Help Mounting A 162mm Raptar To A D5 (For 4x5)

[rpsez]

Hi,
Did a bunch of googling and searching here on the forums - all to no avail. I'm trying like hell to mount a 162mm Wollensak Raptar onto a D5 (and get it to focus when using a 4x5 neg).
I'm kind of new to using this enlarger. That said, I've used it successfully for 135 and 6x45 (with a 50mm and 80mm lens respectively) with no issues.
As far as I can tell - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - I need to use a lens cone to mount the 162mm lens to the enlarger. No problems there: I spent a great deal of time last night playing with every lens cone that I own, again to no avail.
I've got the following lens boards / cones: flat, 1 1/2", 2" and 5". From what google and my searches here tell me I should be using the longest of the bunch - the 5" (??). When I mount the lens in the largest lens cone and try to focus on baseboard ( for an 8x10), it appears that I don't have enough bellows draw to make that happen (??).
I've got no ideas left to try out. I'm well and truly stumped on this one. LoL
Any ideas on what else I should try?

Thanks,
Rick

Postscript: Pics attached for your viewing pleasure...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6024/5989012837_7ab64f8fe5_b_d.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6138/5989573122_9f534ec213_b_d.jpg

[Jon Shiu]

With the large cone you should have plenty of bellows extension. Have you tried raising the head up a bit and then focusing?

Jon

[rpsez]

With the large cone you should have plenty of bellows extension. Have you tried raising the head up a bit and then focusing?

Jon

I have.

What's weird is this: in order to get it to focus semi-correctly (and with the head almost at the top of the column) I have to take the disc that rides on the focusing rail off of the rail completely. (This gives me a bunch more bellows extension...)

R

[Mark Sampson]

You need a medium-length cone. I have one on my D-II to use a 150mm. They're out there; Harry Taylor at classic-enlargers.com may have one. IDK what your ultra-long cone would be good for, perhaps for a 210 on a (5x7) E-series enlarger.

[ic-racer]

1) I'm pretty sure you have a rare D4 not a D5
2) D4 is very similar to the more popular D3 with a beefed-up column and uses the same focus tracks and cones as the D3
2) You don't want to use that lens with that enlarger
3) You would need a 5 5/8" Cone #421-156 which is very very rare
4) No focus track was made for 162mm lens (150mm was the longest) so you'd have to have one custom cut or use a 150mm track and not have auto focusing

Do you have a focus track for a 135mm or 150mm lens? If so, I'd get a lens with focal length to match the focus track you have. If you don't have a focus track you can get them from KHB and Harry's.

If you don't have the D3 manual, I have the PDF and can email it to you.

[rpsez]

1) I'm pretty sure you have a rare D4 not a D5
2) D4 is very similar to the more popular D3 with a beefed-up column and uses the same focus tracks and cones as the D3
2) You don't want to use that lens with that enlarger
3) You would need a 5 5/8" Cone #421-156 which is very very rare
4) No focus track was made for 162mm lens (150mm was the longest) so you'd have to have one custom cut or use a 150mm track and not have auto focusing

Do you have a focus track for a 135mm or 150mm lens? If so, I'd get a lens with focal length to match the focus track you have. If you don't have a focus track you can get them from KHB and Harry's.

If you don't have the D3 manual, I have the PDF and can email it to you.

This may sound like a strange question but: how do you know the model number of these enlargers? (I looked everywhere on this thing and couldn't find it stamped or otherwise embossed on it...)

All I could find (that has a marking) is the center focusing track. It's marked PN# 3145-060 and 80mm Componon and D3/D4. (The other two focusing tracks are unmarked and possibly homemade.)

The autofocusing thing isn't a big deal to me as I rarely print more than one or two pictures in a session.

Is the lens a dog? (Just curious as to why you'd say, 'Don't use that lens with that enlarger' in bold. (??) Or is it just easier to pick up another lens and focusing track?)

Looks like I'll be looking for a 135mm lens and a focusing track for the same here very shortly.

(And yes, I'd love a copy of the manual! I'll PM you my email address. Thanks!

Rick

[ic-racer]

Looks like you have 3 focus tracks, are the other two unmarked??

You don't want to use any lens of focal length greater than 150mm as the enlarger was not made to handle that. It is very difficult to use the enlarger as a non-autofocus enlarger; it needs the correct tracks and cones for a lens to project any focused image.

Here is the handy on-line Omega spotter's guide. You can pick your enlarger out from the pictures and description. I'm pretty sure it is a D4 with the modern Chromega head. http://www.khbphotografix.com/omega/

[ic-racer]

Here is a cone for 135mm: http://cgi.ebay.com/Omega-D3-D4-Enlarger-4-25-LENS-BOARD-4x5-film-135mm-/260820457650?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cba1c58b2#ht_813wt_813

Here is a focus track for 135mm: http://cgi.ebay.com/Omega-D-3-D-4-Enlarger-Autofocus-Track-135mm-Lenses-/350275885050?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item518e11d7fa#ht_585wt_1047

[Mark Sampson]

Not to rain on your parade any further, but my experience with a couple of 162mm enlarging Raptars about 25 years ago, was unhappy. This was in an old-line corporate industrial lab; us young whippersnappers found them to be unsharp and low in contrast. After a struggle, management replaced them with 150mm El-Nikkors and the prints improved immediately.

[rpsez]

Looks like you have 3 focus tracks, are the other two unmarked??

You don't want to use any lens of focal length greater than 150mm as the enlarger was not made to handle that. It is very difficult to use the enlarger as a non-autofocus enlarger; it needs the correct tracks and cones for a lens to project any focused image.

Here is the handy on-line Omega spotter's guide. You can pick your enlarger out from the pictures and description. I'm pretty sure it is a D4 with the modern Chromega head. http://www.khbphotografix.com/omega/

The other two are indeed unmarked - very possibly homemade.

(I picked up this enlarger via a guy on the local Craigslist a couple of years ago - it came with a number of lenses and all those lens cones that you see. At the time I didn't 'do' 4x5, it was all 135 and 645. Picked up a Horseman 4x5 and here I am, trying to get this enlarger to work for me! (At least the price was right - it was free.))

And with the addition of the manual(s), it's all starting to make a great deal of sense.

Thanks for sending them on and for the links to the cone and focus track on the 'bay. At least I now know what the hell I'm searching for!

I've got a line on a 135mm Rodenstock from the local photo shop and I'll be sure to pick up the focusing track and the cone to go with it.

Thanks for all your help on this - it really was driving me to distraction.

Rick

Postscript: I think you're right - either a D4 or a D3. Probably a D4.

[rpsez]

Not to rain on your parade any further, but my experience with a couple of 162mm enlarging Raptars about 25 years ago, was unhappy. This was in an old-line corporate industrial lab; us young whippersnappers found them to be unsharp and low in contrast. After a struggle, management replaced them with 150mm El-Nikkors and the prints improved immediately.

LoL.

Thanks for the input. Looks like I'll be using it for a paperweight here in the very near future.

R

[Mark Sampson]

Well, I didn't mean to disrespect Wollensak lenses; I've used many good ones. Those two just didn't cut it. If you can eventually fit the Wolly on your enlarger, it might be worth an A/B comparison. If not, it should make a fine loupe, not just a paperweight.

[rpsez]

Well, I didn't mean to disrespect Wollensak lenses; I've used many good ones. Those two just didn't cut it. If you can eventually fit the Wolly on your enlarger, it might be worth an A/B comparison. If not, it should make a fine loupe, not just a paperweight.

Not at all - not at all.

I'm only a couple of years into my darkroom experience and most of it (99.8%) has been self-taught. This is not a good thing, as you can imagine.

...and I hadn't thought of using it as a loupe! Good idea.

R