautiful tonality could be done. Very similar to contact print.
    Leitz V35 uses hybrid light source. Its not diffuser nor condenser.
    For 35mm this is the most efficient approach and Leitz did spectacular job.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    I'm going to stick my neck out and comment without reference to tests. I have used a Leitz 40/2.8, 50/4.5 and El Nikkor 50/2.8. The 40/2.8 was the sharpest under the loupe. A clean late Leitz 50/4.5 and El Nikkor are similar. I have Leitz 50/4.5s which have lower contrast than the El Nikkor. Condition of the lens make a large difference. The older Leitz optics tend to not be as clean as a late model El Nikkor.
    RJ

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Thanks for your interesting post. My only experience with Leitz lenses is with a 50mm f4.5 Focatar 2, although my findings are broadly in line with yours here. Prior to getting the Focatar, my go-to lens for 35mm was a Minolta CE Rokkar 50mm f2.8. In comparison, the Focatar is slightly less contrasty, but does resolve just a tad more detail, and I significantly prefer the tonality to the much more "in your face" Minolta. I've used both lenses in Condenser (Focamat 1b) and Diffusion (Durst) enlargers, and have a similar preference for the Focatar in both.

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