Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,707   Posts: 1,548,513   Online: 876
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Yes a 135mm will give a significantly smaller enlargement at the same height, in a small dark-room with height limitations it's much better to use a 135mm. I do use a 160mm as well but I'm using a 10x8 enlarger with a drop bed and no height restrictions. I;ve used a 135mm Componon, now a Componon S since 1976 always with great results.

    Ian
    I think you have a typo in here Ian, especially comparing 135 to 135 A 150mm will give a smaller enlargement than a 135mm.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    37
    Unlike camera lenses, where choice of focal lengths is substantial for any given negative size, you're quite limited in the darkroom. You can go longer, but hardly shorter on focal lengths for a given negative. I don't know of any enlarging lenses for 4x5 below 135 (although I would not be surprised if there are some with satisfactory coverage), which as stated already is going to give you the largest print size for same elevation.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    276
    There is a Rodagon WA 120mm wide angle lens for 4x5.
    There may be other wide angle lenses out there, but I do not know of them.
    The WA lens will give you a bigger image for a given enlarger height.
    So 120 biggest image, followed by 135, then 150 with smallest image.
    But the cost of the WA lens is much more than the standard 135 or 150.

    In my case, I have a 135mm lens for my Omega D5, rather than the 150mm lens.
    This is because the D5 has the shorter standard height column, vs the D5-XL with the taller column.

  4. #14
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,289
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    I think you have a typo in here Ian, especially comparing 135 to 135 A 150mm will give a smaller enlargement than a 135mm.
    Yes I did mean the other way around 150mm gives significantly smaller enlargements than a 135mm at the same height.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 04-16-2013 at 04:03 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: lack of sleep

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Yes I did mean the other way around 150mm gives significantly smaller enlargements than a 150mm at the same height.

    Ian
    Not your day, Ian? Sorry, see you edited before I posted. Lack of sleep? Blame APUG.

    The gain from 135 to 120 will be 12,5 %. So on linear dimension, it should enable one to change a 16" x 20" image to 18" by 22,5", for example. From 150 to 135, the change is slightly less, but it may be such that one can fit in a paper one size larger that isn't possible with the longer lens. If you use WA lenses, make sure that your bellows assembly contracts short enough to attain focus at all column settings. I cannot for instance use a 40 mm lens for 35 mm on my Durst M605. Although I have no idea, it may be possible that some 4x5 enlargers do not allow for such short lenses to be used, unless they were designed for all image sizes down to 35 mm, or at least one or two formats down.
    Last edited by dorff; 04-16-2013 at 04:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16
    paul_c5x4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ye Olde England
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,478
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by dorff View Post
    If you use WA lenses, make sure that your bellows assembly contracts short enough to attain focus at all column settings. I cannot for instance use a 40 mm lens for 35 mm on my Durst M605. Although I have no idea, it may be possible that some 4x5 enlargers do not allow for such short lenses to be used, unless they were designed for all image sizes down to 35 mm, or at least one or two formats down.
    Durst do recessed lens boards, the two I have to hand, one measures 15mm deep, the other, 35mm deep. The downside with recessed boards is being able to adjust the aperture and/or see the scale.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by superd View Post
    Unlike camera lenses, where choice of focal lengths is substantial for any given negative size, you're quite limited in the darkroom. You can go longer, but hardly shorter on focal lengths for a given negative. I don't know of any enlarging lenses for 4x5 below 135 (although I would not be surprised if there are some with satisfactory coverage), which as stated already is going to give you the largest print size for same elevation.
    I think due to the requirement of flat field, very high in sharpness and especially distortion free it would be very difficult to make a wide angle enlarging lens.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Chan Tran View Post
    I think due to the requirement of flat field, very high in sharpness and especially distortion free it would be very difficult to make a wide angle enlarging lens.
    That is why the WA enlarging lenses cost so much more.
    And that is why I bought the 135 rather than the more expensive 120mm lens.

  9. #19
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,158
    If an enlarge is spec'ed as limited to 20"x24" and shorter focal length lenses are used, does the condenser/diffuser limit the size of the print? I am just wondering about limitations caused by a condenser or diffuser.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #20
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,013
    Images
    6

    Do they still make 5x4 film?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    He's talking LF 5"x4"

    A 135mm is a nexcellent choice, I've made large prints with Compono/Componn S lenses with no issues, They are designed for the format.

    Ian
    5x4 film sounds like a larger format than 4x5 I guess it depends if you shoot landscape or portrait.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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