As mentioned, one approach to consider is a taking lens designed for that magnification -- such as a "process" or "macro" lens. For example, the Fujinon A 300mm f9 is optimized for 1:1 but works great away of that -- PLUS you get a great macro taking lens! I've used my Fujinon A 180mm f8 on my enlargers a few times with great results.Originally Posted by interneg
Nikon rates their 240mm f5.6 and 300mm f5.6 at 1X - 8X, with the optimum at 4X. My 270mm G-Claron f9 (in shutter) might perform better at 1X, but at almost a stop and a half slower I might lose that in focus issues. I chose to put a 240mm EL-Nikkor on my modified Beseler 45M, and it seems to meet my needs at 2X. In my case a 300mm was out of contention - I could not make the mechanics of the adaption reversible with the necessary lens and negative stage positions required by a 300mm.
This is kind of what I have increasingly been suspecting - that the difference is really vanishingly small!
Having been thinking about getting a couple of Fujinon A-series lenses for taking purposes, I'd quite forgotten about the fact that they were corrected for that magnification range - thanks for reminding me!
Was also looking at the Nikkor AM ED 210mm - I recall someone on here (Sal?) was using the 120mm version for sub 2x enlargement off 4x5, but I suspect that for 8x10 a Fujinon-A is likely to be a better idea, at least in terms of coverage etc.
Why would you enlarge to 1x? Seems stupid. Why not contract print????
Also, when you guys are all talking about better, best, etc. What are you talking about?????
Correct for the 240mm, wrong for the 300mm.
Per Nikon's specification, the 300mm El-Nikkor is usable from 1X to 8X, but its "Standard magnification" is 2X.
For the OP's situation, I'd suggest first trying a 305mm f/9 Apo Nikkor. Reasonably available, not expensive. A good friend of mine, whose skill and perception are outstanding, and who has 16x20 prints from 8x10 negatives in museums, purchased both that lens and a 300mm f/5.6 El Nikkor, then made prints using both. He was unable to see any difference in the finished product, and returned the El Nikkor. Ansel Adams also used that Apo Nikkor on his horizontal enlarger.
The Fujinon A-series were reportedly corrected for 1:5, so perhaps not optimum for what you intend.
Yes, that was me. Nikon's specification for the 120mm at 1:1 and an f/22 aperture was coverage of 250mm. That trails off rapidly with increasing magnification in enlarging applications; even 1.75X taxes it to the limit. I'd not go much beyond 1.5X from 4x5 negatives.
The 210mm is specified to cover 400mm at 1:1 and an aperture of f/22. Thought of proportionally to my 4x5 experience with the 120, it would not likely be usable for much above 1.25X from 8x10 negatives.
Yeah, really stupid. Why don't you let Alan Ross know what an idiot he is for doing that when making the Ansel Adams Yosemite Special Edition prints from 8x10 negatives. He'll likely be thrilled to learn from you.
The Fujinon literature that I have says the A series is optimized for 1:1 to 1:5.
I use my 180mm f9 from infinity to 1:1. Closer than that, I switch to a 100mm f4 Minolta due to my 360mm bellows limitation.
But, from my experience, it makes a great enlarging lens. Talk about all purpose. In one lens, I get a great distance lens, a great macro lens and a great enlarging lens. Three birds with one stone.
Cheers Sal, that's incredibly helpful - helps to eliminate a couple of possibilities before I got too bogged down!
Probably going to see if the 300mm EL-Nikkor will fit a DeVere 5108 lens board without custom machining (why are the 150mm & up Nikkors so much fatter than their Schneider or Rodenstock competitors?) & if not, probably look into getting a 360mm Rodagon, which is 2.5x optimised.
Go for it and let us know if you see any difference!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks