Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,218   Posts: 1,532,200   Online: 946
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51
  1. #11
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,240
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    I intend to test it, but do older lenses like this ever have swirling or blurriness on the edges at all?

    It's a 90mm so considering that I can even get it mounted on a lens board, I should theoretically have enough room to play if using it for 6x6, right?
    Enlarging lenses shouldn't add any blur or swirl.

    Older lenses may or may not be corrected for colour.

    A 90mm lens will make slightly smaller enlargements than the 80mm lenses which are optimized for 6x6.

    On the other hand, a 90mm lens will have a bit more coverage than an 80mm lens, so you will be using more of the lens' "sweet spot" and less of the lens' corners when you are enlarging 6x6.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    It's a 90mm so considering that I can even get it mounted on a lens board, I should theoretically have enough room to play if using it for 6x6, right?
    I use an 80mm for 6x6. A 90mm will cover 6x6 fine. Matt is right 90mm are a lot rarer.

    You should read a section out of Ctein's book Post Exposure 2nd edition. It is currently a free PDF. Don't let "free" fool you. It's a good book.

    You should read the section starting on page 77 of the book (89 in my PDF). It is called "The best enlarging lenses in the world." It is not about unattainable $3,000 lenses. Well he does mention one or two of those. He talks about a bunch of stuff that can be acquired for less than $100 and sometimes less than $50.

    Then we contacted every maker of top-notch enlarging lenses andrequested samples. I spent 6 months testing 90 lenses with 70 different designs in search of the answer to the main question: What are the absolute best enlarging lenses for 35mm, 120, and 4 x 5
    Makes you curious doesn't it?

    I know you said these prints aren't for a gallery but considering the cost of paper it makes no sense to print a bunch of stuff now and then upgrade your lens later and print it again.

  3. #13
    jjphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    I just scored an El Nikkor 50mm f/4, an El Omegar 75mm f/3.5, and a Wollensak Raptar 90mm f/4.5 ...
    Is it a PRO Raptar or just the Raptar, as described above?

    My understanding is that the PRO Raptar is a different design and better corrected with more elements. I have the 90/4.5 PRO Raptar, but not the normal one, so I can't really compare them but unfortunately I don't even have the retaining ring for the PRO Raptar so I haven't been able to test it either. Damn. Maybe if I didn't waste so much time on forums I'd have had it done by now. There's an idea!

    I suspect the 90/4.5 Raptar is only mediocre but that's NOT based on personal experience so take it for whatever its worth. If you can find a temporary way to mount the Raptar then you can really just test it yourself, but I wouldn't spend too much money or effort on it. If you have the retaining ring then that's half the battle.

    By the way, the 50/4 is commonly used as a macro and doesn't need to be reverse mounted for high magnifications, due to it's symmetrical design.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    660
    Although the discussion in the following link concerned a 90/4.5 Enlarging Pro Raptar, the thread size is likely the same as the Enlaging Raptar cited in posts (measured thread diameter of approximately 41mm in both cases).

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum43/1...read-size.html

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,057
    hi christopher ...

    how about just trying the lenses on one negative and one print
    same paper, same developer &c and seeing how you like them ?

    there aren't a lot of variables ... they are all good performers if stopped down maybe 4-5 stops.

    to be honest a lot of lenses that people hold grudges against and suggest are crap lenses are just fine.
    this is true for taking as well as flat field/enlarging lenses. my guess is that unless you are enlarging wide-open
    or making mural sized enlargements you probably won't be able to tell the difference ...
    i often times use a meniscus lens as an enlarging lens ... probably a lens that people would tell me is a piece of crap
    and not worth the little metal barrel it is mounted in, but it works just fine.

    have fun with your tests!
    john
    im empty, good luck

  6. #16
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,278
    Images
    5
    I had and used a 90mm Wollensak for years. Try it. It may well be fine for your needs, and if not, you're out a few bucks - no big deal.
    David
    Taking pictures is easy. Making photographs is hard.

    http://www.behance.net/silverdarkroom
    http://silverdarkroom.wordpress.com

  7. #17
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,855
    Images
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    Contact Rick A. He uses Wollensak I think.
    Indeed I do use a Wollensak 90 enlarging Raptar with coated elements. It was designed to cover 6x9 and is slightly wide angle for the format. These were state of the art in their day. I have a 75mm el-Omegar that is basic 4 element that I never use, and prefer the Wolly to everything else. I shoot 6x6 and 6x9 so the Wolly covers everything I do in medium format, and I even use it for 35mm to make enlargments up to 8x10. BTW, I actually have two of them, holding a NIB unit for back-up.
    Here's a print made using the Wolly:
    http://www.apug.org/forums/members/r...kemika-km.html
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    there aren't a lot of variables ... they are all good performers if stopped down maybe 4-5 stops.
    I wouldn't do that with good enlarger lenses. I believe something like the Nikkor 50mm 2.8 N is sharpest at f/4-f/5.6.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    to be honest a lot of lenses that people hold grudges against and suggest are crap lenses are just fine.
    I don't think anyone in this thread has a "grudge" against any enlarger lens. To be honest with you my enlarger lens was the one piece of equipment I gave very little thought to. That's the whole point of most of the responses in this thread. They are so cheap why even think about it? My first box of paper cost more than my "premium" mint 50mm lens. I agree with the people that say he should just try it out. Everyone's standards are different. You are simply not going to get a large enough sample of opinions for such a rare piece of equipment to formulate a meaningful answer.

    Another issue with trying out the lens is you need some kind of gold standard to compare it to. I scanned for a long time before I set up a darkroom and started printing. I regret that. A lot of negatives that looked fine scanned were too contrasty when it came to enlarging. They are not unprintable but a simple tweak of my processing routine would have corrected everything. I would just hate to see someone spend years printing and realize after all that time they wished they had spent $30 extra dollars and gotten a late model mint lens. That's all I'm saying.

  9. #19
    ChristopherCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Armpit of Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,190
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    ... they are all good performers if stopped down maybe 4-5 stops.


    I've been using El Omegar lenses that came with the Omega enlarger kit that I'm currently selling. I've used both the 50mm and the 75mm, both stopped down to about f/11 or f/16. I've not noticed an issue, but then again my eye is still quite untrained.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,057
    hi noble

    i wasn't saying you in particular but there are always people
    who dislike companies or lenes or cameras or paper, or chemistry for whatever
    reasons they have ... i can't stand tmax developer ( for example ) it ruined my film
    and kodak left me hanging ... and i still hold a grudge against it ( since it was introduced in 1991/2! )
    but others LOVE it ... and make great work with it ... to each their own ....

    i am sure most people can't tell an image from one lens to another whether it was used at the "optimized" fstop or
    1/2 a stop or 2 stops less .. there are plenty of examples of that in my own portfolio.
    printed with a 20$ filter or with a 20¢ piece of cel-o-phane in the end
    what matters is if the person making the prints made with xyz camera, xyz film, xyz chemistry + paper
    likes the results.

    personally, i couldn't care less about "internet opinion" ...
    it seems that all websites like this (and others) that are always linked to, or books or whatever ...
    all they do is give opinion and for every opinion there is always a contradictory one ...

    that's why i suggested christopher make enlargements and look for himself so he can make his own opinion and not just go by what faceless internet forum suggests is right or wrong good/ bad.
    i'm also reminded that there are always people on internet fora who say, but don't do ... in otherwords
    they just post and repost and post other people's opinion and never do any of the things that they are actually
    claiming to be experts in ...

    a few years ago i was involved in a long conversation ( thread ) with someone who claimed to be an expert in something he
    really had just begun to learn about. i applauded his enthusiasm but he knew about as much about what he was dispensing knowledge about as the person who posted the first lines of the thread ....

    as with everything your actual mileage may vary from the company spec sheet ...
    ===

    have fun printing christopher!
    i hope you post your results and show us how the lenses worked ( or not ) for you ..
    Last edited by jnanian; 05-11-2013 at 11:43 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    im empty, good luck

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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