Is Leica glass TOO good?

[evan_litvin2]

I will be getting a Leica system fairly soon and the thought occurred to me: Is the darkroom

equipment that I use going to be good enough to fully show the potential of the Leica gear

Im using? Im just worried that the lenses on the Besseler enlargers at the darkroom I use

won't translate the negatives onto the paper at the highest level. Feedback/ suggestions?

[vivek iyer]

If you are going to be using an El-Nikkor 50/2.8N (use f/4, diffraction limit) or the likes, it will be good enough. If I were you, I would worry more about factors like vibrations and alignment while making the prints.

[stuart_richardson]

You can probably find an EL-Nikkor 50mm enlarging lens for very little money these days

and just bring it with you to the darkroom. That's what I do...they look at you funny the

first few times you do it, but they they get used to it. In any case, the important thing is

that the best possible image is made on the negative. If you are using leica lenses (or

zeiss, or konica, or the better voigtlander lenses) and good technique, then you will have

an excellent negative

that you can always return to. You may or may not be exploiting that negative to its

maximum potential right now, but if you find that in a year or two you want to make a

superlative print from it at a darkroom with perfectly aligned enlargers, glass mounts, apo

enlarging lenses on fiber paper, then you can. It's better to start your workflow with the

best and then get progressively worse than it is to start with the worst and try to get

better.

[peufeu]

Well, the job for an enlarging lens is different than for a picture taking lens, for instance :

 

- Your camera lens might have to deal with a huge contrast range (think : sun in the picture) and must be flare-proof ; an enlarger lens only has to deal with the neg's density range, which while quite large for B&W, has nothing in common with what the camera sees. Thus enlarger lenses don't have such a critical need for über-multi-coating.

 

- An enlarger lens must reproduce a flat negative on a flat paper. Thus it must not have any field of view curvature. In a camera lens, this matters only if you take pics of flat subjects (like reprography) , thus the two are usually optimized for different factors.

 

- Both lenses must keep their qualities from their closest to longest focus, but the focus span for the enlarger lens is a lot smaller.

 

- A good camera lens has to be optimized for bokeh, while an enlarger lens does not. For instance it can have less disphragm blades.

 

- As long as you can see your film grain being rendered sharply from edge to edge in the loupe, I guess your enlarging lens will be sharp enough.

 

Just a few thoughts...

[greg lockrey]

You could use the 50mm Summicron lens as an enlarging lens, then your enlargements will be as perfect as the capture.

[john_boyle3]

Years ago the 50mm Elmar was used as an enlarging lens. It is much better suited to this purpose than the Summicron. However, there are a number of excellent enlarging lenses available today and they would be preferable to an Elmar or Summicron.

[charles_stobbs3]

I don't think either Elmars or Summicrons are flat field lenses and therefore are not good enlarger lenses. See Pierre's comments above.

[malcolm_tentt]

[is the darkroom equipment that I use going to be good enough to fully show the potential of the Leica gear Im using?]

 

Sorry mate, left me crystal ball in me other trousers, I can't see what lenses you're speaking of. That said, projecting a Leica negative through any lens but a Leica would be like drinking Dom Perignon strained through your knickers. See, I know the words to the anthem.

[Brad_]

<I>Im just worried that the lenses on the Besseler enlargers at the darkroom I use won't

translate the negatives onto the paper at the highest level.</I><BR><P>

 

 

Your photographic vision and ability to communicate through images, in concert with your

post processing skills (whether analog or digital), will drive the success of your prints far

more than any small differences in lens performance. How are those abilities currently

stacking up?

[ezio_gallino]

A Schneider Componon or Rodenstock Rodagon (or El Nikkor too) must be easy to find and do very fine jobs (avoid Componar, Comparon or Rogonar who were cheaper...)

[derek_stanton2]

The negatives you expose now will last longer than whatever means you will use now to reproduce them. You may upgrade your darkroom equipment in five years. You may work with the next generation of scanners. You may send your negs to professional printers. The only thing that's 'permanent' is the capture.

[greg lockrey]

Actually with the Summicron or Elmar stopped down past the optimum aperature do indeed make good enlarging lenses. I know of the curvature that is mentioned in field while using these lenses on the camera, but if you really look at the negative in the carrier in the enlarger, there is a curve there also. Once you get past the optimum aperature, the depth of field will cover any loss of apparent sharpness on the paper.

[stephen hazelton]

I suggest getting two or three old cheap dusty uncoated UV filters, and stacking them on your lens. This should lower the quality to match your enlarger optics. Problem solved! : )