Lens Guru needed
I (for absolutely no reason) had to purchase another Omega D2 so it didn't end up in the trash. The real reason for purchasing it was for the lenses and cones. I don't think I really need either. Scratch that, I'm about 99% sure I don't need any of it. But, before I part with this stuff, I want to make sure I am not letting go of a gem of a lens.
Q#1. Will any of these be better suited that my modern day Rodenstock componon's, El-Nikkor's or Scheider lenses that are currently on my D5 enlargers?
Q#2. Are any of these worthy of using as a shooting lens on 4x5?
Q#3. Any worth in them?
Q#4. I now have 2 D2's and I'm considering selling part for part rather than the entire enlarger as there seems to be no one in my city that needs them. Any thoughts on whether this has any value?
1. Bausch & Lomb Opt co.
Tessar IC 139mm E.F. f 4.5
Considering whether this is a good hat trick lens
2. Kodak Projection
Anastigmat 105mm f 4.5
3. Kodak Projection
Anastigmat 161mm f 4.5
4. Wollensak Raptar Enlarging
90mm f 4.5
Componon 50mm f 4 (chrome)
6. Wollensak Raptar Enlarging
75mm f 4.5
Thanks for your input,
As far as #3 goes I sold my 161mm for $10. These lenses are not worth much. Shipping costs really. And condition is everything. Any problems makes them almost worthless. Unless you have a specific look you are trying for I'd stick with my modern lenses. The 161 and 139 would probably cover 4x5 and you could try them. Again they may give you a look you like but I don't think they would make good general purpose lenses. You could play with the shorter lenses for closeups. Never know you might find something you like.
The 90/4.5 enlarging raptar was designed to cover 6x9(2-1/4x3-1/4) negatives, I have two of them and they work beautifully, but aren't worth more than ten bucks. Wollensak enlarging raptars were top of the line back in the 40's through early 60's.
Save the extra D-2 for parts for yourself, just in case.
I don't think any of those will be better than your current stock of lenses, but they may have a different look. The Kodak Anastigmats seem to possess a certain warmth; a smoothness I haven't found in the Schneider/Rodenstock/Nikor lenses. Of course, this affinity for a certain look is completely subjective and personal. I just know that when I used the 105 to print 6x9 negatives I found I liked the prints more than I did prints made with Rodenstock and Nikor lenses, all other factors being equal. They are not worth much money, however.
The only one I see in the list that might be interesting as a taking lens is the B&L Tessar. It's hard to know if it was optimized for a given distance or not, but it's pretty certain that all of the other ones were optimized for short distances.
"I only wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary's laundry, and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photography." -- Lee Friedlander
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thanks for the input guys. I am getting the answers I expected I suppose. I am going to rig up the B&L to a board and take a few shoots w/ the Meridian before I decide on that one. Don't take this wrong as I am not comparing this to a Petzval type lens, but I see B&L branded Petzvals for sale here all the time, so I must assume they made some pretty unique stuff. I mean, the G-Clarnon was an enlarging lens that turned out to be terrific for a LF shooting lens, some maybe this will turn out to be a poor man Petzval? HA! It's nice to have dreams, but dreams are as such.
I am not actually using a D-2 for myself, I just have two (2) of them looking for a home. I have not yet spent much time in my darkroom because I have too much stuff. I went full blown over kill when I put it together and have three (3) D-5's set up two (2) of which have lens turrets on them. I assume once I get into the swing of using it more often, I will scale down to make room for a few things I didn't realize I would need when I built it. So the question is if there is a market for parting out both of them? I'm sure the cones and lens plates would sell, but that leaves me with the bulk of the enlarger. And, the decision to make as to whether or not to scrap them in the end. I don't make that type of decision well.
Originally Posted by Rick A
I've been able to sell a couple locally. If you're willing to ship them, you could definitely sell them.
Originally Posted by JMC1969
PS. The 2 D-2's are of different ages. Both are the type with the red knob door for a variable condenser (which I have one). 1 is set up as a condenser enlarger and the tension springs are mounted to the frame, on the back, lower down. The second is set up with a Aristo head and the tension springs are mounted at the top.
I have tried and got a . Jacksonville is not holding up it's end in this market. Last year at this time I was let go from the only lab in town because they just couldn't afford it any more. I worked there for about 4 1/2 years and they have been open since 1987. There are few few guys around town, but most of them w/ enough room for a darkroom already have a set up. Thanks
Originally Posted by Jeff Bannow
That's unfortunate. I've had good luck with ebay, craigslist, and here on APUG. But, Detroit is a different market I'm sure. Although we are pretty short on pro labs (might have 1 left maybe).
Originally Posted by JMC1969