Enlarger lens for shooting?

[patrick_mckay]

Does anyone have experience with utilizing L.F. enlarger lenses for

shooting purposes? For ex.: I'm interested in picking up a

Rodenstock 240 mm, f/5.6 Rodagon enlarger lens for a great price.

Rodenstock even states "The excellent imaging quality of the Rodagon

enlarging lenses is also utilized for close-up and macro shots."

I'm assuming that this lens isn't optimized for infinity focus, but

with enough stopping down it might provide fairly decent specs, as

many process lenses do.

 

Of course, I'll check S.K. Grimes about shutter mounting, but I was

more immediately interested in anyone who's actually used a lens for

such.

 

Look forward to your responses.

[michael_briggs2]

I have used enlarger lenses for macro photography, but not for distant object photography. I have used G-Clarons (more below) for distant photography, and they work well for this. To be very precise, the G-Claron was more intended to be a Process Lens then an Enlarging Lens, though many have used them as enlarging lenses.

 

It sounds like your plan is to have the enlarger lens mounted in a shutter. I think that you will find that the cost of an enlarger lens + shutter + custom maching to fit the lens to a shutter will far exceed the cost of buying a taking lens already in a shutter. 240 mm taking lenses in shutter are common on the used market and don't cost a huge increment above the cost of the shutter. Custom machining (even at the reasonable prices of S. K. Grimes, Inc.) isn't cheap and makes best sense when there is no ready-made alternative.

 

There are some enlarging lenses that uncrew into cells that directly screw into shutters, in particular some Schneider Componons and G-Clarons. This will be much cheaper since no custom machining will be needed. The best route is probably to seek an inexpensive G-Claron since these lenses are known to do well for distant objects. Another possiblity is the Graphic-Kowa lenses, but not all of these will directly go into a shutter. But even this plan will take a bit of effort to find a G-Claron and a shutter for significantly less than the cost of a taking lens in a shutter. The advantage of a "taking" lens made for distant objects is that it will typically be faster. On the other hand, the standard taking len will be heavier than the G-Claron, so many field photographers prefer the G-Clarons.

[darin_cozine]

Many of Schneiders lenses fit right into standard shutters. I dont know about rodenstock. I picked up a 135mm schneider componon for $2 and put it in a Tempor shutter (copal 0 size). I have not tried it yet, but the image appears reasonably sharp on the GG. The enlarger lenses certainly wont have the coverage that a true LF lens would, so you may be limited on movements. But the sharpness... who knows until you try. If you have $200 or so to spend on lens, shutter, and mounting, I would reccomend getting a g-claron. Those are known to be good performers for LF and they fit right into shutters. Jim Galili often sells the G-claron allready in a shutter for about $200.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With a speed graphic; one can use an enlarging lens; and not mess with converting ones lenses. The 135mm F5.6 Schneider Componon fits into a standard 4x5 spped graphic lens board; one for larger lenses. The clickable thumb photo below shows the one I use. Many speed graphics are not adjusted correctly; and have low "pre tension". This makes the shutter slow. Modern Enlarging lenses have illumination paths; that sometimes add stay light. Lenses should also use a lens hood. Infinity sharpness at the center is ok with an enlarging lens; but not killer. Edge sharpness is better at infinity than my 127mm Ektar; but the center is better with the Ektar. At 10x ratios; the enlarging lens is used as a copy camera for shooting frail documents.<BR><BR><A HREF=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-389.jpg target = "_blank">

<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/thumbs/tripods-389-thumb.jpg BORDER=0></A>

[dan_fromm1]

Um, Patrick, it depends on the lens.

 

There's a general consensus that process lenses, e.g., G-Clarons, Apo-Ronars, Apo-Nikkors, Apo-Artars, and the like hold their corrections well to infinity and so are usable as general purpose lenses. Bob Salomon will probably add to this conversation with the comment that this isn't strictly the case.

 

Enlarging lenses are another thing entirely. Not all hold their corrections well to infinity. For example, my 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar (anti-Componon) will cover 2x3 at distance but is much worse at my typical working apertures (f/11, f/16) than an 101/4.7 Ektar. Close up, in the range 1:10 to 4:1, the Wolly is a super lens; on the emulsions I use it produces results as good as a known good 100/6.3 Luminar did.

 

If you're up for a gamble, get the Rodagon. If it doesn't suit you, you might be able to sell it for at worst a small loss. If you're not a gambler, wait for the equivalent process lens to turn up at a good price.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[david richhart]

Why not just try mounting the lens on a board and use it as a barrel lens for a while? If YOU are happy with the images it produces, and if it fits YOUR style of shooting, then you can decide if it is worth the expense of mounting in a shutter.

[jco]

I use enlarging lenses for both 35mm and LF photography but only

for closeups in the same range they were designed to do enlarging.

The results are spectacular. They are not very good for infinity

unless you are using very long ones which will only be using the

center of the image circle and even then they are not as good as

regular taking lenses at infinity. But for closeups, WOW!

JCO