5X7 enlarger woes- the saga continues

[timbo10ca]

Well, I thought I finally had the system up and running (see http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=47740) for the background) but alas, the photo gods have spurned me. After waiting around 9 months for this place to make me up a lens cone for mounting my 210mm lens for my Super Chromega E I got fed up and searched elsewhere. I actually found the cone listed at B&H as a special order (therefore non-returnable) and a blanks lens disc. I placed my order and was happy to see them arrive within a month. I took the lens, disc and cone to a machinist company near me with the 150mm lens and cone as a model and had them make me a mounting nut. After having to open the hole in the cone a bit so the lens would fit, they got everything put together nicely... to the tune of $250! So I swallowed hard and told myself it was worth it and brought it all home. I stuck the cone into the enlarger fired it all up, and to my dismay the image is severely vingetted and the image is completely cut off at the corners on enlargements past 12" on the long side! When looking at the description for the 210 cone, it sais "square". This is a cylinder, with the very base at the top (that slides into the enlarger) squared off about an inch. So, either B&H are listing this thing wrong, or they were sent the wrong cone (from Omega, I believe). So I'm $450 into this lens mounting (not including the price of the lens itself) and am about to pack it in. I'll call them monday, but I don't like my chances. Anybody interested in a 6" cone and/or a 210 mounted Componon? Maybe this combo just doesn't work, and I need a Componon-S. Regardless, I am extremely disappointed with how this has all played out. It is frustrating how difficult it has become to get good help these days when so few people/businesses don't give a damn about film base photography. This was an extremely expensive blunder on my part, even after asking all the right questions.

[Chauncey Walden]

For my E, I turned a 3 inch cone into a 4 inch for my 180 APO-Rodagon by spacing the cone 1 inch from the mounting plate which had a square hole. I had to turn the square into a rectangle with a jigsaw to not vignette the corners, but the used cone only cost me $20. Even then, I usually use my old 150 Nikkor on the E for 5x7. There is no discernible difference at 16x20 and the head is within arms reach of the baseboard. I would think using a 210 could be difficult.

[Turner Reich]

I usually use my old 150 Nikkor on the E for 5x7

.

Is your 150 a 1980's model?

[Chauncey Walden]

It's the older one that takes the 53mm flange.

[Donald Miller]

Timbo, I don't have your model of enlarger (have Durst 138s) but a 180 lens is actually a much preferred lens over a 210 mm lens for several reasons. I say this because I have used a 240 on my setup and it is difficult to arrive at a suitable enlargement size and difficult to focus even though it is sharp. If you have access to try a 180 on your enlarger it may prove to be solution to your woes. I personally find that a 150 is softer than I want at the edges and in the corners.

[timbo10ca]

I've had people recommend everything between 180 and 240, with most saying 210 because it's closer to "normal" so that's what I went with. I'm not sinking any more money into this thing. I spoke with B&H today and nobody there understands what I'm talking about, but hopefully I'll make some progress tomorrow (some old guy will be in who knows about film enlargers ). I'm crossing my fingers I can return the cone- I can't see why not, as it's definitely not what the description made it out to be. Somebody screwed up, and it wasn't me.....

[Allen in Montreal]

....... I'm crossing my fingers I can return the cone- I can't see why not, as it's definitely not what the description made it out to be. Somebody screwed up, and it wasn't me.....

I agree Tim,
had the mistake been yours, that is one thing, but given it is their mistake, they should eat it and take the return.

[ic-racer]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with the cone. Do you think they sent you the 5" 421-176 cone? Are there any markings on the cone? Is it printed with 421-174 anywhere? Did you measure it? Is it 6 1/8" long? Does it look like the pictures in the manual? 421-156 was a 5 1/8" cylinder for the D4, do you think they sent you that?

What light source are you using. When they first made the E series, there were only 4x5" color heads made. You are sure it has a 5x7 head?

[John Schneider]

Have you tried talking to Harry "Mr. Omega" at http://www.classic-enlargers.com/ ? In my experience he knows as much as anybody living about Omegas.

[Allen in Montreal]

I've had people recommend everything between 180 and 240, with most saying 210 because it's closer to "normal" so that's what I went with. .....

I find I need both the 180 and the 210. Sometimes i just can't get the crop and size that I want with one or the other and need to swap up or down. Glass has never been cheaper than now, you may want to keep your eyes peeled for a good deal on a 180.