Zeiss-Ikon enlarger

Had some visitors over the weekend, and they delivered an old enlarger

that I had bought months ago. I had forgotten about it.

 

It's an old Zeiss-Ikon enlarger. I put it together, and everything

appears to be in order, though it's missing a lens.

 

Upon close inspection, it looks like it uses a standard Contax camera

lens. It also uses a glass carrier and looks to be able to enlarge 120

to 35mm.

 

I want to rewire it, and maybe I'll give it a spin, just for the heck

of it.

 

Here's a question:

 

Do you think a Sonnar or Tessar lens would work best?

 

The Sonnar is a coated f/1.5 or f/2.0, while the Tessar is the

uncoated f/2.8.

 

Any thoughts?

On further reflection, I might as well use both. And then tell you what I think, maybe post some scans. Now, I just have to find the rest of my darkroom gear.

The M39 mount is one of the standards for enlargers, and originally was intended to let Leica owners get additional use out of their very expensive lenses.

 

I've been told, however, that you'll get better results with a high quality enlarging lens than with the best camera lens on an enlarger, because the enlarging lens is optimized for the shorter focal distance -- less distortion, fewer uncorrected aberrations than a camera lens, corrected for infinity. I've also been warned that use in an enlarger can damage camera lenses, promoting separation of cemented elements, though no plausible mechanism has been put forward.

 

Still, if you have the lenses, a short test is unlikely to do any harm; if you have a high quality enlarging lens in M39 it might be interesting to see if you can tell the difference. I'm guessing that in small prints, you won't be able to tell the difference; in medium large prints the enlarging lens will likely win, by a very narrow margin, but in very large prints the camera lens might well win, as you exceed 10:1 magnification and get more into picture taking distances.

The mechanism which will affect cemented elements on camera lenses when used on an enlarger is simply heat radiation. Tungsten light has a good deal of infrared radiation which is the same as radiated heat. Older lenses (i.e. up to the 60s or so) are cemented with canadian balm which is heat sensitive. Newer lenses use a synthetic glue which might be less prone to damage by heat.

Hello,

this old Zeiss enlarger work with contax lenses and a slip on ring for diaphragm scale. Best result with CARL ZEISS TESSAR 3,5/50mm

But read winfried buechsenschuetz instruction, and the enlarger is produced in Contax rangefinder yesterdays is to old for best results tday.

That's correct. It uses the Contax lens mount, not the M39.

 

The 75-watt bulb generates considerable heat, as you might expect. I'd like to try one of the lower-heat flourescents, but they don't have instant on, so I don't think that would be an ideal solution. Maybe I'll try it anyway.

 

I cleaned it up today, removed all of the old grime and dirt and dust from the enlarger, the condensers, the negative carrier and everywhere else. Put in the new bulb after checking the electrical wires. And it seems to work fine.

 

The helical is built into the enlarger, so you're able to focus relatively easily. I have some spare Sonnars, so I'll use one of those.

 

Here's the enlarger:

Here's the negative carrier.

Here's a photo of the projected image: top is the original. Bottom is the inverted image. Rather amateurish, as I didn't even bother to turn off the light. But I think it should work OK. Corners seem to be reasonably sharp, even at f/2.0. I'm sure it will be fine at f/8.

Interesting test, Mike... looking forward to hearing how it works out. Just by way of encouragement, I'll mention I used to use my 1st version 35mm Summicron in my Beseler enlarger. I just set it at f/8 and rested it on a spare lens board. This was for half-frame 35mm negs, though, and it gave pretty nice results. :-)

I first tried it an East German f/2.0 Sonnar. I have a spare f/2.0 prewar Sonnar, so I think I'll give that a go next.

 

The flourescent won't work -- doesn't turn on. Give me a good excuse to rewire it. I hate plugging in these old things -- expecting to get a healthy 110-volt reminder at any moment.

I have an EL-Nikkor 50mm f4 that is sitting in it's box unused.

Very nice enlarging lens. Even still in the Nikon bubble. If you

are interested, Mike, maybe we can work out a trade...

Mark

Mark, thanks very much for your offer. This is sort of a fun project. My "real" enlarger (like when you say, my "real" car is an SVO Mustang or my "real" camera is a Contax) is an Omega D3 that I bought back in the 1980s. I recently replaced the Nikon with a Schneider. But I haven't used it yet! And I still have the Nikon, and I also have a spare Omega B-22 enlarger that I'm trying to get rid of.

 

The other thing is the enlarger will only accept a Contax lens because of its construction. I'd have to really tear it apart to use anything else.

 

The update: I replaced the light socket in the enlarger and stuck a flourescent bulb in it to use a cooler light source. It works.

 

However, the last time I tried this in the Omega using a regular light bulb, I could read "General Electric" (or was it "cirtcelE lareneG"?) on the paper.

 

In this case, I bought a frosted plastic cutting board (2 for $2.99 at Wal-Mart). I sliced off a piece that's four inches wide and roughly 10 inches long. I slipped it in as a "U" shape allowing some space. below the bulb. I'm hoping this will give me a nicely diffused light source.

 

If not, I'll cut it to fit and not use the "U."

 

The flourescent seems to come to full brightness within a reasonably short time. So I think I can shade the lens, turn it on, wait two seconds and then start the timing cycle.

 

I also dug out a grimy f/2.0 Contax I or II noncollapsible Sonnar. It's the one with the aperture ring inside the filter ring. I cleaned it up, and it seems to work well, although I still might go with the East German Sonnar. This pre-war lens has too many cleaning marks.

 

I'm going to give it a test run this week, if possible.