Are there any good lenses from 'unclean' brands?

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting suggestion Arne, how well do the enlarging lenses you mentioned do as taking lenses? I ask because the enlarging lenses I've shot at distance -- focal lengths ranging from 80 mm to 150 mm -- were just awful.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The absolute maximum I would be willing to pay is £100-£120. The specific focal lengths I am interested in are 150mm-210mm. I am looking for a general purpose lens with a 'look' similar to that obtained with heliar type lenses. I am also looking for a tessar type lens of about 200mm focal length.

All help much appreciated,

Lachlan

I'm not sure what that is in American -) The Fujis in the 150mm range I think are in your budget. IIRC the slower F/6.3 [something like that] is a tessar. The faster isn't. Older Xenars can often be had for much less money. The Fujis usually sell for a good deal less then the other brands. I can sort of understand for the models mounted in Seiko shutters but all the Fujis seem cheaper on the used market.

 

[JBish130]

Perhaps I'm misguided. I've a bunch of Ilex glass & shutters. I really like them...

 

[acroell]

Interesting suggestion Arne, how well do the enlarging lenses you mentioned do as taking lenses? I ask because the enlarging lenses I've shot at distance -- focal lengths ranging from 80 mm to 150 mm -- were just awful.

Dan, I haven't done any rigorous testing on these, but I think they are not bad as taking lenses. I own a 180 and a 210mm one, and I did check the 180mm a little bit. Wide open (4.5) I could get close to 30lp/mm in the center and in the corner about 20lp/mm on the groundglass (Bosscreen, using the Putora sharpness indicator). Contrast was good. Out of focus areas are very smooth both behind and in front of the focus plane. Since I own some Voigtländer Heliars, I did not really pursue having them mounted in a shutter. I don't remember exactly what I paid for these, but it was somewhere between 20-30$ each.

 

[Peter Black]

Lachlan

Have sent you a PM.

 

[Claire Senft]

I I recall correctly: An enlarging lens that works best at 7x and is mounted to a lens board and used on a camera will be best at 7x life size. Of course having enough bellows extension will be a problem. If the lens is mounted in reverse using the front threads then the best performance will be 1/7th life size. With such mounting its performance at longer distances should be improved..but may not be especially good.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I I recall correctly: An enlarging lens that works best at 7x and is mounted to a lens board and used on a camera will be best at 7x life size. Of course having enough bellows extension will be a problem. If the lens is mounted in reverse using the front threads then the best performance will be 1/7th life size. With such mounting its performance at longer distances should be improved..but may not be especially good.

Wrong. Common error, usually due to equivocation about magnification.

Enlarging lenses and taking lenses are both designed to have the small negative behind the lens and the large image/subject in front of it. The difference is that enlarging lenses are optimized for higher magnifications that taking lenses. Both should be reversed when used for shooting with magnifications greater than 1:1, so that the small image will be in front of the reversed lens and the large (relatively) negative will be behind the reversed lens.

In your example, the enlarging lens that is best at 7x will work best as a taking lens at 1:7. See what I mean about equivocation?

Cheers,

Dan

 

[joneil]

Interesting suggestion Arne, how well do the enlarging lenses you mentioned do as taking lenses? I ask because the enlarging lenses I've shot at distance -- focal lengths ranging from 80 mm to 150 mm -- were just awful.

Hi Dan;
Do you mind me asking which enlarging lenses you were trying out / testing? You see, I have two, 180mm lenses I use for 4x5. One is a Rodenstock Sironar (plain old Sironar - not an N or a S) and one is a Schneider Componon, mounted in a shutter. One goes backpacking, ones stays with my monorail. Both are F5.6

If I were to show you prints and / or negatives shot with either one, I think most people would have a hard time telling the difference, if any. Both are extremely sharp.

Makes me wonder if some enalrging lesnes are better than others for shooting. The man who mounted the Componon for me told me ahead of time he had seen that particular lens used for shooting, and said it woudl give me good results. He wasn't kidding either

joe

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Dan;
Do you mind me asking which enlarging lenses you were trying out / testing? You see, I have two, 180mm lenses I use for 4x5. One is a Rodenstock Sironar (plain old Sironar - not an N or a S) and one is a Schneider Componon, mounted in a shutter. One goes backpacking, ones stays with my monorail. Both are F5.6

If I were to show you prints and / or negatives shot with either one, I think most people would have a hard time telling the difference, if any. Both are extremely sharp.

Makes me wonder if some enalrging lesnes are better than others for shooting. The man who mounted the Componon for me told me ahead of time he had seen that particular lens used for shooting, and said it woudl give me good results. He wasn't kidding either

joe

Fair question, Joe. 75/3.5, 85/3.5, 135/4.5 Boyer Saphir B, all 6/4 plasmat types. 80/5.6 Minolta Rokkor X CE, ditto. 4"/5.6, 135/5.6 Wollensak Enlarging Pro Raptar, ditto. 150/4.5 Boyer Saphir, tessar type. All shot on 35 mm to check central sharpness, some shot on 2x3. The 75 and 85 Saphir Bs and both Wollys are very good as taking lenses close up. The 135 Saphir B is ok close up but the 135 Wolly beats it.

Thinking of Componons, I've been contemplating getting a 100 or 105 Componon to try as a taking lens for a while, haven't got around to it yet. One thing that's held me back is that as best as I can tell from the lens cross sections Schneider has published a Componon really isn't a Symmar.

I have the impression that nearly everyone who's reported good results from an enlarging lens used as a taking lens has used a lens no shorter than 150 mm. Perhaps long ones are charmed and short ones aren't.

 

[jimgalli]

Dan, Once upon a time I got elements from a 135 Componon_S hidden inside a piece of 2" allthread from one of those big surplus outfits that is always offloading lens junk on Ebay. I put it in a polaroid copal 0 shutter and it served magnificently as a taking lens in that length for a couple of years until I got my single coated 125mm fujinon-w which actually IS better. Other normal taking lenses in the 135 slot including a Xenotar, couldn't outperform the Componon. I did quite a lot of stuff at infinity with it. Never shot wider than f22 though.

 

[Claire Senft]

Dan, you are correct. I had it ass backwards.

 

[joneil]

I have the impression that nearly everyone who's reported good results from an enlarging lens used as a taking lens has used a lens no shorter than 150 mm. Perhaps long ones are charmed and short ones aren't.

Hi Dan;
One thought - depending on how the lens is mounted might be critical as well. I remember in my specific case, the man who mounted hte lens told me never take it apart and loose the thin spacer rings, or I would never get a sharp image. Sometimes the loss of a thin, thin ring can - on certian lenses - make all the difference in the world. My lens was seperated into two parts, screwed into either side of the shutter, not front mounted.

One other idea inspired by your observation of no good reports for lenses under 150mm. I was told that the 180mm Componon - which is made to cover a 5x7 negative for enlarging purposes - was a good lens for 4x5, but I also had a spare 80mm Componon that at th etime I was discouraged fomr trying ot mount. It's almost an unofficial rule, if even that, when you use enlarging lenses for film shooting , keep the same format or go one above. For example, maybe this is why 75, 90 or 135mm enalrging lesnes do not work well for 4x5 shooting - the lens was never made to cover a negative / image circle of that size to begin with.

joe

 

[acroell]

Joe has a point. Enlarging lenses are usually specified for a magnification in the range of 1:2 to 1:10. So unless they are used in reverse for work larger than 1:1, enlarging lenses will never cover anything bigger than their advertised format. Even for lenses used with their nominal format size, a large image circle is not a necessity since movements are rarely applied in enlarging. Enlarging lenses have to have a much more reduced field curvature than taking lenses, and one tradeoff for the designer is probably the coverage. Going from 1:10 to 1:infinity will cost about 10% of image circle compared to the nominal use and that may become a problem for some lenses if the circle was cutting it close to start with. That would explain that my longer Meopars seem to be fine on 4x5, and maybe Jims Componon is the exception to the rule...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Joe, I usually shoot lenses that cover larger formats on 2x3, not lenses that cover smaller formats on 4x5. Gotta be fair to the lenses, eh? I tried the short ones because I was curious to see how they'd do at distance, not because I seriously expected to use them at distance on 2x3. I use the Enlarging Pro Raptars closeup, but not at distance.

When I check a lens' central sharpness I often shoot it on a Nikon instead of on 2x3. Costs less, gets the same information. Remember that if the lens is intended for a format larger than 2x3 then edge sharpness on 2x3 shouldn't be an issue.

Arne, my 135/4.5 Saphir B, 135/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, and 150/4.5 Saphir should all cover much more than 24x36. The 135s were sold for use on 3x4 and 4x5, the 150 for use on 4x5. They were all pretty poor at distance on 24 x 36 so I didn't see the point of trying them on 2x3.

Funny thing is that my shorter (150/9 Apo Ronar, 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens, 180/10 Apo Saphir) shoot very well at distance on 2x3. If we didn't have credible reports of Componons shooting well at distance I'd suspect that f/5.6 and faster plasmat types held their corrections poorly away from their optimal distances.

 

[acroell]

Dan sorry, I forgot that you used 35mm for the test. Yes, your lenses should surely cover that. I did a short check on the 135mm Meopar that I also own*, just on the ground glass with a 16x loupe. Rough resolution numbers where around 35lp/mm in the center and a little under 30lp/mm near the corner. So that one looks useable as a taking lens, too. A purely subjective visual comparison of the contrast of a 210mm Heliar, Apo-Lanthar and the 210 Meopar showed that wide open the Heliar had less contrast than the other two, which were close to each other. Heresy?

*I know, I suffer from LAS, aka Galli's disease on this forum....oh well, they were really cheap ;-)

 

[darinwc]

Hey Dan, whats the setup you use to test your LF lenses using a nikon?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hey Dan, whats the setup you use to test your LF lenses using a nikon?

Darin, I have a Nikon PB-4 bellows and a Zenit (?) bellows with M39x1 mounts at each end. Also a small mountain of adapters and nearly a yard of ELNY extension tubes. AND a roll of darkroom tape. With all this I can hang all but one of the lenses I own on a bellows and focus it. The exception is my so-far useless 600/9 Apo Ronar, too big and too heavy.

For lenses ~ 100 mm and shorter I shoot the grass etc. in my back yard at a distance of about 30'. The test is how well the blades of grass and the detail in them can be read. With lenses up to 210 mm my target is the unpainted wooden fence behind my back yard, distance about 40'. The big question is how well I can read the grain. For longer lenses, my standard target is the stop and "children at play" signs at the end of the block, distance around 1000' (?). There the test is how legible the signs are.

That's how. I've been using a Nikon FG set to "A", get very consistent exposures. This is important for not confusing slight exposure error for differences in contrast (flare) and color rendition. Basically I've seen NO differences in color rendition.

 

[tschneid]

Hey Joe, what kind of shutter did you use for your Componon lens? I'm about to buy a 180mm and 240mm Schneider Kreuznach Componon lens off of eBay, but I'm not sure what kind of shutter to put them in.

Thanks,
Travis

 

[Bandicoot]

There are also some low cost lenses from the big name manufacturers.

Rodenstock Ysaron and Ysarex lenses are modified Tessars, nicely coated, and very sharp. The Ysarons are optimised for close work but are good at infinity when stopped down, the Ysarexes are for distance work. Ysarons in Copal Press shutters are often cheap as they are one of the lens types supplied for the Polaroid MP3 and MP4 copy cameras. (The other types commonly supplied were Rodenstock Eurygons in lengths that won't cover 4x5 at infinity, and Tomioka Tominons which are quite nice lenses but not as good as the Ysarons.) Ysarexes sometimes turn up cannibalised from old Polaroid roll-film cameras too. Either will cover 4x5 in the lengths from 127mm up. (A 127mm Ysaron is one of my favourite lenses for still-life on 6x9.)

Schneider Xenars can be pricey in the longer lengths, but the 150mm f4.5 version is often very cheap and is a good, sharp, lens. It's small and light for a 150 too. The Schneider 120mm f6.8 Angulon is another lens that seems to be underpriced sometimes, certainly compared to the other Angulon 6.8s. It will cover 5x7, and gives a lot of movement on 4x5.


Peter

PS -

I can hang all but one of the lenses I own on a bellows and focus it. The exception is my so-far useless 600/9 Apo Ronar, too big and too heavy.

Cheer up Dan - just send it over here and I'll put it to good use on my 10x8 Arca...


P.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Sorry, Peter, I sold the thing.

 

[k_jupiter]

Lachlan, be very careful when you slander Wollensak and Ilex. Both made some world-beaters. For example, Wolly's 160/5.6 and 210/5.6 Pro Raptars. And Ilex Acugons (the longest is 90/8) and late Paragon/Acutars.

That Wolly 160 5.6? Is that the same one I picked up the elements for at Surplus Shed for 25 bucks and directly mounted in an Pi-Alpax Shutter? Dagor77 was selling them for awhile on EBay.

tim in san jose

 

[Dan Fromm]

Tim, I doubt it.

The 160/5.6 Pro Raptar is a 6/4 plasmat type, a Symmar competitor. Some, including the dread Dagor77, insist it is the best of the 6" or so f/5.6 plasmats. I'm not convinced of this, especially since I don't have any of the others and since Andrew's descriptions of his wares are a little, um, extravagant. But mine is certainly a good lens. AFAIK they were all sold in a blue-faced Rapax, I'm not sure what size so don't know if the cells will go in a Pi-Alphax.

I believe that the cells Surplus Shed sold were for a tessar type lens, and an undistinguished one at that. Check to make sure that they're f/5.6, as you think, and count reflections too. I betcha they're 162/4.5.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[k_jupiter]

Tim, I doubt it.

The 160/5.6 Pro Raptar is a 6/4 plasmat type, a Symmar competitor. Some, including the dread Dagor77, insist it is the best of the 6" or so f/5.6 plasmats. I'm not convinced of this, especially since I don't have any of the others and since Andrew's descriptions of his wares are a little, um, extravagant. But mine is certainly a good lens. AFAIK they were all sold in a blue-faced Rapax, I'm not sure what size so don't know if the cells will go in a Pi-Alphax.

I believe that the cells Surplus Shed sold were for a tessar type lens, and an undistinguished one at that. Check to make sure that they're f/5.6, as you think, and count reflections too. I betcha they're 162/4.5.

Cheers,

Dan

I would be willing to bet that they are a Tessar type. They look like the 127 Ektar I have on steroids. They don't look like Plasmats.

tim in san jose

 

[k_jupiter]

Brane fart.

That lens set is a 180mm lens

Nevermind.

tim in san jose

 

[jonw]

What experience do fellow apuggers have with D.O. Industries lens in shutters, e.g., 125mm f4.5 lens in a copal 1?