Not a "which enlarger should I get" question

[d.s.]

A month or so ago I was lined up to buy a D2V enlarger but the deal fell through. And now I've found some one who will fix me up with a D2V-XL. And I have to make a choice between a 135mm and a 150mm lens so he'll know which lens cone/board to install. I didn't know there was so much difference between those two lenses that Omega made 2 different lens boards/cones. Of course I'll be needing a lens for 4x5 enlarging, but which one. What are the plus and minus sides to these lenses. I was told that a 150mm would give better coverage. (less light fall off?) I'll be looking on the online aution site, and I'd like to know what to look for. Any thoughts, comments, and help would be welcome.

[Kevin Crisp]

I think having a high quality lens, the best you can afford, is more important than whether it is a 150 or a 135. A modern 135 by one of the major manufactures will be entirely satisfactory for printing 4X5 negatives. A 150 is fine too. With the 150 your lightsource to paper distance will be a little greater, of course, and with some lightsources that can be a plus. I think this idea, advanced by several knowledgable people, was probably more true with older lenses when the quality fall off was more evident than it is now. I don't think you can go wrong either way.

[John Cook]

Those who are super anal/nitpicky may be able to make the case that light intensity out to the extreme corners is slightly better with the 150.

From a much more practical point of view, I can tell you that it is much easier to reach the focus knob while looking through the grain magnifier when making a 16x20 print with the 135.

[Kevin Crisp]

And let me add that some modern enlarger lenses seem to cover better than you would expect them to. I picked up a 210mm El-Nikor for doing 5X7, and out of curiousity checked to see just how badly it missed covering an 8X10 negative. It doesn't miss at all, illumination is even and the image is sharp to the edges.

[wfwhitaker]

My response echoes John's. The choice of 135 v. 150 really has more to do with the size enlargements you most often make. If you want to print large (i.e., 16x20 and up), the 135 does make it easier as the enlarger head doesn't need to be as far from the easel. Even though you're getting the "XL" version, you'll find it a stretch to have your eye on the grain magnifier and your hand on the focusing knob. For smaller prints, either (modern) lens will work. In fact, if you intend to print "small" (i.e., 8x10 from a 4x5 negative), you may prefer the 150mm lens as it would give you a little more room between the lens and the easel for dodging and burning.



One of the nice things about the Omega D series of enlargers is that there are so many parts available on the used market. If you decide you want the other cone later, it's easily found.



By the way, there's not "so much difference between those two lenses that Omega made 2 different lens boards/cones". The reason is that the Omega has a limited bellows extension. The purpose of the cone is to get the lens situated at a point where the bellows is able to focus it effectively for most popular enlargement magnifications.



Good luck with your printing!

Will

[d.s.]

Thanks all, I think I'll go for the 135mm to start with. I like the idea of being able to focus with comfort using a grain focuser. I think I did see a grain focusing thing once that was very tall so as to allow use when making large prints.

William, I know about the limited bellows draw and the reason for lens cones. What I ment was I didn't think that there was so much difference between a 135mm focal legnth, and a 150mm focal legnth lens that they would require different cones. I thought that one cone would cover both of these lenses. Any one know the part numbers and sizes for Omega cones?

[wfwhitaker]

About 15mm.