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. :o

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

[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

[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

[Dave_B]

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.....

We are not that bad. We welcome all questions and are willing to openly and honestly help all newcomers. Every question seems obvious to someone on this forum. It's why one asks such questions here-there are a lot of experts. Next time don't beat yourself up for a month-ask and you will get an informed answer without an attitude. There are a lot of good folks here. The answers above to your question are evidence of this.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Lots of folks use enlarging lenses, copy lenses, etc. with excellent results. You will get a lot of conflicting opinion on this issue. The only way you will ever know for sure is to mount it up and go take a few pictures. If it satisfies you, that's all that counts. Right? I won't even go into some of the weirdo lenses I have. They all have their own little personalities and uses. Good luck, and most of all, enjoy it.

[JW Dewdney]

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

However - keep in mind also, with this already having been said, that the operative word is 'designed' - you may also find that there are a small number of lenses which offer excellent performance at infinity, either as result in design or as a 'manufacturing defect'... you just don't know until you try.

[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.

[erie patsellis]

Brian,
I'm not arguing nor discounting your qualifications, or testing methodology. If in the market you work in, that's what it takes to keep that edge, all the more power to you.

I am intimately familiar with what tabletop and commercial entails, at one time I worked for a rather largish studio(10 shooters, 15+ set areas, more Sinar and Broncolor than I think the distributor had in stock at the time, etc.) Prior to doing my own shooting in-house. I have and still shoot some catalog work, though I try to limit what I do, as some jobs just aren't worth it, if it won't fit on an 8x10 table in my studio, unless it's a location shot, I pass. And then there are those few clients that I just won't deal with the grief (trying to renegotiate pricing, after chromes are shot and processed, etc.) I can understand the competitiveness, I've been to the photo district and it is amazing. I work in a different type of market ( and sometimes, it seems a different world, when's the last time you shot chromes of farm equipment?) and yes, I'm still one of those odd ducks, who shoots film, unless I moved closer to a major metropolitan area, the ROI on a digital back would be measured in decades.

The Componon series are in fact a plasmat design, and from an optical formula standpoint, as I am told, for all intents and purposes the equivilent of a Symmar, though optimized for different rep. ratios. I have both, and honestly, on a 6x7 or 4x5 chrome, the end result on the majority of my work, is for all practical purposes, identical. (I don't use a 40x microscope, as I shoot all my work at 100% rep. ratio, up to 8x10 and have been known on occaision to sketch on a gg with a grease pencil, or print out a blue line of the layout on trans film and tape it to the ground glass) the primary difference I see, and why I keep at least one older (symmar, non -s, non mc) lens of each focal length I commonly shoot, is contrast, about 30% of my work is outside of the realm of a studio, and at times the ability to tame contrast, by use of a non or single coated lens) is just one of a multitude of tools at my disposal. FWIW, Artars, as well as G-Clarons are and have always been process lenses, a very specialized form of enlarging lens (extremely low geom. distortion, etc), though they are now most used as taking lenses.

I was taught by some very gifted and talented photographers, most of whom, sadly are gone. They worked in a time when you got the shot, with whatever tools you had at your disposal, not chasing the latest wonder lens/camera/film that would guarantee you success instantly, by the very virtue of using them. I've seen high dollar campaigns shot with everything from a tired old 2D, 8x10 Master Views, a few Graphic Views, as well as Speed graphics and their ilk (I prefer the B&J press camera, personally) to Sinar's, Arcas and Linhofs. And in the ulitmate test, the client really didn't care which camera you shot with, only that the chrome was what they wanted.

Brian, by any chance, do you have a 135 symmar? I can send you a set of componon cells, they screw right into a #0 shutter and you're welcome to try them yourself.

Most of my personal work is shot with a variety of lenses, running the gamut from a 180 Symmar-S MC to a 12" T-R Triple convertible and even a few Ektars in barrels with a packard. For me at least, photography has moved from a vocation to a semi avocation, I can pick and choose what jobs, or whether to even shoot at all, without affecting my main source of income, so my perspective is drastically different from yours.

erie

[Brian K]

Erie, I'm glad that you mention that you shoot at 100% ratio, that explains a lot. In the pre digital age that was how the majority of large catalogs were shot. Even fashion was shot 8x10 and to repro scale. If there is no intention of enlarging an image, and it is being shot at the exact size it's being used, you can get away with a really poor lens. However if there's an intention of enlarging an image, especially if you plan, or just end up enlarging it significantly, you'll wish that you had not shot it with an inferior lens.

I've had still lifes that were shot specifically for single page magazine ads, end up as bill boards, or cropped and then enlarged to 2 page spreads, you never know exactly what will be required from an image. My own B&W printing uses some in the enlarger diffusion, something which really dumbs down the quality of my taking and enlarging lenses yet I test all my lenses and only buy the absolute sharpest. Why? Because of the chance that I won't diffuse an image and may want it sharp.

The problem I have with posts that talk about things like our discussion is that there are many people out there who are not knowledgeable and take these posts as fact and then spend money or time pursuing them. The original posts that you and I made were about enlarging lenses being as good as dedicated tabletop or distance lenses, they are not. They are acceptable if you photograph at 100% repro size, however for the people who go out and buy an enla lens, take the trouble to find a shutter and then attempt to enlarge their images, they are not going to have as good a result as someone who just bought a used sironar or symmar off of eBay. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned earlier that you never enlarge the images that you shoot with an enlarging lens.

I do not have a 135 symmar, I do have a 135mm Sironar-S though. I can't understand how the catalog company you mention, which had all these Sinars and Broncolor chose to use enlarging lenses and not Symmars or Clarons. I was always taught that the first and most important part of the image reproduction cycle were the optics.

[Ted Harris]

I've been watching this thread bounce back and forth and do agree that reverse mounted enlarging lenses will do quite well for work in the macro range. No one has, however, mentioned the use of macro lenses for true macro work. Macro lenses offer no advantages if you are working at 'near' macro ranges but still at magnifications less than 1:1. Once you hit the true macro range they do surpass the other lenses being discussed. Macro lenses are designed to give you edge to edge sharpenss with three dimensional objects (granted you have very limited depth of field) as opposed to that flat copy that process and enlarging lenses are optimised to handle. Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider all make some excellent macro lenses. No need to discuss macro work or acro lens performance here as a search of the archives whill show you lots of information.

[erie patsellis]

Brian,
when I worked at that studio, it was Sironar-N's, and nothing else, every shutter was calibrated to within 1/10 stop, all lenses were identical in color cast, etc. The point I was trying to make was I've worked in a broad range of studio environments, from tiny to expansive, and with a wide range of equipment as well.

erie

[Ernest Purdum]

Ted, I certainly appreciate all the efforts of the LF lens makers and, in particular the excellent macro lenses now available. These are, however, very expensive pieces of glass and I can understand the desire of students and others who are on a limited budget and who are not, or not yet, dependent on the best equipment available to make a living, to be able to take photographs in the macro range with what equipment they are able to afford. In this regard, it is nice that the three shortest Tominon lenses are available on the used market at extremely low prices. Even the 17mm is very cheap when compared to, say, a Luminar.

I have heard the mention of flat field lenses being inappropriate for three dimensional objects several times and do not understand it at all. I don't know of any lens characteristic which could be modified to optmize a lens for work on two dimensional or three dimensional subjects. In either case, we are dealing with a plane of sharp focus blending off into out of focus areas. If we use front tilt or swing for a three dimensional object, we are changing the location of that plane but nothing else. I would be interested in hearing from anyone able to comment on what lens design factor might be involved. I have used with great satisfaction several process lenses with long and short focal lengths on three dimensional subjects. I sent one group to Rudolf Kingslake and was very pleased by his comment that they were "technically excellent".

[Oren Grad]

I have heard the mention of flat field lenses being inappropriate for three dimensional objects several times and do not understand it at all. I don't know of any lens characteristic which could be modified to optmize a lens for work on two dimensional or three dimensional subjects.

Bokeh is the character of the subject rendering outside of the plane of focus. If the intended application is to photograph planar subjects, in principle one might trade off refinements in the bokeh against performance in the plane of focus.

But I have no idea whether in practice this has ever been a consideration in the design of process lenses.

[Dan Fromm]

Ernest, as I said earlier it depends on the lens. I don't believe .it is safe to generalize about which lenses are best for shooting closeup (up to 1:1) or macro (above 1:1). Out of the box, a "name" lens may be better than a "no-name." But for used lenses, so much depends on condition, i.e., past history of abuse.

Erie's practice of contact printing doesn't demand the best a lens can give. So I can easily understand why and how he got very good prints of distant subjects with a good 6/4 plasmat type enlarging lens. But not all 6/4 plasmat type enlarging lenses are equal (Saphir Bs aren't up to modern lenses and seem to be distinctly poor at distance) and some of us do enlarge.

About short Tominons. I've shot a 17 Tominon, since sold to Patrik Roseen, against a 16 Luminar. The Tominon is perfectly usable but the Luminar is considerably better. The big surprise for me in that focal length class was (IIRC, I'm away from home and can't consult my notes) a $6 19/3.85 B&L microfile reader lens that matched the Luminar.

Same goes for the 35 and 50 Tominons. Both are very usable. In my experience the 35s are somewhat variable in quality. But the best relatively inexpensive lens in that focal length range is, IMO, the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AI/AIS reversed and shot at f/4.

In the shootoff I had between my 100/6.3 Neupolar, a known good borrowed 100/6.3 Luminar (the one I owned was a badly abused dog), and my 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, at the apertures and magnifications tried the Neupolar beat the Luminar handily and the Luminar just barely edged the EPR. And above 1:1 I shot the EPR mounted normally, not reversed. Not all EPRs are like that; I have a 50 that the 4" beats so badly it isn't funny.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ernest Purdum]

Dan, that's interesting about the microfile lens. I have wondered for a long time about those and similar lenses I guess I'd call industrial. I've never got around to trying any, though.

[Dan Fromm]

Ernest, when I was going through my "which lenses for high magnification?" phase I bought a handful of cheap microfilm reader lenses and tried 'em all. Short answer, some are very good, others aren't, and the only way to find it is to buy and try. But for $5-8 delivered its hard to make a really bad mistake.

[Ernest Purdum]

Re-reading a previous entry, I see I should clarify an ambiguity. It was a group of photographs I sent to Rudolf Kingslake.