Best enlarging lens for art prints? Should I use a Meopta Opemus 6?

[BobMarvin11225]

RE: your VC filters; just cut them down if they're too big for the filter drawer.

 

[Johnkpap]

A Meopta Opemus 6 is a great enlarger, worry about getting something else once you have a camera that is of a larger format.

With regards to lenses the one you have with your enlarger will most likely be fine for enlarging a 6x4.5 negs up to at 11x14 inches, one of my most used enlarging lens is a Schneider 75mm F4.5 Comparon and this is only 4 element !!! I bought it for $10 from a camershop bargin bin, I have printed 11x14 inch from Bronica ETR negs...one of these prints won portrait of the year once at my local camera club. Sometimes I find that printing with my ultra sharp El-nikkor 80mm 5.6 is not the most pleasing result..

If you must a better lens, El-nikkor, Schnider, and Rodenstock all make great lenses
all will work fine an can be bought for less than $100. Don't waste $$$ on a apo lens you don't need it unless you are doing huge colour poster prints, even then you may not see anything different.

You are alot better off spending your $$$ on Paper, Chem and film than on a another lens.....Unless it is in a bargin bin for $10.00

Johnkpap

 

[jjphoto]

Before buying you should know that there were different versions of the APO-Rodagon. The first APO was the 90/4. You can easily identify it by its huge and protracting rear lens. Nowadays it is the cheapest of the APOs. Then came the 80/4. Then the 80/4 N and 90/4 N. The latter are the most desired versions. I cannot say how big the difference between these versions is. Some people say it´s there, others doubt it. The non-APO Rodagon 80/4 is very good as well...

There's also a Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 4/75 which is a bit hard to find, not that I'm recommending chasing it up or anything. Not really sure why it was ever made as it seems to have only been sold through the machine vision channels and probably not for too long either.

http://www.photocornucopia.com/1070.html

 

[jjphoto]

...The lenses were made on the Sheinder line and are the same quality...

I've heard this claim before but have yet to see any evidence, much less proof.

Can you please point out which Schneider lenses (ie the model name or approximate period of the lens or year) you think are identical to your Meopta Meogon 4/80 (or do you mean Meogon "S" 4/80) or any other Meopta lens. I have lots of data sheets on Schneiders but only very little on Meopta but none the less it should be possible to compare and make a judgment.

I'm not knocking the quality of Meopta Meogons, I really like them, but I doubt they have anything to do with Schneider. I would love to be proven wrong because that would at least clear this up.

 

[John Koehrer]

FWIW, "art prints" could be a couple of thing, the f64 school as in Ansel Adams and Edward Weston
Photo-Secession & pictorial photography. Alfred Stieglitz, Imogen Cunningham.

Schneider also made lenses under Vivitar's name and Rodenstock made some under Beselers.
Call it a claim if you will it doesn't change anything.
.
Vivitar/Schneider 50/3.5: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-VHE...395601?hash=item25d0c58551:g:hiIAAOSw241YkN~7.

There's an english description at the bottom of the page.

For beseler:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BESLAR-BESE...356702?hash=item2c711e105e:g:N84AAOSwl9BWIlhg

Way back when, the reps from both Vivitar and Beseler touted them as coming from the respective companies.

 

[AgX]

Schneider also made lenses under Vivitar's name
.
Vivitar/Schneider 50/3.5: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-VHE...395601?hash=item25d0c58551:g:hiIAAOSw241YkN~7.

That is a Comparon with rubber bandage instead of slotting.

 

[jjphoto]

...Schneider also made lenses under Vivitar's name and Rodenstock made some under Beselers.
Call it a claim if you will it doesn't change anything.
.
Vivitar/Schneider 50/3.5: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-VHE...395601?hash=item25d0c58551:g:hiIAAOSw241YkN~7.

There's an english description at the bottom of the page.

For beseler:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BESLAR-BESE...356702?hash=item2c711e105e:g:N84AAOSwl9BWIlhg

Way back when, the reps from both Vivitar and Beseler touted them as coming from the respective companies.

OK but if you can tell me which specific meopta lenses you think are made by Schneider? Then it should be possible to look further into it and possibly even proove it either way.

 

[Mick Fagan]

With regard to the negative moving in the negative carrier, I have been using Scotch removable magic tape for over 25 years. It does the job brilliantly.

Essentially you place the negative onto the neg carrier exactly where you want it to be, then place a small strip of removable magic tape on the edge of the negative and the rest onto the carrier. You negative will no longer move, when finished, it is a simple step of pealing it back to remove the tape.

The best and cheapest way is to obtain the 12.7mm x 30m length product, which is here.

http://www.scotchbrand.com/3M/en_US...ed-Refill?N=4335+3294529207+3294603515&rt=rud

Your local to you office supplier, should be able to find it. There are smaller lengths, but they are too wide for use on the negative carrier in most cases; 19mm if my memory is correct.

Mick.

 

[flavio81]

With regard to the negative moving in the negative carrier, I have been using Scotch removable magic tape for over 25 years. It does the job brilliantly.

Essentially you place the negative onto the neg carrier exactly where you want it to be, then place a small strip of removable magic tape on the edge of the negative and the rest onto the carrier. You negative will no longer move, when finished, it is a simple step of pealing it back to remove the tape.

The best and cheapest way is to obtain the 12.7mm x 30m length product, which is here.

http://www.scotchbrand.com/3M/en_US...ed-Refill?N=4335+3294529207+3294603515&rt=rud

Your local to you office supplier, should be able to find it. There are smaller lengths, but they are too wide for use on the negative carrier in most cases; 19mm if my memory is correct.

Mick.

I always wondered if i could, instead of using a glass negative carrier, put the film under tension using Scotch tape, to keep it flat. What do you think?

 

[Dali]

A Meogon 5.6/80mm is the only lens I use for 6x6 for the last 30 years. No complaint! I also used a 5.6/50mm version for 35mm negs for a while: a good lens but you can find f/2.8 lenses for a song these days.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I always wondered if i could, instead of using a glass negative carrier, put the film under tension using Scotch tape, to keep it flat. What do you think?

That is exactly what I have been doing for the last 25 plus years; works a treat.

Place the negative on the carrier, then, holding it in the exact place you wish it to be, use the removable magic tape with your other hand. I generally only use one piece for 135 film, but I have used two pieces for 120 film.

With 120 film after securing one side of the negative, I then carefully place another piece of tape on the opposing side of the film, then lift the negative slightly and pull ever so slightly to give the negative a flatness instead of the very slight bow (or drooping curve) that can happen.

One has to be careful not to over stretch the negative as doing so introduces a warping, or slight rippling effect, which makes it impossible to use. If this happens, just back off and do it again.

With 4x5" film (10x13cm) and 135 film, I generally only use one piece of tape.

This works wonderfully for most of my work, which in the main, are cropped prints onto moderately sized paper, where the magnification would be suitable for a full frame print onto 30cm x 40cm paper. Once you start to get into enlargements bigger than that, this does work, but you are definitely better off using a glass carrier as the minor differences from various sections of the negative start to become obvious.

If you are enlarging onto 8x10" (20x25cm) paper, then, unless you are cropping really heavily so only a very small portion of a negative is used, I really can see no issue in using tape to hold a negative in position, and, in the case of curved 135 film, or a 120 film that is sagging, stretching the negative flat. Using a bit of common sense, you should be able to find a method that works well in enabling speed and accuracy in the enlarging department.

I come to this from a background of professional enlarging, believe me when I say there are a squillion methods that have been tried in darkrooms all over the world to keep negatives aligned and flat. Mostly they all work well. That said, a glass carrier that has been aligned, is nothing short of brilliant, but if you don't have a glass carrier, or don't have the need to go to the time and effort required to keep all six surfaces as clean as a whistle, then taping the negative is a wonderful aid and works very well.

Mick.

Ps: removable magic tape has another quality. One can use it directly onto the emulsion side to remove dust spots that are sort of not going away when you use either compressed air, or a brush have been unsuccessfully used. Removable Magic Tape, has never damaged any emulsion on any film I have had in any enlarger anywhere.

 

[flavio81]

That is exactly what I have been doing for the last 25 plus years; works a treat.

Place the negative on the carrier, then, holding it in the exact place you wish it to be, use the removable magic tape with your other hand. I generally only use one piece for 135 film, but I have used two pieces for 120 film.

With 120 film after securing one side of the negative, I then carefully place another piece of tape on the opposing side of the film, then lift the negative slightly and pull ever so slightly to give the negative a flatness instead of the very slight bow (or drooping curve) that can happen.

One has to be careful not to over stretch the negative as doing so introduces a warping, or slight rippling effect, which makes it impossible to use. If this happens, just back off and do it again.

With 4x5" film (10x13cm) and 135 film, I generally only use one piece of tape.

This works wonderfully for most of my work, which in the main, are cropped prints onto moderately sized paper, where the magnification would be suitable for a full frame print onto 30cm x 40cm paper. Once you start to get into enlargements bigger than that, this does work, but you are definitely better off using a glass carrier as the minor differences from various sections of the negative start to become obvious.

If you are enlarging onto 8x10" (20x25cm) paper, then, unless you are cropping really heavily so only a very small portion of a negative is used, I really can see no issue in using tape to hold a negative in position, and, in the case of curved 135 film, or a 120 film that is sagging, stretching the negative flat. Using a bit of common sense, you should be able to find a method that works well in enabling speed and accuracy in the enlarging department.

I come to this from a background of professional enlarging, believe me when I say there are a squillion methods that have been tried in darkrooms all over the world to keep negatives aligned and flat. Mostly they all work well. That said, a glass carrier that has been aligned, is nothing short of brilliant, but if you don't have a glass carrier, or don't have the need to go to the time and effort required to keep all six surfaces as clean as a whistle, then taping the negative is a wonderful aid and works very well.

Mick.

Ps: removable magic tape has another quality. One can use it directly onto the emulsion side to remove dust spots that are sort of not going away when you use either compressed air, or a brush have been unsuccessfully used. Removable Magic Tape, has never damaged any emulsion on any film I have had in any enlarger anywhere.

Mick,

Thanks for so many tips!! This is the sort of things that make APUG great!!

 

[Garratt]

@Slixtiesix: Thanks for the tip with the different APO-versions. Concerning the test images I linked, he also used digital and color, so it looks different anyway, but it was the only test I found so far and honestly, I didn’t like the two non-APO lenses at all. So I wonder if there are any images or test charts available from tests in magazines or something like that. I might do some research on that…

Jimjim wrote:

It's more important to make sure your enlarger is aligned

Yes, how do I know it is aligned properly? Would it be obvious in case it’s not, or is there any chance of me not noticing it?

Beyond those basic requirements, it's the skill of the printer that makes the biggest difference between a great print of an image and a bad one

How would you describe a bad print then? Or what makes a good print for you?

Printing is often not a straightforward process, it's a craft that takes most people years to learn effectively.

That worries me a little bit, since I have an exhibition coming and I will have to do the best I can.
I will check the books you recommended, I’m always looking for good literature.
@R.Gould: The lens that came with the enlarger is a Meopta Anaret. The Meogon should probably be better than that, but there is just one or so on ebay, so I will look for another lens that is more common. But anyway, thanks for pointing that out.
Klownshed wrote:

If you think you'll need 60 x 90mm in the future, I'd still recommend keeping and using the Opemus 6 you have whilst keeping an eye out for bigger enlargers such as the Meopta Magnifax 4a. They can do negatives up to 65 x 90mm and are compatible with the same heads. It's nice having compatible parts for spares or even different options

The one my father wanted to buy first was also a Meopta, probably even the Magnifax 4a. It could do b&w up to 6x9. But I didn’t feel ready to decide whether that was a good deal or not, so I missed that one and now I’m a bit angry with the whole situation, because he ended up buying an enlarger without telling me anyway. And the Opemus 6 can do even less than the one I could have got if I had known better. So I will keep my eyes open on a Magnifax 4, but I think there aren’t many available now. Dursts seem much more common on ebay.

I know the Opemus 6 isn't necessarily the sexiest enlarger ever made, but it works fine and is more than good enough for making super prints.

Haha, yes, in that case I might even have a soft spot for unsexy gear, such as ridiculous cars or old noisy heavy machinery of any kind. So a big heavy metal machine is just what I like
Steve Roberts wrote:

My only complaint is the rather poor quality of the negative carrier.

I noticed that also, we will see how that turns out to work.
Johnknap wrote:

Sometimes I find that printing with my ultra sharp El-nikkor 80mm 5.6 is not the most pleasing result..

So, what is it that doesn’t please you, if sharpness isn’t the matter?

You are alot better off spending your $$$ on Paper, Chem and film than on a another lens.....Unless it is in a bargin bin for $10.00

Yes, I’m starting to realise that.
@jjphoto: You can still buy a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 4/75 for more than $700. But that’s out of the question at the moment.
Mick Fagan wrote:

Ps: removable magic tape has another quality. One can use it directly onto the emulsion side to remove dust spots that are sort of not going away when you use either compressed air, or a brush have been unsuccessfully used. Removable Magic Tape, has never damaged any emulsion on any film I have had in any enlarger anywhere.

Ooohh, sounds kind of scary! It would never have come to my mind to stick anything onto my films, but I might need it someday. Thanks for the tips! Good tips are priceless, I always appreciate good advice.

 

[jjphoto]

...@jjphoto: You can still buy a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon D 4/75 for more than $700. But that’s out of the question at the moment.
...

The APO-Rodagon D 4/75 is a 1:1 Duplication/Macro lens and is not the lens I'm talking about. I'm referring to the 'N' variant, ie 'APO-Rodagon-N 4/75' which is corrected for typical enlarging magnifications (2-10) and is quite different to the APO-Rodagon D.

 

[Johnkpap]

With regards to a lens being too sharp.....some times when printing people and landscapes with flowing water ect.... sometimes you can get a more pleasing print with a different lens, this is a personal artistic choice, I sometimes make.

Johnkpap

 

[klownshed]

I’m a bit angry with the whole situation, because he ended up buying an enlarger without telling me anyway.

I'm sure he meant the best. Your father bought you an enlarger. That's fantastic, even if it isn't the one you'd have bought for yourself. Don't be angry, give him a big hug and say thank you!!!

You have the luxury of being able to take your time to find another enlarger as you now have a perfectly good one to start with. The more you use it the more you will realise what it is you need in the future and by keeping your eyes peeled for deals one day you might be able to pick up an upgrade for not much cash.

Be happy with what you have, or you'll never Appreciate your 'upgrades' either!

 

[R.Gould]

Barret personally I would use the anarat lens that you already, perfectaly able to use for exhibition printing, I very much doubt that when stopped down aa couple of stops you anyone else would be able to tell the difference, to check the allingment of the enlarger just check everything is level, the baseboard and the enlarger head, use an old fashioned sprit level, if all stages are level the all is allinged properly

 

[klownshed]

Yes, how do I know it is aligned properly?

It has it's own base so the chances are the head is already pretty much perpendicular to the baseboard. Use a spirit level to check that the column and baseboard are both level and perpendicular.

You're more likely to be slightly out with the easel's feet than the head being out of alignment with the baseboard. Adjust the easel to compensate for any issues in alignment -- if the image on the baseboard is nice and rectangular, you're all aligned. If it's more of a parallelogram or trapezoid, adjust the easel by adjusting the feet/shimming until it's a rectangle

 

[Martin Rickards]

You've got two more usable advantages on the Opemus 6 colour. The first is with the rangefinder type focusing aid. Pull the negative carrier half out and you can see two parallel lines. Adjust the focus until you see two unbroken lines and your negative is focused.
The other is the neutral density adjustment on the colour head which allows for 2 stops of exposre. This can be especiallly convenient for exposing smaller prints as it gives more time for burning and dodging without using too small an aperture.

 

[JensH]

The APO-Rodagon D 4/75 is a 1:1 Duplication/Macro lens and is not the lens I'm talking about. I'm referring to the 'N' variant, ie 'APO-Rodagon-N 4/75' which is corrected for typical enlarging magnifications (2-10) and is quite different to the APO-Rodagon D.

Hi,

that's interesting. In my papers there is only the Apo-Rodagon-N 4/80. Is this something like the 8-element Apo-Rodagon-N 2.8/45 for 35mm? I can't find any mtf data for the 45 or 75, unfortunatally.

Best
Jens

 

[Craig75]

I'm sure he meant the best. Your father bought you an enlarger. That's fantastic, even if it isn't the one you'd have bought for yourself. Don't be angry, give him a big hug and say thank you!!!

You have the luxury of being able to take your time to find another enlarger as you now have a perfectly good one to start with. The more you use it the more you will realise what it is you need in the future and by keeping your eyes peeled for deals one day you might be able to pick up an upgrade for not much cash.

Be happy with what you have, or you'll never Appreciate your 'upgrades' either!

This. Check your head.

 

[chip j]

I have a late 50mm 2.8 Meogon S. It doesn't physically look OR print anything like a Componon. Made in Czech Republic. I also have a new, boxed 50mm Anaret S 4.5--made in Czechoslovakia.

 

[jjphoto]

Hi,

that's interesting. In my papers there is only the Apo-Rodagon-N 4/80. Is this something like the 8-element Apo-Rodagon-N 2.8/45 for 35mm? I can't find any mtf data for the 45 or 75, unfortunatally.

Best
Jens

See this: http://www.photocornucopia.com/1070.html

 

[JensH]

See this: http://www.photocornucopia.com/1070.html

Ah, great, thanks a lot.
The mtf graphs look very similar to the 4/80 Apo-Rodagon-N...

Best
Jens

 

[jjphoto]

Ah, great, thanks a lot.
The mtf graphs look very similar to the 4/80 Apo-Rodagon-N...

Best
Jens

I have both the 75 and 80 apo-rodagon-N's and at least from my experience, which is to use them as taking lenses on a digital camera, they perform about the same. I'm not sure why a 75 and 80 both exist as they seem very similar. I'm not 100% certain but I think but I think the 80 (c. 1995) predates the 75 (c. 1998).