Loupes

[tgtaylor]

I'm looking for a high quality loupe for examining negatives and prints. My Focusing aid is a Peak Model II which provides a 10x magnification. I'm looking at these 2 loupes:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40696-REG/Peak_1301983S_10x_Scale_Loupe.html and https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40712-REG/Peak_1302016_15x_Scale_Loupe.html.

What do you think?

Thomas

[Pere Casals]

For examining negatives/prints IMHO we need different loupes of different power.

We want a powerful loupe to see the negative ultimate quality but we also want to see the negative with the magnification that matches the enlargement we plan, just to guess if at that enlargement the print will look sharp at reading distance.

So, IMHO, best is having a good 10x loupe, but also a collection of some (say) x2 to x60 very cheap loupes that at least are acceptable in the center, say some 6 loupes in total.


I find that:

x10: the workhorse

x60: It allows to see the grain structure of different films, and we require that to know how crazy sharp is a 8x10 contact copy beyond what human eye may see. For roll film it may be substituted by a semi-toy microscope.

x2: IMHO it is perfect to see if a print is perfectly sharp at reading distance, for "quality control", a 1.5x also it would be good, this can be substituted by cheap reading glasses.

X other: Useful to preview how sharp the print will be at reading distance with a planned enlargement factor.

_______________

We also can preview in a monitor how the enlarged print will be from an scan...

[Bob Salomon]

Neither one is for checking focus or transparencies. For these you need a loupe that does not have a clear bottom you need an opaque base.
Normally a 4 to 6x loupe is all you need. 6x is like looking at a 24x30” print.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, best loupe made was the Schneider 6x Aspheric, Second to that would be the Schneider 4x. Decades ago when the better loupe had great value, Schneider 4x was the industry standard of excellence. Then Schneider offered the Aspheric 6x, which was that much better than the 4x. The Schneider 6x Aspheric was excellent from center to edge of the entire loupe image. Both loupes had a interchangeable diffusor or opaque base which is mandatory for viewing film on a light table or print in controlled lighting. These are no longer made by Schneider, do look for a good used one.

Rodenstock also made an Aspheric loupe, it was not good.

Peak made and continues to make a variety of loupes, they were OK.

Horseman makes a 7x ground glass focusing loupe, it's good.

Nikon offered an interchangeable base opaque or diffusor base loupe for a short time.

Fujifilm gave away free 4x loupes with purchase of their film. These were surprisingly good in many ways.

Short focal length lenses (less than 35mm) can make VERY GOOD loupes.

2.5x to 4x microscope objectives also work as good loupes, but generally too small.

Cemented achromats from a number of optical suppliers can be made into good loupes.


There were loupes with higher magnification made by Schneider, Peak and a host of others. Magnification is no where as important as loupe image resolution, contrast, color fidelity, distortion, overall clarity. For any magnification larger than 6x, get a proper high quality microscope which is the proper optical tool for that specific type of subject viewing.


Bernice

[Bob Salomon]

IMO, best loupe made was the Schneider 6x Aspheric, Second to that would be the Schneider 4x. Decades ago when the better loupe had great value, Schneider 4x was the industry standard of excellence. Then Schneider offered the Aspheric 6x, which was that much better than the 4x. The Schneider 6x Aspheric was excellent from center to edge of the entire loupe image. Both loupes had a interchangeable diffusor or opaque base which is mandatory for viewing film on a light table or print in controlled lighting. These are no longer made by Schneider, do look for a good used one.

Rodenstock also made an Aspheric loupe, it was not good.

Peak made and continues to make a variety of loupes, they were OK.

Horseman makes a 7x ground glass focusing loupe, it's good.

Nikon offered an interchangeable base opaque or diffusor base loupe for a short time.

Fujifilm gave away free 4x loupes with purchase of their film. These were surprisingly good in many ways.

Short focal length lenses (less than 35mm) can make VERY GOOD loupes.

2.5x to 4x microscope objectives also work as good loupes, but generally too small.

Cemented achromats from a number of optical suppliers can be made into good loupes.


There were loupes with higher magnification made by Schneider, Peak and a host of others. Magnification is no where as important as loupe image resolution, contrast, color fidelity, distortion, overall clarity. For any magnification larger than 6x, get a proper high quality microscope which is the proper optical tool for that specific type of subject viewing.


Bernice


Bernice

Rodenstock made 4x and 6x aspheric loupes and they were very good, so good that after they became available Schneider had to update their older loupes to catch up. So good that manufacturers like Sinar sold them under their name.

[Bernice Loui]

Used / had a Rodenstock 4x Aspheric loupe, did not like it at all. The Schneider 4x has a better image.

Regardless of brand and all that, Loupes for photographic work must have a opaque and diffusor base and focusable.


Bernice

[Bob Salomon]

Used / had a Rodenstock 4x Aspheric loupe, did not like it at all. The Schneider 4x has a better image.

Regardless of brand and all that, Loupes for photographic work must have a opaque and diffusor base and focusable.


Bernice

You may not have liked it but thousands of others, pros, labs, libraries, museums, government, business, newspapers, art directors, magazines, amateurs, etc. did.

Among other benefits there was no skirt to lose and much greater eye relief.

[Bernice Loui]

I'm sure Rodenstock sold thousands of them. How many Agfa 8x loupes and others like them were sold?

Kinda depends on user expectations, experience and much more, no?



Bernice



You may not have liked it but thousands of others, pros, labs, libraries, museums, government, business, newspapers, art directors, magazines, amateurs, etc. did.

[tgtaylor]

Just to be clear, I am not looking for a loupe for checking focusing on the GG - I have a Toyo 3.9x loupe that does that job and the general consensus is that magnification beyond 4x on the GG is counterproductive. I am looking for a loupe to examine negatives and prints with. I use a 10x focusing aid to focus on the easel and my initial inclination is that a 10x loupe would be a good match as it would seem to show what the focusing aid will show. At this time I can't see the benefit of a 15x loupe.

Bob: I have a Cabin loupe for looking at 6x7 slides.

Thomas

[Fred L]

for negs on a light table, I use a Pentax 5.5x loupe. crisp, huge view and adjustable.

[Bob Salomon]

w
Just to be clear, I am not looking for a loupe for checking focusing on the GG - I have a Toyo 3.9x loupe that does that job and the general consensus is that magnification beyond 4x on the GG is counterproductive. I am looking for a loupe to examine negatives and prints with. I use a 10x focusing aid to focus on the easel and my initial inclination is that a 10x loupe would be a good match as it would seem to show what the focusing aid will show. At this time I can't see the benefit of a 15x loupe.

Bob: I have a Cabin loupe for looking at 6x7 slides.

Thomas

The Cabin one that Mac Group gave as an incentive?

[tgtaylor]

No. I believe that I bought it used from B&H when I purchased a new Cabin 67Z projector from them. The incentive, $100 off the list price, at the time was on the projector - "Mamiya Day" or something like that.

I just pulled the trigger on a new 10x Peak Scale loupe for $61- a $28 savings from the B&H price. I think this will be a good match with the focuser and will make it easier to evaluate the negatives before putting them in the enlarger.

Thomas

[Pere Casals]

I just pulled the trigger on a new 10x Peak Scale loupe

I use just this one, excellent... 10x Peak Scale has a very solid construction and it's a joy to use it.

The clear walls are no problem on a light table, and if the table is inside the darkroom then no problem can be there... The clear walls allow to inspect prints, but of course a good lateral illumination have to be provided. If one is inspecting prints a lot of time then a loupe with illumination is better

191982

[Peter De Smidt]

My favorite is the Pentax Lupe 5.5x with an opaque skirt. It's big, bright, and high quality. I prefer it to my Rodenstock, Zeiss, Peak, and Horseman loupes.

[Bernice Loui]

Schneider 6x Aspheric and the once free (given away with quantity purchase of Fujichrome film during the 90's) Fujifilm 4x loupe and one Rolyn optics Achromat, 23mm dia. 61mm FL, coated can be used as a magnifier-Loupe.
192008

Top view:
192009

The Fujifilm 4x loupe has a sliding skirt for diffused or opaque viewing. This is not a bad "free" promo loupe. The housing is aluminum and focusable with reasonable color rendition, low distortion and good overall image quality and a nice lens cap. Very good loupe by today's market offerings.

The Schneider 6x Aspheric loupe has an interchangeable diffusor or opaque skirt. It's optical performance is in a completely different level compared to the Fujifilm and similar achromat based loupes. Currently one on eBay at about $50 with about five days to go is the last version made by Schneider. The gray texture paint ones were the original versions. Had this once since new and has been used a lot. Selling $ of the Schneider Aspheric 6x loupe will be telling of how much the market values these loupes.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-6x-aspherical-loupe/153506795461?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

The opaque loupe skirt is not about increasing transmitted light when viewing film on a light table only, it has more to do with accurate transmission of color correct light source from the light table into the film (color) then projecting the image into your eye. Good loupes are used for judging color as well as overall image quality. The diffusor skirt is used for viewing prints for overall image quality.


Bernice

[John Layton]

My favorite "loupe" for viewing 4x5 (not quite 5x7) negatives was a front lens cell I'd salvaged years ago from an otherwise wrecked Vivitar Series 1 70-210 lens. Good magnification, enough coverage to see the entire (4x5, but not quite 5x7) negative at once, and sharp edge to edge.

[Pere Casals]

My favorite "loupe" for viewing 4x5 (not quite 5x7) negatives was a front lens cell I'd salvaged years ago from an otherwise wrecked Vivitar Series 1 70-210 lens. Good magnification, enough coverage to see the entire (4x5, but not quite 5x7) negative at once, and sharp edge to edge.

A 35mm format lens is also fantastic, a 50mm is a x5, and a 24 mm is a x10, multicoated!

Also enlarger lenses are great.

[Greg]

Up to this year have mainly used 3 loupes. Pentax in the back. Wish I could find an opaque collar for it. Two loupes in the front were acquired from W. Eugene Smith's son. I know his father used them to photograph an essay on Philadelphia with an 8x10 Sinar Norma that LIFE magazine gave him. The Pentax I found easier to use, but love the feelings of nostalgia of using Smith's loupes. At 71 can still have 20/20 vision and can focus easily at reading distances but suffer from astigmatism. After talking with my eye Doctor, he recommended a pair of glasses that focus at a distance of about 6 inches. Only other similar pair that he prescribed was for a jewelsmith. Special glass used to keep the glasses on the light side. Now I use the glasses 95% of the time and the loupes only to fine focus when need be.

[invisibleflash]

You may not have liked it but thousands of others, pros, labs, libraries, museums, government, business, newspapers, art directors, magazines, amateurs, etc. did.

Among other benefits there was no skirt to lose and much greater eye relief.


Concur.

Have gone through dozens of loupes. Most of the garden variety inexpensive ones made nowadays are terrible. So much spherical abs. I just trash em. Back in the 70's you could get a useable loupe for a few dollars. If you need a loupe spend some $$ and get a decent one.

[invisibleflash]

Up to this year have mainly used 3 loupes. Pentax in the back. Wish I could find an opaque collar for it. Two loupes in the front were acquired from W. Eugene Smith's son. I know his father used them to photograph an essay on Philadelphia with an 8x10 Sinar Norma that LIFE magazine gave him. The Pentax I found easier to use, but love the feelings of nostalgia of using Smith's loupes. At 71 can still have 20/20 vision and can focus easily at reading distances but suffer from astigmatism. After talking with my eye Doctor, he recommended a pair of glasses that focus at a distance of about 6 inches. Only other similar pair that he prescribed was for a jewelsmith. Special glass used to keep the glasses on the light side. Now I use the glasses 95% of the time and the loupes only to fine focus when need be.

Jeeeesus...they should be in a museum. Or at least take some good photos and description and put hi res copies on the Internet Archive.

[invisibleflash]

BTW, I use old 8x Agfa loupes. Not the best, but very doable. Have 5 or 6 of them in various bags and around house.

I lost some hi $$ loupes years ago in a flood and never replaced them.

[Pieter]

A printer's loupe (similar to a linen tester) folds into a compact square that is easy to slip into a camera bag or pocket. Made of plastic or metal, they usually cost less than what is sold to photographers. Available in 8X and 10x if memory serves me well.