I have a bunch of enlarging lenses and would like to know which I should keep and which I should sell. I have a 45MX enlarger and 6x6 and 4x5 cameras.
Componon 135mm f5.6
Componon-S 150mm f5.6
Componon 150mm f5.6
Fujinon-ES 135mm f4.5
Componon-S 150mm f5.6 small version
Apo-Gerogon 150mm f9
Apo-Ronar 12in. f9 not sure if this is an enlarging lens.
Neither of the Apo lenses are enlarging lenses. They are both process lenses. The Apo Ronar was used on horizontal process cameras. The Apo Gerogon was a wide field process lens for vertical process cameras. So those should be the first to go.Originally Posted by campy
Assuming that your enlarger is properly aligned and you are using a glass carrier, which of the others gives you the best results? That is what you keep.
None of them are best for 6x6. They are all for 45.
The Fuji 135 would be the pick of the litter for MF if you have a tall enough enlarger, but a bit shy of ideal for 4x5, though certainly usable. You might want to keep the Componon S 150 too.
I'm a big fan of the Componon-S for their temporary-open-aperture lever and lighted aperture readout. Optically does the job well too.
Have not tried Fuji.
I'd suspect the Fuji to be a bit better corrected. Componon S improved upon the Componon, and once held a high reputation. But just like prize fighters, somebody younger and tougher came along. Schneider marketed its own premium HM lenses,
with a higher price point, of course. In my case, I really prefer longer than "normal" enlarging lenses because they have little or no falloff in comparison to normal ones. For quite awhile I used a 180 Rodagon for printing from 4x5 chromes. And the reason I now mainly use a 150 is simply because the Apo Rodagon N series doesn't come longer than 150, and its exquisite tonal rendering in my current black and white work makes it an exceptional choice. For my 8x10 negs I use Apo Nikkors, better still, but not available in shorter focal lengths. However, I wouldn't make too much of a fuss over these kinds of things unless there is a specific application which warrants it. There are plenty of decent choices around.
I'd keep the componon-s 150, and one of the 135mm.
The 135mm can be useful for 4x5 if you are to enlarge a crop, or if wanting small prints from 6x6.
The 135 can also be useful for 4x5 if wanting to compensate fall off from the taking lens, a negative shot with a 65mm (without center filter) has thinner than expected corners, so the higher fall off of the 135 may help compensate that.
...but to enlarge 6x6 you may want a lens around 80mm.
Pere,
The fall off with a wide angle camera lens can not be compensated with an enlarging lens. The wa lens fall off means the film has less density at the edges of the film. Fall off with an enlarging lens means less density at the edges of the print. Only a center filter or dodging will compensate for the fall off.
Bob, consider that the fall off from the enlarging lens illuminates less the edges that have less density, so it compensates the lower opacity of the film (in the edges) by throwing less light there.
It isn't a perfect compensation, but it helps.
Also we can adjust the amount of fall off by adjusting aperture, wide open the enlarging lens has higher fall off, and it decreases as we stop the lens. The graph shows fall off at 5.6, 8 and 11.
https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs...s_56_135_1.pdf
The graph shows that we can even throw two stops less light in the corners by taking advantage of the enlarging lens fall off, so we can correct perhaps 3 stops fall off in the taking, but this may impose an aperture we dont' want...
Of course the center filter makes sense because having the corners underexposed (or the center overexposed) provocates other problems, but if having a negative that has fall off then using a shorter than usual enlarging lens should help...
Also I found that in the 138S we can adjust the bulb position with different condensers, so there we have another way to illuminate more or less the corners compared to the center.
Pere, if one wants optimal results from an enlarging lens to obtain the best possible print quality there are certain things that you must have:Bob, consider that the fall off from the enlarging lens illuminates less the edges that have less density, so it compensates the lower opacity of the film (in the edges) by throwing less light there.
It isn't a perfect compensation, but it helps.
Also we can adjust the amount of fall off by adjusting aperture, wide open the enlarging lens has higher fall off, and it decreases as we stop the lens. The graph shows fall off at 5.6, 8 and 11.
https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs...s_56_135_1.pdf
The graph shows that we can even throw two stops less light in the corners by taking advantage of the enlarging lens fall off, so we can correct perhaps 3 stops fall off in the taking, but this may impose an aperture we dont' want...
Of course the center filter makes sense because having the corners underexposed (or the center overexposed) provocates other problems, but if having a negative that has fall off then using a shorter than usual enlarging lens should help...
Also I found that in the 138S we can adjust the bulb position with different condensers, so there we have another way to illuminate more or less the corners compared to the center.
1 a properly exposed and processed film.
2 a properly aligned enlarger
3 a glass negative carrier
4 a high quality enlarging lens
5 optimal aperture of the enlarging lens
6 optimal magnification range of the enlarging lens
THE OPTIMAL APERTURE OF AN ENLARGING LENS IS 2 TO 3 STOPS DOWN FROM WIDE OPEN!
A high quality enlarging lens at optimal aperture and within its magnification range should have no more then ⅓ rd stop fall off center to edge.
In no way can that properly compensate for the fall off from a wide angle taking lens shot without the center filter.
That's asking a lot from someone who is asking which lens to keep!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks