Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,941   Posts: 1,585,707   Online: 1071
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,894
    Thanks, ic-r.

  2. #42
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,395
    For the record and according to John Sexton, Ansel Adams used an early 60cm f9 Apo-Nikkor process lens for his 8x10 film enlarging. That is NOT the rare Apo-EL-Nikkor enlarging lens, but the common process lens introduced in the 1940s.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,894
    ic-r, I wonder why AA used the 600mm Tessar formula rather than the 605mm dialyte. For that matter, I wonder why such a long focal length. It seems that a 360 or 420 dialyte would have been a better overall choice.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,894
    I meant 610mm dialyte... and up once more.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,820
    How does AA creep into this equation? His work has aritstic and historic significance and he put a lot of effort into it, but his enlargements were pretty damn fuzzy compared to what can be done today.
    That's why he used matte paper for anything bigger than 20x24. We've got way better film, enlargers,
    and lenses than he did - in fact, some of his dkrm gear was badly out of date before his career ended.
    No pro lab would have used such things. I don't think there ever was a 600 Apo El. The regular Apo is
    common, though I doubt he owned the latest version. He wanted distance between the horizontal enlgr
    and himself, so he could sneak around and dodge/burn close to the vertical panel where the paper was.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,894
    I just remembered I have a cosmetically-challenged 120mm WA Rodagon sitting on a shelf. Optically it appears to be perfect. I've seen reference that it's optimum magnification range is 4-15x. I don't want to use a wide-angle on any enlargements but this is close enough to normal for 6x12cm. Has anyone used this lens for 25-30x enlargements with 6x12cm? If so, how was the sharpness and contrast center-to-corner? Yes, I can test it... eventually.
    Last edited by Old-N-Feeble; 02-14-2013 at 03:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Enroute
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    Has anyone used this lens for 25-30x enlargements with 6x12cm?
    There seems to be a thread on that lens over at LFPF...

    25-30X from 2.25" x 5", are you sure? 6x12 at 25X roughly 56x112, I am not sure your 120 WA can handle that, at least with clarity...

    No matter how you slice it, you are out of Apo-N territory at that point, only a 150 or 210 Rodagon G will be worth the paper you are printing on at that size. I went through the same maddening gear hunt when I decided that at some point, I want to be able to take advantage of 56" rolls of Ilford paper and had to wait quite awhile and spend some major bucks in getting both my 105 F5.6 Rodagon G and 150 F4 Apo-N, I ended up getting a 50 2.8 G for a song when I bought a set of three lenses from a guy...

    I found a finished auction for a 150 Rodagon G from over a year ago, it went for $700, some have found them for less but despite what Bob Saloman says about big labs dumping them for peanuts, they have kind of dried up.

    Aside from near-obssesive search strategies, you might want to put an ad up in one of a few macro photography forums, those guys tend to snatch them up too....maybe one of them is getting bored with mundane flower photos on his D-something or other and will part with it...
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alamo City, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,894
    PKM... thank you for the LFPI link.

    The spec for the 120 WA Rodagon is 15x max so I think you're right that it won't perform as I want. Yes, I'm sure I want 25-30x magnification. I have a garage that I'm having an extra 10 feet of length added so I'll have approximately 24 feet of space to work with. I want to make 56x112 inch enlargements on fiber based paper.

    You're confirming what some others have stated regarding the Rodagon-G or G-Componon. I hate to keep looking, and looking, and looking because time is money. Pretty soon I might as well have paid $1000 for a lens I bought for $500 because of the time spent looking for the thing.

    I'll take your suggestion and place an ad on photomacrography.net but I imagine they all know what these lenses are worth.

    The good news is I "think" a 300mm Componon-S will work very well for 112 inch wide prints from 8x10 and those aren't "quite" as pricey as a G or an Apo. At least I "hope" Schneider's specs are right... 2-20x magnification.

  9. #49
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    least I "hope" Schneider's specs are right... 2-20x magnification.

    20x is a 'soft' physical limit of the system. Your effective aperture wide open (f5.6) with that lens will be f117 at 20x. That is the same effective aperture as making a 16x20" print from 35mm negative using a 50mm lens set to f8. The effective aperture will determine your diffraction.

    Beyond 20x you can eventually get into the range where the diffraction is so bad even with the lens wide open that use of a grain focuser is futile, the grain is always mush. In those cases, standing back by the enlarger and just focusing until it looks sharp on the wall can be the best option. The huge prints can still come out very good as long as the viewer has some distance on them is not looking at them with a 10x loupe.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,996
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    Pretty soon I might as well have paid $1000 for a lens I bought for $500 because of the time spent looking for the thing.
    Just wondering, what is the paper worth in the size you want to print? Whenever I look at large sheet prices I cringe... but if it's coming of a roll, maybe the cost per foot or whatever is not to bad? (just need to fork out the initial $$$$ to get started)

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin