If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
Hello,
As a former teacher, I must object There are no "dumb" questions, for all questions seek an answer and that how's we learn. Of course, there might be wrong questions but that's another keetle of fish which would be best not to enter. Anyway, it wasn't a dumb question, You see, you learned something which validates the posing of the question. OK, outta the classroom.... Cheers, Bogdan Gabriel wrote: ahhhh..... of course. Told you it was a dumb question. :-] Thanks, Gabriel "Bob Salomon" wrote in message ... In article , "Mike King" wrote: You could use the 75mm for both 35mm and 6x6 but the 55mm lens will give greater magnification with 35mm negatives for any given enlarger height. Unfortunately the 55mm lens will not "cover" the entire 6x6 image so you can't use it to make bigger prints from the 6x6. You would also find it very difficult, if not impossible, to make larger then an 8x10 and possibly even an 8x10 on the base board with the 75mm from a 35mm neg. -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. -- __________________________________________________ ________________ Bogdan Karasek Montr‚al, Qu‚bec e-mail: Canada "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darber muss man schweigen" "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ ______________ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
Hi all,
The diagonal of a 35mm neg (24mmx36mm) gives you 43mm whereas the usual enlarging lens for 35mm negs is a 50mm. Is this significant in terms of results? I have a 25mm for half-frame but I seem to remember that someone, somewhere, made a 45mm enlarging lens for 35mm negs? (I'm not talking about the the wide-angle enlarger lenses). Maybe it's my imagination? Cheers, Bogdan Joe Makowiec wrote: On 19 Mar 2006 in rec.photo.darkroom, Gabriel wrote: ahhhh..... of course. Told you it was a dumb question. :-] Rule of thumb is that 'normal' enlarger lens for a given negative size is roughly the same as 'normal' taking lens, or roughly the diagonal of the negative. -- __________________________________________________ ________________ Bogdan Karasek Montr‚al, Qu‚bec e-mail: Canada "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darber muss man schweigen" "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ ______________ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
Dennis
The 55mm has coverage to cover a nomimal 35mm exposure. 24mm x 36mm nominal. The 75 will probably cover 60mm x 60mm nominal. The magnification will be greater for the 55mm than the 75mm. Bob AZ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
Bogdan Karasek spake thus:
As a former teacher, I must object There are no "dumb" questions, [...] I thought you were supposed to say "the only dumb questions are the ones you don't ask". -- Second, Scientologists are like computers trying to run an emulation of another computer. It can be done, but the performance is awful. Scientologists are trying to run a bad copy of LRH. - Keith Henson, from alt.religion.scientology |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:43:02 -0500, Dennis
wrote: This is my guess ... (correct me if I am wrong): The 75mm has the correct focal length to magnify the 35mm film size to a usable projector height and the coverage (field of view to cover the size of the negative). The 55mm lens has a wider coverage to take into account the larger size of the negative and also magnify the film to the similar projector heitht of the enlarger. Backwards. Focal length and angle of projection aren't necessarily locked together. Just look at the Super Symmar XL's as an example. Anyway, the 75mm covers 6X6 and the 55 is the "normal" lens for 35mm. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
Hi all,
Is this a 5x7 Elwood? You need a 218mm lens, no? I have one and am putting an APO Nikkor 210/9.0. That should do it but 135??? Have to try it it with my 135 Componon-S Cheers, Bogdan John wrote: On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:56:05 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: To expand on this just a little, another rule (rule of pinky?) is that while you shouldn't use a lens with a shorter focal length than what is "normal" for the format, you can use a lens that's longer; in fact, some folks even recommend this, as it eliminates any concerns about lens coverage of the negative. *However*, if you do, you'll find that this limits the size of enlargements you can make. Which I have to wonder as to how valid this is for the current lenses on the market as I found that putting a 135 El-Nikkor into the Elwood allowed me to make enrgments that seem identical to those made with the 180mm Coponon-S. Of course I'm only making 2X enlargements ;) == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net -- __________________________________________________ ________________ Bogdan Karasek Montréal, Québec e-mail: Canada "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ ______________ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
Hi,
I certainly would very much appreciate that kind of information as it would help me to optimize my lens selection for the size of the print, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 and formats ranging from 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 3x4in, 4x5 and 5x7. What's best for the desired result and do I have the lens for it? Cheers, Bogdan John wrote: On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:25:06 -0500, Bob Salomon wrote: To expand on this just a little, another rule (rule of pinky?) is that while you shouldn't use a lens with a shorter focal length than what is "normal" for the format Unless you are going to use a wide angle enlarging lens to allow you to make very high quality prints 30% larger then a normal focal length enlarging lens at the same negative to baseboard distance. Bob, Would you take the time to share with the group the optimizations for the different focal length lenses ? As I remember from our conversation a couple of years ago, most enlarging lenses are optimized for 6~10X. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net -- __________________________________________________ ________________ Bogdan Karasek Montréal, Québec e-mail: Canada "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ ______________ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
John wrote:
Which I have to wonder as to how valid this is for the current lenses on the market as I found that putting a 135 El-Nikkor into the Elwood allowed me to make enrgments that seem identical to those made with the 180mm Coponon-S. Of course I'm only making 2X enlargements ;) Idle point: When you make a 2x enlargement with the 135mm lens, the bellows extension is actually 135 * (1 + 1/2) = 202.5mm, which is a lot larger than the film diagonal. Even for a 4x enlargement the extension is 169mm. On the other hand, making an 8x10 from 35mm means an 8x enlargement, so the 50mm lens is used at an extension of 56mm. That is, lenses for smaller formats tend to be used at larger enlargements and so need more margin of lens f.l. film diagonal. It's the same reason that lenses cover a larger circle when used in the macro range. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
In article ,
Dennis wrote: This is my guess ... (correct me if I am wrong): The 75mm has the correct focal length to magnify the 35mm film size to a usable projector height and the coverage (field of view to cover the size of the negative). The 55mm lens has a wider coverage to take into account the larger size of the negative and also magnify the film to the similar projector heitht of the enlarger. Gabriel wrote: Okay - this might sound like a dumb question - the "new" enlarger I just picked up (1960s vintage Opemus III) has two lenses, with the numbers 4.5/55 and 4.5/75 on them. 4.5 is the maximum aperture, of course, and I presume the 55 and 75 refer to focal lengths. Why would I want this choice of lenses, and under what circumstances might I prefer one over the other? Thanks, Gabriel Wrong. -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Extra lenses with enlarger - why?
In article ,
John wrote: On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:25:06 -0500, Bob Salomon wrote: To expand on this just a little, another rule (rule of pinky?) is that while you shouldn't use a lens with a shorter focal length than what is "normal" for the format Unless you are going to use a wide angle enlarging lens to allow you to make very high quality prints 30% larger then a normal focal length enlarging lens at the same negative to baseboard distance. Bob, Would you take the time to share with the group the optimizations for the different focal length lenses ? As I remember from our conversation a couple of years ago, most enlarging lenses are optimized for 6~10X. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net See: http://www.linos.com/en/prod/obj_vergroesserung.html -- To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikkor - overview? | Jan Tieghem | 35mm Photo Equipment | 16 | February 3rd 06 12:02 PM |
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital SLR Cameras | 128 | November 20th 05 12:01 AM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Zeiss set of 4 Super-Speed lenses for 16mm | Glenn Przyborski | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 10th 03 03:44 AM |