Does Anybody Still Do This?

[guangong]

During the very early days of 35mm photography, a common suggestion for an enlarging lens was to use the 50mm lens used on the camera. In my stash of unused stuff I have an adapter for fixing a 50mm Contax mount lens to a standard 39mm enlarger. Strictly for mounting lens to enlarger, and definitely unusable on camera. If you owned an Elmar back then, simply screwed it into enlarger. Anybody still use taking lens as enlarging lens?

 

[Don_ih]

I once screwed an Elmar onto my enlarger but I don't remember making a print. Setting the aperture would be an enormous pain. Leica says in the Focomat manual I have that the Elmar is a fine enlarging lens. But, then, why wouldn't they?

 

[ic-racer]

Many used enlargers even come with an enlarging lens these days and ebay is filled with enlarger lenses. I'd say 90 percent of 35mm camera lenses do NOT have a Leica thread (to fit easily on an enlarger lensboard. ) So, probably not a practical solution.
Interesting idea for experimentation, however. There was a recent thread about mounting 8mm movie camera lenses on enlargers.

 

[gone]

Enlarging lenses are designed differently than camera lenses, but a good lens is a good lens. I've seen photos that were made w/ camera lenses and they looked fine. You would probably need to have it stopped down a wee bit more, but my enlarging lenses are usually at f8 or f11 anyway when it comes to making the print.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 60s when I started to learn to use a darkroom, my high school teacher had a camera lens for the school enlarger, dont recall what it was. He had it reversed, saying that like copy work revsering lens the lens became a flat image lens. He had a 50mm F2 which was pretty fast, faster than most enlarger lens of the day. In college all the enlargers had a set of enlarger lens, 1/2 frame to 4X5 for our one LF enlarger.

 

[George Collier]

Enlarger lenses focus on a flat field, like high quality copy lenses and macros. Camera lenses (most of them) focus on a curved field and might have a hard time focusing on the entire print. The reason momus recommends a smaller aperture, for depth of field. The availability of good enlarger lenses makes the use of camera lenses for enlarging somewhat irrelevant, unless you just want to experiment. (IMHO).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use enlarger lenses for the enlarger. They are better designed for the enlarger as mentioned in post #6.

 

[VinceInMT]

Enlarger lenses focus on a flat field, like high quality copy lenses and macros. Camera lenses (most of them) focus on a curved field and might have a hard time focusing on the entire print. The reason momus recommends a smaller aperture, for depth of field. The availability of good enlarger lenses makes the use of camera lenses for enlarging somewhat irrelevant, unless you just want to experiment. (IMHO).

This flat field vs. curved field feature is what I thought separated those lenses in terms of usage. Back in the mid-1970s I was using a darkroom that the army provided when I was stationed in Germany. Rather than use the lenses they had, I bought an 80mm Schneider for printing work from my Rollie. There was a guy there who was always full of bravado extolling the benefits of his Hasselblad system and bought an adapter to use his camera lens on one of the enlargers. The old German who manage the lab told him about the curved vs flat issue but the guy was undeterred. However, he couldn’t ignore the corner to corner sharpness I was getting with my Schneider and his inability to do so with his setup. He never backed down and, thankfully, quit showing up.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good enlarger lenses are generally cheaper than good camera lenses, so why the fuss?

 

[drfoxmd]

During the very early days of 35mm photography, a common suggestion for an enlarging lens was to use the 50mm lens used on the camera. In my stash of unused stuff I have an adapter for fixing a 50mm Contax mount lens to a standard 39mm enlarger. Strictly for mounting lens to enlarger, and definitely unusable on camera. If you owned an Elmar back then, simply screwed it into enlarger. Anybody still use taking lens as enlarging lens?

Graflex actually made an enlarger back for the 4X5 graphic. It was a light source that replaced the film holder back. You mounted the camera on a copy stand and you had an enlarger. I used one as a young wedding photographer and had great results. Things were more simple and economical them.

 

[mshchem]

When Leica brought out the M3 in 1954, that complicated things. I think in the 30's and 40's using a Leica taking lens for enlarging was pretty common.

 

[eli griggs]

My Valloy II has the m39 mount and though I have FSU lenses in that mount, I've never felt the need to try any of them on that enlarger.

As for Hasselblad lenses, it might be possible to use a reverse lens adapter for a Bay 50 or 60 lens to m39 enlarger mount, for better results.

After all, most enlargers (the Valloy II uses a helico focusing scheme) are basically a magnifying bellows or bellows camera, no, and the flat field that one gets from mounting lenses backward to the bellows, give superior flat field on film results.

Or am I wrong about this?

Godspeed to All

 

[otto.f]

I used a Focotar enlarging lens from the Leica V35 for macro photography, on bellows. Beautiful!

 

[tokam]

Good enlarger lenses are generally cheaper than good camera lenses, so why the fuss?

... and when did you last see adapters that allowed the use of bayonet fit lenses from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta et al on an enlarger. The OP obviously had a very quiet day. I guess it's the encroaching northern hemisphere winter - cabin fever.

 

[Hilo]

I once screwed an Elmar onto my enlarger but I don't remember making a print. Setting the aperture would be an enormous pain. Leica says in the Focomat manual I have that the Elmar is a fine enlarging lens. But, then, why wouldn't they?

It is important to understand when Leitz said this. On the back of that Focomat manual will be a date.

I had a friend who was a Leitz repairer schooled in their factories who said the same thing. He worked for the importer and told me they gave demonstrations for shops, using the Valoy II plus the front part of a Summicron, using an adapter called DMUOO. He showed me a very large print, larger than 50x60cm which was a shot taken in the factory. My guess is this was 1965 - 1970.

I did not find this print very good. It lacked overall sharpness, I found the contrast quite harsh and the grain in the corners was not okay. When we spoke about that he said: "you are correct, but you are using much later lenses (Focotar-2 50mm and 100mm). You can't compare these lenses".

I agreed with him about the lenses. And, also the paper has gone through an evolution

 

[Don_ih]

It is important to understand when Leitz said this. On the back of that Focomat manual will be a date.

I had a friend who was a Leitz repairer schooled in their factories who said the same thing. He worked for the importer and told me they gave demonstrations for shops, using the Valoy II plus the front part of a Summicron, using an adapter called DMUOO. He showed me a very large print, larger than 50x60cm which was a shot taken in the factory. My guess is this was 1965 - 1970.

I did not find this print very good. It lacked overall sharpness, I found the contrast quite harsh and the grain in the corners was not okay. When we spoke about that he said: "you are correct, but you are using much later lenses (Focotar-2 50mm and 100mm). You can't compare these lenses".

I agreed with him about the lenses. And, also the paper has gone through an evolution

I assumed every Leitz enlarger came with a 50mm enlarging lens when it was purchased. In my Focomat manual, it says the Focotar was standard equipment. But it goes on to talk about using an Elmar with the adapter.

I did, however, once see a Valoy enlarger for sale with a 50mm Elmar attached to it - not the enlarging Elmar 50 but the camera lens.

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Graflex actually made an enlarger back for the 4X5 graphic. It was a light source that replaced the film holder back. You mounted the camera on a copy stand and you had an enlarger. I used one as a young wedding photographer and had great results. Things were more simple and economical them.

I have one of these but have never used it. You've jogged my memory...