5X7 enlarger woes- the saga continues

[timbo10ca]

Well, I thought I finally had the system up and running (see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.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 :rolleyes: ). 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.

[timbo10ca]

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?

here are pictures of my enlarger and what they sent

[timbo10ca]

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.

talked to him a year ago- no help for the E series

[timbo10ca]

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.

which would require finding yet *another* lens cone.....

[Mark Sampson]

Did you try KHB photographics in Toronto? And there's member here who works for OmegaSatter and has helped people out recently- can't remeber his name though.

[Turner Reich]

Make a square cone out of cardboard, make a square bottom with a cutout for the lens and tape it to the bottom of the square cone, hold the lens under the cardboard cone, if it doesn't vignette you will know that the round cone is the wrong cone and the square cone is the one. It doesn't have to exact to the mm, you will know if it works or not. Costs nothing but some scrap cardboard and some tape. Good luck.

[timbo10ca]

Make a square cone out of cardboard, make a square bottom with a cutout for the lens and tape it to the bottom of the square cone, hold the lens under the cardboard cone, if it doesn't vignette you will know that the round cone is the wrong cone and the square cone is the one. It doesn't have to exact to the mm, you will know if it works or not. Costs nothing but some scrap cardboard and some tape. Good luck.

That's a good idea, but hopefully it won't come to that. I have been talking to the one guy at B&H who still knows anything about enlargers and he referred me to a guy named Greg at Omega Satter. I sent him a bunch of photos of my set-up and he's going to hopefully help me get it all straightened out. He suspects that the lens I have (see previous post pictures) may need a shorter cone because it has no rear element that goes up into the cone.... Who knows.....

[timbo10ca]

Well, things are going downhill fast. It turns out this lens cone was changed by OmegaSatter a few years ago but no description or item number change was made. They were even informed of this by someone else a while back but did nothing to rectify it. Not only is it no longer square, but it's also very heavy metal that slips and prevents fine focusing.You'd think this would be my salvation, but they are stating that if I modified the cone in any way, the return policy is null and void. Even if they took it back it would only be for store credit or to "modify the cone as they see fit to suit my needs" as it was sold by B&H (who has a no return policy for special order items).... A circular SNAFU. Soooooo, I have to figure out if the machinist changed the hole opening when they mounted the lens. What pisses me off is that even if they did, it was done to a cone that was falsely described and advertised to do what it should have done in the first place- accept a 210mm lens! Only by doing a modification could this have been discovered. It's a catch 22 and I am not in the least at fault and Omega Satter is abdicating responsibility. Hopefully B&H will have better customer service and just take it back. If not, I'm stuck with a set-up that only enlarges 5x7 up to about 8 1/2x12 *max* before I get unacceptable vingetting. They are saying that it's my lens and cone combo that's the problem- the cone is too long and too narrow a base opening for that particular 210 lens. I say Bullshit, and know it as such from the other source that found this problem in the past. If it will only accept "certain" 210 lenses, this should have been stated when they changed the cone, along with a new description and part number. This is a $450 paperweight now. Well, at least I can enlarge 5x7 to 8x10 now and not have to buy an 8x10 camera (other than for contact printing).....:rolleyes:

[ic-racer]

I would not give up! You are close. That head and enlarger have the makings of a top notch system.

Don't be too attached to that 210. Keep the present cone and get rid of that lens. The enlarger is worth double with that cone. Find out which lens the cone was made for. I suspect it is a lens with a differnt nodal point or a different flange-focal length. Get the lens for which the cone was designed.

If you give up in defeat and sell the enlarger, the new owner will just chuck that 210 and go out and buy the proper lens for the cone and be up and running in no time. :)

You have done all the hard work (getting the cone), don't give up.

[timbo10ca]

Yes, that damned lens! And new cone design! I haven't given up, but I'm out of money to throw at it for a while now....


I would not give up! You are close. That head and enlarger have the makings of a top notch system.

Don't be too attached to that 210. Keep the present cone and get rid of that lens. The enlarger is worth double with that cone. Find out which lens the cone was made for. I suspect it is a lens with a differnt nodal point or a different flange-focal length. Get the lens for which the cone was designed.

If you give up in defeat and sell the enlarger, the new owner will just chuck that 210 and go out and buy the proper lens for the cone and be up and running in no time. :)

You have done all the hard work (getting the cone), don't give up.

[timbo10ca]

Well, it's final- since the cone was altered, neither B&H or OmegaSatter will take it back. Greg at Omega won't even return my emails to tell me what 210 lens(es) this cone was designed around. Probably because they know that nothing will actually work....

[Chauncey Walden]

Tim, there's nothing magic about a factory cone. It's just a can on a sheet. You could take a fruit can, whack the top edges squarish and solder it on a tin sheet. The hole in the bottom for the lens is not brain surgery, you could even cut it with a chisel. If you know someone who works with wood, they could build you one in an hour even easier. Don't give up.

[timbo10ca]

Tim, there's nothing magic about a factory cone. It's just a can on a sheet. You could take a fruit can, whack the top edges squarish and solder it on a tin sheet. The hole in the bottom for the lens is not brain surgery, you could even cut it with a chisel. If you know someone who works with wood, they could build you one in an hour even easier. Don't give up.

I thought of these possibilities, but can't see how I'd get everything square and plumb so the field is not off with parts (esp corners) going out of focus.

[Chauncey Walden]

That is why the lens and negative stages are adjustable - and, even with a factory cone the adjustments have to be checked and reset on a regular basis. Ctein's book on post exposure has a good method.

[timbo10ca]

Thanks- I will look into this.

[ic-racer]

PM sent.

[timbo10ca]

PM sent.

ic-racer- I didn't get the PM

Anyhow, thanks to the generosity of a member here (wager123). I have a 5" cone. Round, not square. With this particular lens, I am now able to make enlargements from 8x10 to 16x20 (and possibly beyond) without apparent vingetting. Strange, but I'm not going to question it.

[Allen in Montreal]

.... thanks to the generosity of a member here (wager123). I have a 5" cone. Round, not square. With this particular lens, I am now able to make enlargements from 8x10 to 16x20 ...........

You have to love the group of people on LFPF! :)

[ic-racer]

If you still don't have a cone check this out "Omega square cone f210 6 1/8" at MPX $176 :

http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,11133.html

[ic-racer]

I don't know if the original poster or the enlarger are still around but I was at the Photorama today and a vendor had a "E" (5x7) lens cone in a box of junk. Probably a $5 or $10 item:

421-176 Square 5" Cone for 180mm lenses

[jnantz]

p
Well, I thought I finally had the system up and running (see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.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.


talked to him a year ago- no help for the E series
.
sorry he wasn't able to help you ..

rather than the actual lens cone of a fixed length .. you should look for
what was called the auxiliary lens cone or something like thet ..
it's a base with a lens ,ount and a bellows .. originally made for ceating reductions / jewel prints.
I have one on a e3 as well as a d3v mil. because finding cones was such a pita ..

good luck!
( I know, old dead thread )

john