Hi everybody
Probably this question was asked before but I want to know if I can put an Apo Rodagon 90 mm f4 or a Componon 150 mm on a Sinar F1?
What would I expect?
Regards
Printable View
Hi everybody
Probably this question was asked before but I want to know if I can put an Apo Rodagon 90 mm f4 or a Componon 150 mm on a Sinar F1?
What would I expect?
Regards
You can expect good close-up performance and not-so-good performance at infinity. Enlarging lenses are well corrected at close up distances....:)
Regards
Per
It will work fine for normal print sizes, but of course you don't have a shutter. You might notice some differences in the out-of-focus areas compared to a taking lens--I used a generic 135mm enlarging lens on my speed graphic for a long time and sometimes I would get "doughnut" or "nisen" boke.
Indeed. I have a very old Bausch and Lomb Tessar 139mm enlarging lens that provides pronounced bright-edge bokeh, untypical of other tessar lenses I own. Example below:Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
http://www.rickdenney.com/images/CRW_2791.jpg
This image was made using the B&L Tessar mounted on a bellows and attached to a Canon DSLR, solely for the purpose of evaluating bokeh. The setup was designed to demonstrate bokeh for my online article on the topic.
But if used at small apertures and generally to make sharp images, it seems to work about as well as any other tessar of similar vintage.
Note that enlarging lenses are usually used at magnification ratios in the 1:2 to 1:10 range--as denoted by the size of the enlarged print with respect to the negative--and are probably designed for something in that range. The usual working range will tend to the 1:2 end for larger formats. They are not necessarily optimized for 1:1 the way a true copy lens might be--at that magnification, one can make a contact print.
But I wonder if enlarging lenses present any particular advantage over regular taking lenses.
Rick "who has used them for copy work because of their flat field" Denney
I had a B&L Tessar Ic 139mm. It wasn't an enlarging lens; I used it on a Graflex. It was coated and if I remember correctly had a yellow dot on the bezel.
"But I wonder if enlarging lenses present any particular advantage over regular taking lenses."
Well, aside from the lack of a shutter, or because of it, they are significantly cheaper. A mint Schneider Componon-S 150mm can be had for $50-65 on ebay. Even an older Symmar 150mm will cost 2-3 times that probably. A modern Apo-Symmar will be up to 10x that price, even used.
Ed
In addition to the bargain price, they are good for macro or flat field work.Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSawyer
Similar to their process lenses (G-Claron, Repro-Claron), the lens cells of many Schneider enlarging lenses will screw directly into a shutter. Some of the older ones might ask for a size 2 shutter, and one has to figure out the aperture values, but in many cases it should be easy.
I wasn't aware that that B&L Tessar was not an enlarging lens. It's in a barrel that threads into a typical enlarger plate, as I recall, and I installed it in a stock Omega lens board (25 years ago, that is). And it was sold to me as an enlarging lens, so I took that on face value. If it was intended as a taking lens, then its rendering isn't much like other tessars as taking lenses. Field was quite flat with that lens. Maybe it was intended as a process lens.
It certainly bears little resemblance to a modern(ish) Componon or EL-Nikkor (I also own a 105mm EL-Nikkor and a 50mm Componon). And I also wasn't aware those were as cheap as reported here. I guess the few I've seen in the large-format focal range have been more like $150--still a bargain compared to their original price in real dollars, but closer to the price of a used Symmar or Sironar.
Of course, the cheapness works if you already have a workable shutter. If the OP owns a Sinar shutter for his Sinar view camera, then it's a no-brainer. Shutters that go beyond something like a Packard often come with a lens as cheaply as without, by my observation.
Rick "counting the cost" Denney
I did this once with a 150mm Componon-S enlarging lens to photograph some artwork, and it worked out fine. That lens directly fits into a Copal 0 shutter.
Rick, the idea of a lens specially computed for enlarging is relatively new. Boyer propaganda of the late 1930s touts the then new Saphir B as the first lens ever designed for enlarging.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
The idea that LF taking lenses live in shutters and enlarging lenses for all formats live in barrels has been around forever, if not longer. Whence my $32 (delivered) 135/5.6 Symmar in barrel offered by a eBay seller as an enlarging lens. And whence 105/4.5 Comparons in #0 offered as wide angle taking lenses for 4x5.
There are tessar type process lenses but all the ones I'm aware of (CZJ Apo Tessars, CZJ DDR Apo Tessars, TTH process lenses sold as Apotals and Copying Lenses, LOMO Industar-11M in a variety of focal lengths) are all f/9. A Tessar Ic is a taking lens.
Cheers,
Dan "when I have finished explaining you will understand even less" Fromm
I'm going to have to modify my search parameters on ebay--I can see I've been missing out on some opportunities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I've used both the B&L and the 105mm EL-Nikkor as taking lenses for roll film formats by mounting them on a body cap and then installing them on a Pentacon Six bellows. I can adapt that bellows to a range of cameras, or even put them on a Pentacon Six (or Exakta 66). Putting them on a large-format lens board is a no-brainer, especially since I own a Sinar shutter. Hmmm. Experimentation in order.
The 50mm Componon I own has the oddest aperture pattern, though. The points of the aperture blades define the opening, so that it is not smoothly round. I wonder what effect that would have on bokeh. But that lens definitely post-dates the introduction of specialty enlarging lenses as you describe it.
Rick "there is always less to understand" Denney
Funny, a while ago I bought a 105 El Nikkor, the old one, not the -N, to try as a macro lens and also tried it at distance. It was ok for macro, but I have better 4" lenses for macro, and less than ok at distance, and I have better 4" lenses for out-and-about.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
Dan "opinions about lenses differ" Fromm
I bought mine simply because it was the shortest lens I could mount on the Pentacon Six bellows and still focus to infinity, and because the opportunity presented itself cheaply at a camera store (remember those?). It works well enough for the minor copy work I've done with it, but I've never tested its limits. I suspect it would have worked better on the enlarger (for rollfilm enlargement) better than the old Wolly enlarging lens that I used with those formats, but it came to me after the enlarger had gone into storage. It's easy to compare enlarging lenses using a grain focuser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
The 4" focal length is not one I normally use much, except in 35mm format, where my Nikkor 105/2.5 is worth adapting to my Canon DSLR. I use that focal length occasionally with 6x7, but I have a better lens for that format, too (the 105/2.4 Takumar). For other formats, I've never felt much gap between 90ish and 120ish.
Rick "who needs to dig into the pile and find that B&L" Denney
One lens that is pretty reknown for both enlarging and taking use is the Apo El Nikkor 105mm (and the others too but the 105 most commonly). I am not sure if it would mount into a shutter - probably not, and if so probably into a #00 or something. But for a focal-plane camera it would be an ideal lens for macro or anything probably. And of course an exceptional enlarging lens.
Ed, send money.Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSawyer