really stupid question

[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.

[Ernest Purdum]

Brian K.. In the usual use of an enlarging lens, you have a smaller negative behind the lens and a larger piece of paper in front. In photographing a small, but not macro size subject, you have the same relationship - small behind, large in front. You are, therefore, working near, quite posssibly right at, the ratio for which the lens was optimized.

Unless truly symmetrical, an enlarging lens used past the 1:1 ratio will probably work better if reversed.

Most process lenses are either dialytes (the type favored for the huge horizontal cameras), or plasmats (the type adopted for use of the vertical cameras that need wider coverage). These types are particularly insensitive to variations in subject/image ratio, so perform quite well at infinity when used at the apertures most commonly used in large format work anyway. The other way around, plasmats intended for general-purpose use, are usually near symmetrical, but with some variation intended to optimize the lens for distance work. This means that a lens optimized for enlarging type ratios may, but not necessarily will, perform better than a general use lens at tabletop distances.

[Brian K]

Brian K.. In the usual use of an enlarging lens, you have a smaller negative behind the lens and a larger piece of paper in front. In photographing a small, but not macro size subject, you have the same relationship - small behind, large in front. You are, therefore, working near, quite posssibly right at, the ratio for which the lens was optimized.

Unless truly symmetrical, an enlarging lens used past the 1:1 ratio will probably work better if reversed.

Most process lenses are either dialytes (the type favored for the huge horizontal cameras), or plasmats (the type adopted for use of the vertical cameras that need wider coverage). These types are particularly insensitive to variations in subject/image ratio, so perform quite well at infinity when used at the apertures most commonly used in large format work anyway. The other way around, plasmats intended for general-purpose use, are usually near symmetrical, but with some variation intended to optimize the lens for distance work. This means that a lens optimized for enlarging type ratios may, but not necessarily will, perform better than a general use lens at tabletop distances.

Ernest, you make a point about an enlarger lens working with a small negative on one side of the optic and a larger piece of paper on the other. Let's look at this, you have say a 4x5" negative being enlarged to 16x20", a pretty common negative and print size. That's a 4:1 ratio. Now lets take that lens out into the field and shoot a landscape at infinity, a scene that might be miles wide is then reduced in size to 5". Quite a difference in ratio there. You could use the common optimization ratio for a field type lens, that is 1:20. So here's the difference a enlarger lens that is optimized at 4:1 and is also being used at 1:20 ratios versus a camera lens that is optimzed for 1:20. So which one will work best at 1:20?

A macro lens is optimized in a range similar to an enlarging lens, more so than a process lens which is not optimized for reproductions greater than 1:1. I own 2 of the best macro lenses out there, the Rodenstock 180mm macro sironar (my version is a Sinaron) and the 300mm macro sironar, they are awesome at table top and macro, they are lousy at infinity.

As I stated previously and enlarging lens makes a great macro lens, especially if you reverse the lens.

[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.

[Ernest Purdum]

To try to clarify, I would not expect an enlarging lens to work well at long distances.

I would expect many enlarging lenses to work well at table top distances, because the ratios are in the same range for which most enlarging lenses are designed - item in front of the lens perhaps four to ten times the size of the film behind the lens.

For macro work, if the lens is reversed, I would expect the lens to work well at magnification of perhaps four to ten times, depending on the optimization of the particular lens.

[Brian K]

To try to clarify, I would not expect an enlarging lens to work well at long distances.

I would expect many enlarging lenses to work well at table top distances, because the ratios are in the same range for which most enlarging lenses are designed - item in front of the lens perhaps four to ten times the size of the film behind the lens.

For macro work, if the lens is reversed, I would expect the lens to work well at magnification of perhaps four to ten times, depending on the optimization of the particular lens.

Just because some people do something doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. For table top photography you are almost always doing some camera movements, and not slight ones either, you are tilting and or swinging the lens and sometimes shifting as well, and on occasion all 3 movements at once. An enlarging lens is designed to project a flat piece of film onto a flat and parallel piece of paper. It is designed to do so at magnifications ratios of anywhere from 3x to 10x depending on the lens. While it may allow some degree of deviation from being plano parallel to the negative and enlarging paper, it is not really designed to do so and will have far less film coverage when any movements are applied. They are also optimized for apertures 2 stops from wide open, that is if you are using a typical f5.6 enlarging lens your best f stop is f 11. The typical table top still life requires a certain amount of DOF, most tabletops shooters work in the F22-45 range and most often general purpose view camera lenses are optimized for f16 or F 22.

So lets review the disadvantages of using an enlarger lens for tabletop photography, you have less lens movements available, less film coverage, you have a lens not optimized for the apertures needed for tabletop photography, you have a lens designed for flat, not 3 dimensional subjects, you have a lens optimized for far greater reproduction ratios than you come across in table top. Gee I wonder why I didn't use an enlarging lens as a camera lens for the past 25 years?

[erie patsellis]

In a technical sense, I agree with you Brian.
However, have you ever used a Componon 210 on 4x5? or a Symmar? the IC is huge, and I cannot run out of circle in any tabletop situation. Huge, as in mine doubles as a wide for my 8x10, maybe not razor sharp to the very edge, but quite usable. My 210 Symmar-S MC has a slightly larger circle and slightly better corner perfomance over the Componon. That may be why Schneider offered them mounted in compurs, as they really are damn good, at typical reproduction ratios, 2:1 or less from a chrome, contrast issues notwithstandig (and proper technique always requires the use of a shade) it's pretty hard to tell a Symmar, Symmar-S and a Symmar-S MC apart from the chrome. Then again, alot of working pros I know still use Commercial Ektars and Artars for their commercial work, citing microcontrast, and tonality as the reasons, and my experience bears this out.

erie

[Dan Fromm]

Guys, IMNSHO it depends on the lens. Two issues, what the lens was made for and what it was sold as. If you believe what idiot sellers on eBay say, nearly all lenses in barrel are taking lenses. I've seen any number of Xenars and Symmars in barrel, all of which Schneider says are taking lenses and that's all, offered as enlarging lenses. My $32 delivered 135/5.6 Symmar was offered as an enlarging lens.

That said, although there are exceptions pre-WWII lenses, e.g., CZJ Tessars, were very often sold for taking and for enlarging with no difference between the two flavors except in the mounts. I have this from Charlie Barringer, hope that Arne Croell will notice this thread and make any corrections needed.

I'm an enthusiast of Boyer lenses, have a small pile of them, also fiches techniques from Boyer. With them, Saphir B lenses (6/4 plasmat types, usually fairly fast for the type) really are enlarging lenses intended to be used at f/11 and optimized for printing at 5x. I've tried a couple of Saphir Bs at distance and won't use them as taking lenses at distance; ok for macro, though. Tessar-type Saphirs are taking lenses regardless of how sold. And Saphir BXs (newer 6/4 plasmats) are very very like Zircons (anti-Symmars).

I'm also an enthusiast of Wollensak Pro Raptars. My 4" and 135 Enlarging Pro Raptars are great as macro lenses, the 4" is just astonishing, and horrible at distance.

Schneider -- Erie, go look in Schneider's archives -- sold Comparons (Xenars tweaked for enlarging) and Componons and Componon Ss in shutter for use closeup. What's interersting is that they recommend the Comparon over the equivalent Componon S for 2x - 6x (1:2 to 1:6 when taking).

Cheers,

Dan

[Brian K]

In a technical sense, I agree with you Brian.
However, have you ever used a Componon 210 on 4x5? or a Symmar? the IC is huge, and I cannot run out of circle in any tabletop situation. Huge, as in mine doubles as a wide for my 8x10, maybe not razor sharp to the very edge, but quite usable. My 210 Symmar-S MC has a slightly larger circle and slightly better corner perfomance over the Componon. That may be why Schneider offered them mounted in compurs, as they really are damn good, at typical reproduction ratios, 2:1 or less from a chrome, contrast issues notwithstandig (and proper technique always requires the use of a shade) it's pretty hard to tell a Symmar, Symmar-S and a Symmar-S MC apart from the chrome. Then again, alot of working pros I know still use Commercial Ektars and Artars for their commercial work, citing microcontrast, and tonality as the reasons, and my experience bears this out.

erie

Erie, the only camera usage I have ever used an enlarging lens for is for macro work in the 3x to 6x range. I do test all of my lenses extensively, and I own a lot of lenses (29 view camera lenses, 11 enlarging lenses). I test the sharpness of my lenses/film up to 40x with my stereomicroscope.

The technical reality, as I outlined in a previous post, is that enlarging lenses are not the best solution for table top photography. And btw table top photography is not always about shooting small things, just as often table top sets as large as 8 feet in size get shot onto 4x5. A four foot wide table top set getting shot onto 4x5" film is about 1:10 reproduction.

Having spent 30 years in the commercial photography industry in NYC, probably the most competitive photographic region with by far the greatest and densest population of commercial photographers anywhere in the world, the photo district being nearly a town all it's own, I have never seen anyone use an enlarging lens for a table top still life. I have seen many photographers using Artars and Ektars, Clarons, Symmars, Sironars, nikkors, fujinons, even old brass glass with packard shutters, etc, but never an enlarging lens. With the hundreds of photographers I have come across, went to college with, worked with, worked for, shared studio space with, etc. Not one ever used an enlarging lens for tabletop, in fact I never even heard of using an enlarging lens for table top. I guess that all those photographers just didn't know.

I'll tell you what, when I get back from my current trip I'll test my 210 el-nikkor against my 210 Sinaron-SE and my 180 APO Rodagon against my 180 Sironar-S. We'll see how well they do under the microscope.