really stupid question

[barry crallan]

The fact that I'm new to LF is about to become pretty obvious; I've used MF for a long time but still have problems getting to grips with lenses for LF in terms of 'standard', 'long' and 'wide angle'. but what I really don't understand is the difference between camera and enlarger lenses.

During my years with MF I've picked up a couple of LF bodies and quite a few enlarger lenses. If I fit one of these lenses to a large format body I get an image on the ground glass - and through a loupe it looks pretty sharp. OK, so it's not going to be up there with the very best, but what's the real difference between, say, a Rodagon 240mm enlarger lens and a similar spec designed for a camera?

It's taken me about a month to screw up the courage to ask this and I've trawled the posts hoping to find someone else dumb enough to have asked previously. I can hear the howls of derision already, but I just have to ask.....

[Jim Rice]

The distance at which they are best corrected.

[Scott --]

Glad you asked, Barry. I've been wondering that, too.

Scott, interminable noob

[Brian K]

The fact that I'm new to LF is about to become pretty obvious; I've used MF for a long time but still have problems getting to grips with lenses for LF in terms of 'standard', 'long' and 'wide angle'. but what I really don't understand is the difference between camera and enlarger lenses.

During my years with MF I've picked up a couple of LF bodies and quite a few enlarger lenses. If I fit one of these lenses to a large format body I get an image on the ground glass - and through a loupe it looks pretty sharp. OK, so it's not going to be up there with the very best, but what's the real difference between, say, a Rodagon 240mm enlarger lens and a similar spec designed for a camera?

It's taken me about a month to screw up the courage to ask this and I've trawled the posts hoping to find someone else dumb enough to have asked previously. I can hear the howls of derision already, but I just have to ask.....

Barry the 240mm rodagon you mention is designed to enlarge a negative in a range from say 2x (2:1) to 7x (7:1) (Bob Salomon could supply the exact figure) whereas a camera lens is designed to take a distant scene and reduce the size, 1:20 or 1:10 depending on how it's optimised. Now if you are doing macro work, that is photographing things bigger than they are in real life, an enlarging lens can work well, although you have to turn the lens around backward when you mount it on a camera. For distant objects an enlarging lens does not work well, although some people will use them on very large format cameras (ULF). Those images are rarely enlarged so the optical compromise of using an enlarger lens as a camera lens is not evident.

Basically speaking, use a camera lens on a camera and an enlarging lens on an enlarger.

[erie patsellis]

Hmm, so all the commercial photographers through the years that preferred componons in shutters over symmars just didn't know it??? In reality it's a balancing act, I use both symmars and componons and for tabletop work, the componons get used very frequently, it's about a 50/50 mix on landscape and the like, though I challenge anybody to tell me which is which from looking at a negative.


erie

[Jan_6568]

I was using Rodagon 180 mm mounted in Compur shutter as a taking lens for a while. It was one of the sharpest lenses I was ever using. On the other hand I never had any modern taking lens and I am comparing to Satz Plasmat, Heliar etc. Even though it was not designed and optimized for distant subjects, it was really razor sharp. I hated it's bokeh though.

Jan

[Brian K]

Hmm, so all the commercial photographers through the years that preferred componons in shutters over symmars just didn't know it??? In reality it's a balancing act, I use both symmars and componons and for tabletop work, the componons get used very frequently, it's about a 50/50 mix on landscape and the like, though I challenge anybody to tell me which is which from looking at a negative.


erie

I worked as a commercial photographer in NYC for 25 years, and for a few years prior I assisted maybe two dozen NYC commercial photographers , I know dozens of other commercial photographers and had dozens more rent studio space from me and do their photography in my studio. The ONLY time I ever saw enlarging lenses used as a camera lens was for macro work, not even table top, but macro. Now maybe my experience encompasses an elite group of photographers who can afford to use only the best equipment and equipment optimized for their specific functions but that is my experience.

As an example I own the 180mm Sironar-S, 180mm Sironar-N and the 180mm Macro sironar. I have tested all 3 side by side at distant focus and in comparison the macro sucks. Also note that an enlarging lens is optimized for even greater magnification ratio than a macro.

As for process lenses, those are often used in both macro and distance photography and perfrom quite well, I use 240, 300, 360 and 480 Ronars, 200 Nikkor M, 240 Fuji A for landscape work all are process lenses. However they are optimized for 1:1, not 4:1 or 5:1 or 6:1 or 7:1 (etc) like enlarging lenses. Given the vast number of high quality used view camera lenses available on the market, one has little excuse to use an enlarging lens, which one still has to get a shutter for as a camera lens.

Some people who have not tested equipment or may have never seen the optical differences between lenses may be quite happy with using an enlarging lens on their view camera. If the film is large and they are contact printing or making only small enlargements they may not notice the difference, however if they decide to enlarge the image they will.

Btw even among lenses optimized for a specific usage and then used in that optimized usage there can be significant qualitative differences.

[erie patsellis]

Brian, one of the most common lenses I saw being used by several tabletop shooters in the New England area ~1980's was the Schneider 210 Componon, in a Compur Rimset or Copal shutter, Schneider sold them for that very purpose, supposedly.

I worked as a commercial photographer in NYC for 25 years, and for a few years prior I assisted maybe two dozen NYC commercial photographers , I know dozens of other commercial photographers and had dozens more rent studio space from me and do their photography in my studio. The ONLY time I ever saw enlarging lenses used as a camera lens was for macro work, not even table top, but macro. Now maybe my experience encompasses an elite group of photographers who can afford to use only the best equipment and equipment optimized for their specific functions but that is my experience.

As an example I own the 180mm Sironar-S, 180mm Sironar-N and the 180mm Macro sironar. I have tested all 3 side by side at distant focus and in comparison the macro sucks. Also note that an enlarging lens is optimized for even greater magnification ratio than a macro.

As for process lenses, those are often used in both macro and distance photography and perfrom quite well, I use 240, 300, 360 and 480 Ronars, 200 Nikkor M, 240 Fuji A for landscape work all are process lenses. However they are optimized for 1:1, not 4:1 or 5:1 or 6:1 or 7:1 (etc) like enlarging lenses. Given the vast number of high quality used view camera lenses available on the market, one has little excuse to use an enlarging lens, which one still has to get a shutter for as a camera lens.

Some people who have not tested equipment or may have never seen the optical differences between lenses may be quite happy with using an enlarging lens on their view camera. If the film is large and they are contact printing or making only small enlargements they may not notice the difference, however if they decide to enlarge the image they will.

Btw even among lenses optimized for a specific usage and then used in that optimized usage there can be significant qualitative differences.

[Brian K]

Brian, one of the most common lenses I saw being used by several tabletop shooters in the New England area ~1980's was the Schneider 210 Componon, in a Compur Rimset or Copal shutter, Schneider sold them for that very purpose, supposedly.

Erie, I started assisting comercial shooters in 1975, some of them were real "old timers" (as I am rapidly becoming), in all my years in the business, and ultimately I was a tabletop still life photographer, the only time I ever saw anyone use enlarging lenses as taking lenses was for macro work, not table top which is usually a repro ratio of 1:1 to 1:5, which happens to coincide quite well with macro lenses like the 180 macro sironar. I used many lenses for my work, the choice depended on the magnification, stand off distance and coverage needed. I commonly shot cosmetics, food, watches, cigarettes and beverages. I used the APO Ronars, 240,300,480, and the macro sironars, 180 and 300. When I had to shoot high magnification photos I used an inverted enlarging lens. I also had general purpose lenses like Sironars.

Now while you may have seen some photographers in New England use enlarging lenses as taking lenses, I would think it was for macro and not table top. If they used it for table top they were not using the best available equipment. It is not uncommon for photographers, even professionals, to compromise on their equipment. Some people can not distinguish qualitative differences, some don't care, some never attempt to test or make a comparison and some are too cheap or on too tight a budget to afford the correct gear. Because you may have witnessed a few people using it, does not mean they did the right thing.

[steve simmons]

enlarging lenses can work for closeup but are not designed for distant subjects.

If you are new to large format may I suggest some reading

User's Guide to the View Camera by Jim Stone
Using the View Camera that i wrote

try your local library or Amazon.com

go to the View Camera magazine web site and click on Free Articles. There are several that might help you.


www.viewcamera.com


steve simmons