Omega DII Questions (I'm STUMPED)

[corgan4321]

I have a couple questions about my Omega DII:

First, I can’t produce prints smaller than (approx.) 10 inches in either direction with the correct lens. By the correct lens I mean a 50mm for 35mm film, an 80mm for 6x6 film, etc. Reason being, If I move the enlarger head all the way down as far as the track will let me go and I focus the image, it is still about 10 inches in one direction; too large to make an 8x10 print. I’m using flat lens boards for both lenses. Any idea why this is?

Second problem is that the lens cone I have for my 135mm lens doesn’t fit into the enlarger! The person from whom I got it said it was for the Omega D series but it is just slightly larger than the flat lensboard I use for my 50 and 80mm lenses. Maybe this cone was meant for the D3 or larger D series enlargers?

Thanks!

[Brian C. Miller]

I have a D-II and and D-3. The D-3 is set up at the moment, so I'm using it as a reference.

First, you don't a cone at all on the enlarger, right? There is the lens mounting board, and then there is a flat insert which slides into the enlarger, and the lens board (with the lens) screws into that.

Second, is the enlarger head going all the way to the top and all the way to the bottom? It isn't binding, right? The band springs should be maxed out, the gears should be an inch from the end of the track, and the negative stage should be about 16 inches above the base board.

The D-II and D-3 both take the same lens boards and cones. The D5 is completely different.

The 50mm lens should be mounted on a flat lens "cone," the 80mm should be mounted on a 2-inch or so cone, and the 135mm should be on a 4-inch cone. All of the lenses mount on a circular flat board, which is screwed into their respective cones.

Also, if raise your easel up with a box or something to give an 8x10 print, can you focus the image?

If you can, please post a picture or two.

[Brian Schall]

You're limited by how far down the head goes. With my DII, I've raised the easel by placing books under it to print as small as 2x3 on one occassion. You can also just use your 80mm lens, nothing wrong with using a longer lens.

As far as the cone, it could be for the D5.

[Vaughn]

Don't think of it as the "correct" lens. The only "incorrect" lens is one that is too short to cover the film format (and even that one can be "correct", depending on the desired results). To make smaller images, use a longer lens than the "normal" lens for the film size. I always do this when making 8x10s or 11x11s from 6x6 negs -- using the 135mm lens (on a D5). That way the enlarger is at a reasonable height and I am using the "sweet spot" of both the lens and condensers.

D5's don't use cones.

[lenser]

Corgan,

First of all, do you have the D-II or the D-2? The D-II is the first version of the D series and has some differences from the later D-2 and more advanced D series machines that came later. That may or may not effect what you are attempting, but it is worth looking into.

You can find historical and mechanical information at www.khbphotografix.com/omega/ which is an extremely comprehensive Omega informational website.

Secondly, Omega made an add on bellows unit for exactly the purpose you are trying to achieve. It simply went on in place of the normal lens board or cone, and the lens was attached at the end of the supplemental bellows allowing for prints as small as wallet size on the baseboard. I've seen quite a lot of these come up on the bay over the years, so it may be fairly easy to find.

Good luck.

Tim

[Roger Cole]

I recall I had problems making smaller than 8x10 from my 35mm negatives with a 50mm lens, but no problems with 8x10. For smaller prints I used my old little Bogen X-35.

I've been reading that 50-105mm take flat boards. I have one on the way for my 100mm Componon-S. I'm going to be perturbed if it does require a cone. I have the right cone for my 135 and it works fine - or did back when I printed. I have to get this stuff set up again.

Anyway, the OP may have a D5 cone as someone said. My cone definitely fits my enlarger, which is a DII (not 2) chassis with a D2V lamphouse.

[Louie Powell]

I have a couple questions about my Omega DII:

First, I can’t produce prints smaller than (approx.) 10 inches in either direction with the correct lens. By the correct lens I mean a 50mm for 35mm film, an 80mm for 6x6 film, etc. Reason being, If I move the enlarger head all the way down as far as the track will let me go and I focus the image, it is still about 10 inches in one direction; too large to make an 8x10 print. I’m using flat lens boards for both lenses. Any idea why this is?



Simple solution - elevate the easel.

All enlargers have this problem - the only difference is what are the dimensions of the smallest print they can make.

That's why paper comes in boxes - just put a paper box under the easel.

[lenser]

Corgan,

I should also have mentioned that you can use a longer lens such as a 135 or 150mm designed for 4x5 with the smaller negatives, which will project a smaller print than the 50 or 75mm lenses for smaller formats.

[Dave Brown]

You'll need to move the easel up towards the lens, and as you do that, chances are you'll run out of bellows draw. Back in the day, Omega made an auxiliary bellows called the "close up attachment" that solved this problem.

As for your lens cone not fitting, I can only guess. If the fit is close, perhaps a little work with a file or a grinder would solve the problem.

[Vaughn]

The "easy" solution of raising the easel is easy -- but make sure that the easel stays aligned with the baseboard or else you could have problems with sharpness across the image area.

A longer lens is better for that reason -- and for two other reasons. 1) the lens is farther away from the paper, making burning and dodging easier (less likely to bump the lens, etc), and 2) depending on the power of the bulb, paper speed, and negative density, having the paper that close to the lens might require you to close the lens down past the optimum aperture.

Good luck!

Vaughn

[Bill Burk]

I racked my Omega DII firmly to the klunk at the lowest point.

Negative plane is 19 3/4 inches from my easel (which is 3/4 inch thick).

In a flat mount, the 50mm lens plane is 17 3/4 inches from the easel, focused on a 35mm neg in a standard cut carrier.

The projected image is 7 x 10 1/4 inches -- just as you complained.

This makes the enlarger properly designed to make 8 x 10 prints from 35mm negatives, with cropping and a border. But not suited to full-frame print with thick borders.

The extension bellows unit is not suited to this task. With that unit in place, the focused projected image was 3/16". Yes, suitable for a locket.

Something must be done if you want a full-frame print on 8 x 10 paper. As others have pointed out change the lens or raise the easel.

Good luck. If you are good with woodworking, I'd recommend making a stable apple-box. A 17 x 20 x 5-inch high box will fit on the baseboard and will give you a 5 x 7 inch projected image. You might even want to make it 6 inches.

I've used paper boxes and phone books before. Drove me crazy. They work but the easel moves too easily.

[Brian C. Miller]

Well, the major problem Corgan is having is that a 35mm negative is being projected larger than 8x10 on the easel. The only time that happens with me is when I am using the cone for the 135mm lens. I'm guessing that Corgan has confused the lens boards with the cones, and he doesn't actually have a flat "cone" for the shorter lenses.

[corgan4321]

Hey guys, thanks for all the response and help. I think I need to clarify:

My 50m and 80mm lenses are on FLAT lensboards and my 135mm lens is on the correct 4 inch cone board. I know there's no such thing as "correct" lens, I should have said normal focal length. I'm moving up form my Beseler 23CII (to print 4x5). I went to print 35mm, and had to use my 80mm lens. No big deal... I went to print 6x6 film and had to use my 135mm lens. That's when I discovered the cone board doesn't fit in the enlarger! But this is a problem regardless, I won't be able to print 4x5 film on 8x10 paper with my 135mm lens!!!

In addition, when I used to print at my school on a D2, I NEVER had a problem printing on 8x10 paper with a white border (50mm lens, 35mm film). I suspect it has something to do with the older DII design...

[Roger Cole]

Hey guys, thanks for all the response and help. I think I need to clarify:

My 50m and 80mm lenses are on FLAT lensboards and my 135mm lens is on the correct 4 inch cone board. I know there's no such thing as "correct" lens, I should have said normal focal length. I'm moving up form my Beseler 23CII (to print 4x5). I went to print 35mm, and had to use my 80mm lens. No big deal... I went to print 6x6 film and had to use my 135mm lens. That's when I discovered the cone board doesn't fit in the enlarger! But this is a problem regardless, I won't be able to print 4x5 film on 8x10 paper with my 135mm lens!!!

In addition, when I used to print at my school on a D2, I NEVER had a problem printing on 8x10 paper with a white border (50mm lens, 35mm film). I suspect it has something to do with the older DII design...

You probably CAN print 4x5 on 8x10 with the 135mm. I did with mine. Because the proportions are the same you don't have to over enlarge one side to fit. OTOH, you won't print much smaller without raising the easel.

I've thought about getting a 150 but probably easier just to raise the easel. For 6x6 smaller than 8x10, I'll use the 135 (actually since I have a 100 I'll probably be able to go a bit smaller than if I had an 80) and for 35mm I can use the 100, or find an 80.

What was posted above about 7x10 pretty much fits my memory of printing 35mm with mine. I never printed full frame uncropped. For smaller prints I'd use my other enlarger (back in TN, and probably not worth bringing to GA next time I'm up in a couple of weeks. It's almost toy like, but will work as well as the lens you put on it.)

[Bill Burk]

Now we're on LF topic.

You're right. So what if the 135 fits on the flat lensboard. When you put in a 4x5 negative, and rack the standard bellows all the way, you will already have an image of 9 1/2 x 12 which really is bigger than what you want for 11 x 14.

An applebox won't help you because you can't rack out the bellows any farther.

You have to get at least the 2 3/4 inch cone that is 6 1/2 inch outside diameter at the top with the flattened parts measuring 5 3/4 inches across.

I expect you will have no problem finding this cone since it's pretty standard.

[corgan4321]

An applebox won't help you because you can't rack out the bellows any farther.


How could this not help? It would effectively bring the enlarging head closer to the paper (plane of focus). The size of enlargements below 8x10 is only inhibited by the distance of the enlarger head to the paper, not the amount of bellows draw necessary to focus at a close distance...



You have to get at least the 2 3/4 inch cone that is 6 1/2 inch outside diameter at the top with the flattened parts measuring 5 3/4 inches across.

I expect you will have no problem finding this cone since it's pretty standard.

This is the weird part!!! My cone measures about 6.7 at the diameter. I suppose I'll just file it down for a few hours.

[Roger Cole]

How could this not help? It would effectively bring the enlarging head closer to the paper (plane of focus). The size of enlargements below 8x10 is only inhibited by the distance of the enlarger head to the paper, not the amount of bellows draw necessary to focus at a close distance...



This is the weird part!!! My cone measures about 6.7 at the diameter. I suppose I'll just file it down for a few hours.

Note what he said about a flat board - the apple box won't help with the flat board, because you can't get the lens far enough from the film plane. With a proper sized cone, though, it will raise the easel and allow you to get the film and paper closer together and allow smaller enlargements.

[Bill Burk]

Roger pointed out the issue. Funny I didn't think about this at all, I just tried putting the 135 mm on the flat board and focused on a 4 x 5 neg.

An applebox will be a good thing to have in any case. I made mine out of some yard furniture that was falling apart so it didn't cost me anything but time. I use mine primarily to lift the wash tray high enough out of the sink for the tank and tray siphon to run. It's really sweet not having to scrounge for phone books to raise the easel. I've heard they come in handy in the studio too.

Can the inside diameter of the top of the cone file down to 5 3/4 inch? If so, you have a good plan to file it down. And all it will cost you is some time...

[ic-racer]

my 135mm lens is on the correct 4 inch cone board. .
?

The 4 1/2" cone is for 150 to 180.
2 3/4" cone is for 105 to 135

[Bill Burk]

The 4 1/2" cone doesn't fit - so it has to be filed down. Until OP can file it down to fit, he can't make 8 x 10 prints from 4x5.

Even though it isn't the 2 3/4" cone, if the lens fits and he can get it into the enlarger, he'll be able to make 8 x 10 prints.

IC-Racer, you don't happen to have a spare cone do you? (Sorry corgan4321 I don't have any extra).

[ic-racer]

IC-Racer, you don't happen to have a spare cone do you? (Sorry corgan4321 I don't have any extra).

I don't have one but there is one here: http://cgi.ebay.com/Omega-D-4x5-Enlarger-Lensboard-4-5-CONE-135mm-/400200083441?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5d2dc8a7f1#ht_1348wt_1141

[Bill Burk]

corgan4321,

That same seller has the 2 3/4 cone you need in ugly shape for $15 free shipping.

Who cares what it looks like, it should do the trick assuming you have the parts it's missing.

[Bill Burk]

Ha, I left the enlarger on all day.

With the 2 3/4" cone and 135mm you get a 1:1 print - 4x5 negative projects at 4x5 with the bellows racked all the way out and the enlarger head even has to be raised up a bit.