Another goal I have is a flat field with at 4x or larger. Especially if I print any astrophotography
Another goal I have is a flat field with at 4x or larger. Especially if I print any astrophotography
With the L184, I use smaller f/9 Apo Nikkor 240, 305, and 360 lenses which fit into the standard turret. I do have a huge 360/5.6 El Nikkor on an even bigger enlarger; but you'd need a dedicated big lens disc for using anything oversized like that on the L184. It's nice and bright for composition through the dense orange mask of color negs; but the smaller Apo Nikkor graphics lenses are optically superior to any official enlarging lenses, and likely to be cheaper on the used market too (though they were quite expensive when new).
I will.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
APO process lenses are ideal with the Durst L184. That enlarger has the stability and height needed to fully utilize the capabilities of longer than normal lens focal lengths for a given film size to be projection printed. Once properly set up the L184 is nice to use in many ways not just for 8x10.
Having been and done the Rodagon (including APO versions), Componon-S, EL-Nikkor and.. similar enlarger lenses, APO process lenses (APO nikkor, APO artar, APO ronar and etc), produces as good an image is could be needed.
Limitation of print quality and resolution is often due to enlarger alignment, light source quality, and print materials. Print papers do not have near the resolution capability of most any high quality lens used to project the image from film. This is often the more significant limiting factors making the question of high quality lens performance much less of a question.
As for flat field, any decent lens used to make projection prints will be flat field.
Uniformity of illumination is often far more important than flat field lens as any decent enlarger projection lens has that designed in and produced with consistency lens to lens. Uniformity of illumination (combo of light source and projection lens focal length) is why using a longer than normal focal length lens has a significant advantage.
Bernice
If you are within the optimal aperture and enlargement range of any of the lenses mentioned on this thread, you won't have field flatness issues. Enlarging lenses are designed to project a flat field.
Lots of good information. Just when you thought you had a grasp on analog photography, you realize you still know so little. Fun journey ahead! Retirement in 10 years never looked so good. Sooner if I win the lottery!
I never gamble. I just watch the play.
However I found 97% pay back street loans made with my own money.
No enforcement needed and chasing the 3% is stupid.
Tin Can
My humble suggestion is that you buy whatever EL-Nikkor lenses are recommended for a given film format, use the rest of the money burning a hole in your pocket to buy paper, and then PRACTICE.
I like to practice! I like Nikkor lenses so that could be a good start.
If you opt for the Apo Nikkor lineup, make sure it's the superior four element design, which was once very popular in pro printing shops here on the West coast. They also made a discount series of apo process lenses, although I've never even seen one of those for sale. The real deal works superbly over an especially wide range of magnifications, and at apertures all the way from f/11 down. Don't worry about any chatter about these being designed for f/22 use - that's a print shop color dot repro standard, and doesn't apply to our continuous tone photo enlarging applications. In other words, they are ideally usable even as wide as f/11, just like f/5.6 regular EL Nikkor enlarging lens series. But they're smaller and even better corrected than the EL Nikkor line, which is certainly reputable in its own right. It's only the maximum viewing aperture that's reduced in a practical sense, a non-issue in big enlarger cases, which tend to have a surplus of brightness anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks