Enlarger lens for large printsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread
I want to make some large prints from a 35mm negative (Gigabit film); lenght will be 60cm(24"). I normally use a 50mm Schneider Componon-S, but have also a Rodenstock 105mm Rodagon at hand. Would the 105mm better suited for the job or doesn't it make any difference ? Thanks in advance.
-- Marc Leest (email@example.com), September 06, 2001
I strongly recommend using the 50 mm Componon S because
a) it's a fine lens, and b) with the 105 mm you will need twice the distance between enlarger and easel.
Regards, Thomas Wollstein
-- Thomas Wollstein (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 06, 2001.
For bigger prints from a small negative, you need a shorter lens. Perhaps a 40mm, 35mm, 28mm... it depends on your column height. Most "XL" enlargers will make make a 16x20 with a 50mm lens from a 35mm neg, some will go to 20x24...
-- Michael Goldfarb (email@example.com), September 06, 2001.
not an answer--but another question...is there anything wrong with using, say, an 80mm lens for prints from 35mm, besides the fact that the height of the head might be getting up there a bit?
-- jim kish (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 06, 2001.
Using longer lenses has been recommended by some for years. Adams and Fred Picker have recommended using the lens normally recommended for the next size negative from the size you are working with. The idea was that you were then only using the center portion of the lens, which should be the sharpest. More recently, this theory has been dismissed by Ctein who says that there is no noticable improvment.
-- Ed Farmer (email@example.com), September 06, 2001.
There is always a 60mm wide angle lens, a little expensive for just one or two prints, however, if you are making a lot of large enlargements it is a thought along with the 40mm mentioned above.
-- Ann C lancy (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 06, 2001.
A 60mm WA lens is wide for 120, it's long for 35mm--not suitable for your needs. You need a 40mm WA or 28mm WA to make very big enlargements. Another excellent choice, if you have the enlarger height, is the 45mm APO Componon-S; it's optimized for 20x enlargments; most 50mm lenses are optimized for 10x. It's very expensive, but if you live near a big city, you might be able to rent one. Honestly, though, the difference will be very slight from your Componon-S. A far greater concern is your enlarger alignment.
-- Ted Kaufman (email@example.com), September 06, 2001.
To add to what Ed Farmer said, Ctein's argument is basically that longer focal length enlarging lenses are typically slower - a good 50mm lens is typically f/2.8 while a good 80mm lens is typically f/4. Therefore, if we buy the old saw about the sweet spot being about 2 stops down, a shorter focal length will typically reach this at a wider f stop than longer lenses(i.e., a 50 f/2.8 will be diffraction limited by f/5.6 whereas the 80 f/4 will be diffrcation limited only at f/8). Since diffraction is the limiting factor and is a function of only f stop, the shorter lenses have the capacity to resolve more, which is always a good idea when dealing with smaller negatives. I think the earlier argument of using the sweet spot from a slightly longer lens might have been true in the days when lens quality was more difficult to ensure. Top quality enlarging lenses today probably have much more even resolution across the field. Cheers, DJ.
-- N Dhananjay (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 07, 2001.