|
|
Re: 4x5 lens for enlarger?
Lib,
Either lens will work for 4x5 negatives. I use a 135mm so that I don't
have to raise the lamphouse as high. If you tend to make 8x10 and 11x14
prints, this doesn't matter. But to make a larger print with a 150mm
lens, it will have to be pretty high.
Also the Omega D2 will require the right lens cone for proper focusing.
50mm and 80mm lenses use a flat lens board. A 135mm lens needs a 2.25"
lens cone (I think). The 150mm lens needs a longer one (4.5" maybe??).
Also...I nabbed a nice Rodenstock Rodagon 135mm lens on eBay for $22 a
couple weeks ago. There are plenty of bargains to be found!
pgg
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:56:22 -0700, lib wrote:
> I have an Omegea D2 that will do 4x5 negs. I only have a few of the negs,
> and am considering buying an inexpensive lens to print them. I see there is
> a Schneider Componon 5.6 150mm on Ebay for sale at a low starting price. Is
> this a reasonable lens for what I want to do? Is there a significant
> difference between a 135mm or a 150mm lens for printing 4x5? Thanx- lib
|
|
|
| |
The taking lens thing has got a lot of comments over the years, the theory
is that printing with the same lens that took the picture will "cancel" any
optical aberrations of the lens, maybe in 1920 and with a simple four
element lens like a classic normal focus Tessar-type but how about that
super-tele or extreme wide angle. A well corrected 6-element enlarger lens
can often be had for the less that the price of an adapter for the taking
lens. I suspect that a 4-element Componar stopped down 3-stops is more than
equal to a taking lens used at less than it's optimum corrected distance of
focus. I have used several Componars for years and didn't have a gripe with
them, medium format enlarging just doesn't require as much from a lens as
"miniature" (35mm) or "sub-miniature" (anything smaller than 35mm). I am
upgrading to El-Nikkors but only so I have a matched set of lenses for
aesthetic reasons and because it would be (at current prices) stupid not to
upgrade.
--
darkroommike
----------
"Dr. Dagor" wrote in message
news:1116820311.444172.198240@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This topic gets discussed in this note file often. If you search the
> archive you will find lots of hits. Here are some general notes.
>
> 1. The ideal enlarging lens is the taking lens, since it would tend to
> correct any errors. (Assuming it's a good taking lens.)
> 2. Short of that, the standard enlarging lens is the "normal lens" for
> the film medium. That's typically the image diagonal, or about 50mm
> for 35mm film and 75 or 80 for 2 1/4 square. 135 is often used for 4x5
> and so forth.
> 3. Enlarging lenses of small focal length (80 and shorter) tend to be
> very sharp and relatively inexpensive, so get a good one.
> 4. Most makers -- Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock in particular -- offer
> both 4-element and 6-element enlarging lenses. Take Schneider... The
> Componar is 4 element and the Componon is the 6 element offering.
> Don't waste your time with a 4 element lens.
> 5. Enlarger makers, in general, don't make their own enlarging lenses.
> So Omegarons and Neonons, and such are actually made by one of the big
> three.
> 6. On your list you left off the Companon 80mm which is one of my
> favorites.
> 7. On your list, I think that the Rodagon 80/4 may be an Apo lens, and
> is therefore superior (and lots more expensive).
>
> Have fun.
>
|
|