micro nikkor as an enlarger lens?

Lester Lefkowitz describes in his book, "The Manual of Close Up

Photography" (1979, Amphoto, New York) the use of a macro lens in an

enlarger. i quote:

"Even the most expensive [enlarger] lenses give poor results used to

enlarge at ratios far beyond their design limit, which is usually 10-

12x. A clever ploy is the use of a 50mm macro lens of the type

usually used on a camera. its flat field design and high

resoulution capabilities at the magnifications required for these

extreme blowups produce superb results"

 

he goes on to compare a 37x blow up from a 55mm/3.5 NAI micro-nikkor

and a conventional "moderatley priced" enlarger lens in the

accompanying illustration, showing the superior enlargement from the

nikkor.

 

has anyone tried this??? do i need to fork out for a 50mm EL nikkor

if i can use my micro 55mm 2.8?

 

cheers,

You'll have to reverse it. And because of that infernal floating element, you'll have dial in the appropriate magnification.

 

It used to be that "moderately priced" enlarging lenses weren't that good. Ones that are "moderately priced" new probably still aren't that good.

 

These days, though, lightly-used first class enlarging lenses such as 50/2.8 EL Nikkors go for so little on eBay you might just as well go ahead and get one. Or you might get a C.E. 50/2.8 Rokkor-X, they typically go for less and are very very good.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

I once used my 50mm EL-Nikkor to make enlargements of approximately 37x (35mm negs printed to about 35" x 55"), and they were as sharp as any 8x10s I've made, with no apparent resolution losses. Just buy a good enlarger lens and forget about it.

I can see no reason that a macro lens should not work well as an enlarging lens, just as an enlarging lens works well as a macro lens. (I used the Leitz Focotar for macro work until got some longer focal lengths.) You wouldn't want to reverse the lens though, as the distance from the lens to the film should be less than the distance from lens to the projected image on the paper. Both macro and enlarging lenses are optimized for this configuration. Usually a good enlarging lens is best for a 10X enlargement or better, while a macro probably has a broader working range, and a greater relative aperture than the enlarging lens would need. This requirement, along with CRC or equivalent, makes the macro more expensive. The macro should excel at micro photographs, where the image is smaller than that on the film. Images of 37X on the easel really do not require this degree of correction, as the ratio of lens to print is much greater than lens to film. I used a Tessar type lens for a long while before I bought a true enlarging lens. An enlarging lens is more convenient to work with as the aperture markings are more easily seen and accessed.

 

Alex

cheers. i dont think i'll bother with it on reflection (adapting it using t-mounts and stuff would use up lots of time i should be using to make prints). just being cheap.