I'm building my 35mm darkroom starting with the Zeiss Orthoplanar mentioned above. Any suggestions on which enlarger I should screw on to it?
I'm building my 35mm darkroom starting with the Zeiss Orthoplanar mentioned above. Any suggestions on which enlarger I should screw on to it?
I use S-Biogon 40 with the Beseler 45 MXT. Easy to adapt, but no so easy to use.
I am not familiar with either of those lenses so I am just asking - how is an enlarger lens difficult to use?
Most folks would screw a lens on to the enlarger, but hey, there's more than one way to skin a cat.Originally Posted by lightcat
To take full advantage of the lens, I'd look for a DeVere 1010 XLH, HK MR 2000 or Durst HF2501AF horizontal.
Otherwise consider selling it on e-bay and getting any enlarger and lens you want and have some money left over for film
@ ic-racer thanks I will take all those suggestions into account - including the ebay one. I'm not familiar with any of the enlargers you mention so it looks like I'll be doing some research. Any idea which one allows for the largest prints?
How large of a print do you want to make?
Those all are horizontal enlargers for making murals and very high magnification prints.
The modern design Componon HM 40mm lens, however, can make very high magnification prints with a standard tabletop enlarger, thanks to its wide field coverage and short focal length. I know the specs of the 40mm lens (from the Schneider site) but I don't know all the details of the Orthoplanar 60mm, do you have a link to the MTF curves at various magnifications?
Last I looked into that lens my conclusion was that it was more of a collector's piece. In terms of real-life high-magnification projection printing, diffraction will be your enemy. Your 'bellows factor' and 'relative aperture' which determines the level of diffraction is based on the distance from the PAPER to the LENS. At a high magnification, the effective aperture is very small, so diffraction is your menace even with the lens wide open. In fact the physics of light are such that the sharpest way to a big enlargement from a small negative is through an inter-image around 8x10" which is then enlarged with an 8x10 enlarger.
I have been using a 60mm S-Orthoplanar for over a decade now and I honestly don't think it is worth all the cash. I just recently started to accumulate lenses because they are so cheap, and a 50mm Computar that had lots of scratches on the front and a slight separation (that I fixed with oil) printed with the same sharpness at around a 24" print (but with less contrast, duh). So a lens that I bought for $12 and was messed up nearly matched a lens that is supposedly worth $2000. I have some more lenses coming this week and will probably post the results on APUG soon since it easy to do.
Wow, interesting info. I don't think I'll be making an 8x10 inter-image for every image I want to enlarge, but that is certainly something I will keep in mind for future reference - maybe when I can hire an army of printers, or get 2 or 3 interns
Personally, I'm taken in by the Zeiss Orthoplanar. I haven't seen technical specs but I've seen results and I'm a believer. When I was living in Salt Lake City several years ago a good friend and printer showed me different prints from the same neg using 5 different lenses. The Zeiss was sharpest, hands down. All were printed at 30x36 -ish, I don't remember the exact sizing. I found this Zeiss at a government auction here in Colorado and ended up paying a pretty penny for it. I'm guessing there was one other person who really wanted it.
I don't have nor have I seen tech specs on the lens, but I am rather surprised at your results patrickjames. That the damaged Computar would print as good as the Zeiss is a bit shocking to me. I'll look for your results on APUG.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks