80mm EL for 6x7 negagative enlarging??

[thomas_vanhaute]

My question: it struck me as a little odd and uncommon that one

Photo.Net member mentioned the use of a 80mm EL lens for

6x7cm negative enlarging. I was always thaught in school to use

at least a 90mm or better a 105mm for 6x7cm negatives. Is this

true, or CAN u use a 80mm to do the job, and if so, what are the

consequenses (quality loss, distortion,...).

Thanx you!

[trooper]

I went through this myself and in my case, found out that my assumption of this wasn�t valid. I bought a Componon 105mm for 6X7 use after already owning a Rodagon 80mm. After extensive, careful testing and many comparison examples printed, I simply leave the 80mm Rodagon on for everything (645, 6X6, 6X7). I recently noticed a speck in the Schneider internals, so this is part of why I�ve trusted the Rodagon more, too. I have all of Fred Picker�s newsletters and had accepted his theories of longer than normal, accepted optics for enlarging work (my 50mm Rodagon got very little use over the years, even for 35mm).

 

I feel that I have a reasonably discerning eye and I�m admitting to not being capable of seeing an advantage, center, edges or otherwise�..(your mileage may vary).

[john_bright]

Thomas,

 

I posted a thread on this subject in October 2001, maybe thats the one you were looking at. If so, I'm still using that 80mm Durst Neonon lens(6-element) for enlarging 6x7 negs and it works perfectly. Take a look at the original thread. If I can help further please ask.

[kelly_flanigan1]

A 105mm lens is a better choice; if one has the length enlarging lens to use it...A longer focal length with reduce the maximum enlargement ratio.....<BR><BR>A 105mm is better for 6x6 also; because it uses the sweeter higher performance area of the lens.....; plus the negative will have more even illumination....Here is a scan of the page from "the Photography catalog"; from the mid 1970's ....Also the Nikon and Kodak data has mentioned to use slightly longer lenses for decades.....I used a 3 element Testar 75mm F4.5 lens for my early 35mm negatives; with much success.....Then I got a Rodenstock 80mm..This subject was brought up 2 weeks ago where a person asked if his Schneider enlarging lens was any good....I got some flak by stateing to use a longer lense to get better performance.....It seems that what I learned in pre war Photo books bothers some people on this board........Most all lenses degrade in performance when used off axis.....This has been known for several centuries...Usage of slightly longer focal length lenses is the norm in most professional printers and microfilm scanners I have seen........................<BR><BR>One can probably use a 5 to 6 element 600 dollar 80mm enlarging lens for 6x7 usage with much success....One needs more elements to get the better of axis performance.........Also one could use my 4 element used 113mm F4.5 4 element printing Kodak EKTAR ; which has a fixed stop at its optimum aperture of F9 ......The lens was from a 6x9 printer; and cost a mighty 25 dollars off of E bay.....<BR><BR>Usage of great old lenses is not what Marketers and "the must buy new to be any good crowd" wants to hear.....Their mighty egos are at stake.......it is better for them to buy the 600 dollar lens and keep the economy going............<BR><BR><BR><b>Click on photo for entire article</b><BR><BR><A HREF=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-234.jpg target = "_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-235.jpg" BORDER=0></A>

[sergio_ortega6]

Thomas,

 

I use both the new Nikkor 80 and 105 enlarging lenses; the 80 for 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x6 and some 6x7, and the 105 primarily for 6x7 and 6x9. I use them with a 4x5 enlarger chassis.

 

While I have not done any careful side-by-side testing and comparisons using these lenses, with 6x7 negatives I have found little if any differences in print quality (sharpness in the center/edges, even edge-to-edge illumination, etc.). With the 105 you do have to raise the enlarger's head a bit higher to achieve prints of equal size to the 80. Some folks maintain that the higher the enlarger head extension the more likely you are to experience loss of sharpness due to vibration/movement of the head and such. And your exposure times will increase slightly due to the resulting light loss, though this could help if you're doing a lot of dodging and burning.

 

I'd say that if you do not intend to enlarge negatives larger than 6x7, and you have a MF enlarger does not extend as high as a 4x5 enlarger, then the modern 80mm lenses will do fine.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Craigs usage of his 80mm Rodagon is ok for the newer F4 model lens; which Rodenstock shows in their <a href="http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/rodagon/page3a.htm">current data sheet</a> ok for up to 6x7 cm....<BR><BR>A 6x6, 6x7, or a 6x9 negative is not as sharp at the edges; versus the center .....When I moved up from a Rolleicord 75mm F3.5 4 element Xenar to my Rolleiflex 5 element 80mm F2.8 Xenotar I had enlarger lens edge focus problems......The sharper Xenotar lens now taxed the edge sharpness of my enlarging lenses; at the edges of the 6x6 negative.....I went out and got my 80mm F5.6 Rodagon to get much better results...The 113mm gives me slightly better edge performance; and is used when possible.. <BR><BR>My 80mm Rodagon is a 4 element F5.6 lens ; i believe the F4 model is 5 elements.....; for my usage the 113mm Kodak Ektar @F9 is sharper at the edges of a 6x6 or 6x9 negative than my F5.6 rodagon when used at F8 or F11.....It is a close toss up; but the illumination off axis is more uniform with the 113mm Kodak Printing Ektar

[kelly_flanigan1]

Sergio; I agree about the possible vibration issue; but the brightness of a 11x14 print @ F8 with either the 80mm or 105mm should be the same...The magnification is about 7x in either case with a 6x6cm negative; and the light source is the same...<BR><BR>Here is a real acid test to test ones lenses: Move a super sharp 6x6 negative so that the center sharpest portion is at the edge of the neagative holder...Then one may better see if one can see any difference in the edge performance of ones enlarging lenses...<BR><BR>best regards; Kelly

[thomas_vanhaute]

ok! Thanks a lot all of you! I think I 'll just stick with my 80mm

Schneider to work my 6x7 negatives for now....i 'll use the $400 i

would have spent on a 105mm EL on some photography

project. Because after all...what good is ultra-perfect enlarging

equipment if you dont have anything worth enlarging... ;-)

 

Thanks again! bye

Thomas

[kelly_flanigan1]

Thomas do you have the F4 or older F5.6 80mm lens?

[thomas_vanhaute]

Kelly,

 

I have the older 5,6 Schneider-Kreuznach. I also have a slightly

newer EL Nikkor 80/5,6. (And for 35mm a superb 1960's

Schneider Componon which my dad bought back in the days

when the animals could still talk...). I havent noticed any

difference between the both of them, but then again im not really

a technical freak.... ;^)...good thing other people are though!

haha!

[sergio_ortega6]

Kelly:

 

I totally agree with your observation. It's an interesting topic. Theoretically, either of the two focal lengths should provide equal illumination and subsequent equla exposure times at similar apertures and magnification ratios.

 

I have to admit I've never tested any of my enlarger lenses to determine whether their aperture settings have been properly callibrated by the manufacturer to provide such precisely equal levels of illumination when set at given apertures, adjusted for equal magnification ratios, while using the same negative and with a properly controlled and regulated light source.

 

For what it's worth, I did do a test some time back of a series of large format lenses--all of them set at infinity focus for each focal length, measuring the same light source and at several aperture settings--to measure the level of illumination at the center of the camera's ground glass. I was testing a remote fibre optics probe attachment on a Gossen Luna Pro meter, but that's another issue.

 

I came to the surprising conclusion that none of these LF lenses actually yielded equal levels of illumination at similar apertures. Even lenses by the same manufacturer (Schneider) mounted in modern Copal shutters varied from about 1/3 to 2/3 stop. I'm sure I probably overlooked some variable or missed something, but, theoretically, they should have yielded similar results.

 

My only objective, though cursory, tests with enlarging lenses revealed the following: I printing the same negative with both the Nikkor 80 and 105 at the same aperture to make the same sized print. I used the same enlarger, with a regulated Aristo/Zone VI cold light set at the same dry-down setting, light source at the same physical distance from the negative carrier, using the same paper, etc....all I did was switch lenses and raise the head to achieve the same print size/composition. I do remember having to increase the exposure time slightly with the 105 to achieve similar print densities.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Sergio; thanks for the reply; maybe the blue light transmitance is different between the two lenses ; or something else.....The light is more almost perpendicular going thru the negative with the longer focal length lens.. Our old durst 138 5x7 enlarger had a point light source that had a variable voltage controll to it...Since we were only using it for Black & White; we had no voltage regulator on the controls input.....What is interesting is that a standard incandescent bulb's light output varies as the 3.5 power of the lamps rated voltage; so a small voltage change varies the lamps output alot...

regards Kelly

[don_clary]

I have owned and was very pleased for years with an older El Nikkor 80mm f5.6. I recently bought a new El Nikkor 105mm f5.6. I print 6x7s through a Beseler 45M series enlarger, that is very carefully aligned.

 

I printed a very sharp negative at 16"X20" size, using a glass carrier to hold the film flat. I can get this enlargement, using the 80mm lens, and printing normally to the baseboard. With the 105mm lens, I must project through a split table to the floor, to get enough distance to get 16x20, which is a lot of trouble.

 

I always found that the edges of the print were less sharp, and thought that was just due to the camera lens. When I printed with the 105mm, the edge sharpness was MUCH better! The difference was not small! I instantly decided to put up with the printing problems with large enlargements, and sold the 80mm.

 

I think the lens design is the same, but that with the 105mm, I was printing using only the central, sharp region of the enlarging lens.