Enlarger lens coverage question

[Chadinko]

This is probably a newbie question, but I'm a bit of a newbie so it fits.

I've been printing with a Beseler 23CII for a long time, and last year decided I wanted to start using my 4x5 Speed Graphics and printing 4x5. So I sold off the 23CII and got a Beseler 45MX with an Aristo cold light head. Got a screaming deal on it, too, complete with a pile of Schneider lenses and boards.

So recently I've decided to step up to printing 11x14 instead of 8x10. Last night, I was printing some 4x5 and was frustrated by light corners on my prints. I was using a 135mm Schneider lens, on what I believe is the correct Beseler lensboard, about a 3/4-inch extension on the board for the lens to attach to.

Figuring I'd got the filter holder off-center, I moved it around and finally moved it completely out of the way, but that wasn't the issue.

When I pulled the negative carrier out and turned the light on, I discovered that the circle of light wasn't covering my 11x14 easel completely, that the corners on the right top and bottom were not being exposed as well. For the crop I wanted, I couldn't move the easel, nor could I raise the enlarger head to increase the coverage, and to my thinking it shouldn't matter as that lens/board combination should provide coverage for the whole negative on whatever crop I should select.

I finally swapped out the 135 lens for a 105 Schneider and managed to get the job done , but I've always been told that the 135 is the "right" lens for 4x5 printing.

Am I missing something here, or do I just not know how to use this enlarger? Or was the switch to the 105 the right decision?

 

[RobC]

A 135 enlarging lens is usually a wide angle lens for printing 4x5 negatives. This means the head won't need to be as high to print as it would if you were printing with a 150 lens. A 150 lens is the norm for printing 4x5 negs. A 105 lens would not normally cover a 4x5 negative.

So can you tell us from the start, what size negative were you printing?
Which specific make and model of 135 enlarging lens were you using?

 

[wiltw]

According to Ctein the 135-150mm should be fine. 150mm is closer to the actual diagonal measure of the frame. While Ctein had not tested the 135mm Schneider, in other lenses he generally found only 0.25EV of falloff.
Your evenness of illumination might be an issue of the enlarger head rather than lens. But I somewhat doubt that is the case of the Aristo source.

 

[Ian Grant]

A 135mm is a standard lens for enlarging 5x4 negatives so there should be no problem it's all I've used for 40 years (I've newer lenses now though). From memory a WA enlarger lens for 5x4 used to be sold I think around 120mm.

Ian

 

[Chadinko]

A 135 enlarging lens is usually a wide angle lens for printing 4x5 negatives. This means the head won't need to be as high to print as it would if you were printing with a 150 lens. A 150 lens is the norm for printing 4x5 negs. A 105 lens would not normally cover a 4x5 negative.

So can you tell us from the start, what size negative were you printing?
Which specific make and model of 135 enlarging lens were you using?

A wide angle? So do I need to find a 150mm lens? It's odd that I was able to get coverage then for the 4x5 neg with the 105mm lens, huh.

I was printing a 4x5 negative, in the Beseler carrier. Specific make and model of the enlarging lens? It's a Schneider 135 f/4.5 or 5.6 (I think a 5.6); I believe it's probably a Componar or a Componon but I don't have it in front of me right now, and I can't find an exact match to my apparently flawed memory on Google. It is silver rather than black -- all of the rest of my Schneider lenses are black.

According to Ctein the 135-150mm should be fine. 150mm is closer to the actual diagonal measure of the frame. While Ctein had not tested the 135mm Rodenstock, in other lenses he generally found only 0.25EV of falloff.
Your evenness of illumination might be an issue of the enlarger head rather than lens. But I somewhat doubt that is the case of the Aristo source.

This head has two sets of bellows, one above and one below the negative carrier. I'm still a little (okay, more than a little) fuzzy on why, and what the benefit of this is, but if my problem is somehow a function of my inexperience with this configuration, then I'd love to know.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I prefer a 150 mm lens for 4 x5

 

[Chadinko]

I prefer a 150 mm lens for 4 x5

Personal preference or is there a technical reason?

 

[grahamp]

It sounds like an illumination issue, not a lens issue in this case. Is the light source as close to the negative stage as it can go? It sounds like the illumination is not centered if there are dark corners with the lens off. There may be an obstruction in the light path as another possibility.

 

[wiltw]

The Beseler MX instructions state that you must fully compress the upper bellows when using diffusion sources. (The position of the negative stage relative to the condensor lenses is important with the condensor lamphouse, and the knob to adjust the upper bellows is adjusted to the negative size.) Even Beseler instructions agree that 135-150mm lens is correct for 4x5

 

[Ian Grant]

I prefer a 150 mm lens for 4 x5

When I had a bench top 5x4 there was no way a 150mm was remotely practical. Now I use a floor standing De Vere 5108 (10x8) enlarger I also use a 150mm enlarger lens but still far prefer my 135mm Componons (+S). It's a very personal choice but my 135mm Componon lens is very sharp.

Ian

 

[RobC]

I don't know how you got a 105 lens to cover a 4x5 neg to make an 14x11 print.

 

[Chadinko]

The Beseler MX instructions state that you must fully compress the upper bellows when using diffusion sources. (The position of the negative stage relative to the condensor lenses is important with the condensor lamphouse, and the knob to adjust the upper bellows is adjusted to the negative size.) Even Beseler instructions agree that 135-150mm lens is correct for 4x5

I have an Aristo D2... is that a diffusion source? I was under the impression it's more of a condenser source.

Edited: OK I'm RTFM and yes, the D2 is a diffusion head. Told you I'm a newbie. It may well be that it's the upper bellows that's the problem. I'll have to try that when I get home tonight.

 

[ic-racer]

Make sure you stop down. Curves shows 135mm (green) and 150mm (red) Schneider Componon-S enlarging lenses wide open (lower curves) and stopped down (upper curves).

 

[MattKing]

I have a friend who obtained a used Aristo cold light head on a Beseler 4x5 enlarger. The mounting kits for those heads were specific to the enlarger. My friend's enlarger came with what was most likely the wrong mounting kit, because it held the light source too far away from the negative plane to permit full 4x5 coverage.

 

[Chadinko]

ic-racer, I have no idea what that means. I mean, yes, I know it's a curve but practically I have no clue how I would use that information. I tend to print at f/16-ish or so anyway to allow myself time to dodge and burn carefully.

Matt, thanks -- this enlarger came with the head when I bought it and it's got the right mounting kit, in fact, the thing looks brand new. I'm guessing I have the upper bellows extended and the light pulled away from the negative.

 

[jeffreyg]

I can't speak for Beseler but I use a 135 with the Aristo 45VCL and previously used it with an Aristo cold light both on an Omega D2. For that set up the lens is mounted on an extension "tub". It has always worked fine from small prints to 16x20's.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I was able to use a 105mm lens to enlarge 4x5 up to 11x14... a zoom Computar, I think. But the corner grain was distorted (elongated) and I didn't like it. Also, I doubt it would have covered the full frame at greater enlargement. Too, it needed a little more corner burning than a 135mm or 150mm lens needed. A 135mm 6/4 lens of nearly any good brand usually did reasonably well though. Not until I enlarged beyond 10-15x did I feel the need to use a 150mm lens. A good 135mm lens is fine for nearly any need other than extreme enlargement, reduction, or limited enlarger head height.

 

[Rick A]

I used to have a 45MX, and your problem might be the 3/4" extension with the 135 lens, you don't need it. Your lens should be mounted on a flat board with no extension. Also, the upper bellows should be compressed completely when using these focal length lenses. I've never had any issues with light fall off in the corners with either my 135 or 150 mm lenses printing up to 20 x 24 inch prints.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This is probably a newbie question, but I'm a bit of a newbie so it fits.

I've been printing with a Beseler 23CII for a long time, and last year decided I wanted to start using my 4x5 Speed Graphics and printing 4x5. So I sold off the 23CII and got a Beseler 45MX with an Aristo cold light head. Got a screaming deal on it, too, complete with a pile of Schneider lenses and boards.

So recently I've decided to step up to printing 11x14 instead of 8x10. Last night, I was printing some 4x5 and was frustrated by light corners on my prints. I was using a 135mm Schneider lens, on what I believe is the correct Beseler lensboard, about a 3/4-inch extension on the board for the lens to attach to.

Figuring I'd got the filter holder off-center, I moved it around and finally moved it completely out of the way, but that wasn't the issue.

When I pulled the negative carrier out and turned the light on, I discovered that the circle of light wasn't covering my 11x14 easel completely, that the corners on the right top and bottom were not being exposed as well. For the crop I wanted, I couldn't move the easel, nor could I raise the enlarger head to increase the coverage, and to my thinking it shouldn't matter as that lens/board combination should provide coverage for the whole negative on whatever crop I should select.

I finally swapped out the 135 lens for a 105 Schneider and managed to get the job done , but I've always been told that the 135 is the "right" lens for 4x5 printing.

Am I missing something here, or do I just not know how to use this enlarger? Or was the switch to the 105 the right decision?

You were correct a 135mm lens should cover 4x5.I use a 150mm lens and it cover it to.the tech info that came with the lens should tell you too.

 

[Chadinko]

I used to have a 45MX, and your problem might be the 3/4" extension with the 135 lens, you don't need it. Your lens should be mounted on a flat board with no extension.

I don't? I'll have to swap boards and try it without. Hmm. But yeah, the bellows thing may well be my problem.

 

[kreeger]

To the point about coverage of light from your Aristo cold light - how your cold light should sit in the upper bellows - here's how mine is set up, which is a Zone VI but the setup is the same.
The bellows should be all the way compressed so it is as close as possible to the negative holder. Does your setup look like this? If not it should be to be setup correctly, regardless of the negative type.

 

[ic-racer]

ic-racer, I have no idea what that means. I mean, yes, I know it's a curve but practically I have no clue how I would use that information.

It shows that the 135mm lens, wide open, only has 20% of the illumination at the corners of the frame as the center. That would be over two stops less exposure from just using the lens improperly. So, if you are using f16, that is good, keep checking out the other ideas presented in the thread.

Until you get it figured out, everything is suspect. I'd not call Aristo illumination even. This is a print from my former 10x10" Aristo head with no negative, showing the hotspot in the middle.

 

[Chadinko]

To the point about coverage of light from your Aristo cold light - how your cold light should sit in the upper bellows - here's how mine is set up, which is a Zone VI but the setup is the same.
The bellows should be all the way compressed so it is as close as possible to the negative holder. Does your setup look like this? If not it should be to be setup correctly, regardless of the negative type.

When I got home tonight I checked and the upper bellows was not fully compressed. So I ran the knob all the way up, and tomorrow or Wednesday I'll be printing a little more and we'll see what happens.

 

[JW PHOTO]

A 135mm is a standard lens for enlarging 5x4 negatives so there should be no problem it's all I've used for 40 years (I've newer lenses now though). From memory a WA enlarger lens for 5x4 used to be sold I think around 120mm.

Ian

Ian,
You are right about the WA 4x5 being a 120mm. I just recently bought one. It's a Rodenstock 120mm f5.6 WA and is just an updated version of the Rodenstock Eurygon 120mm WA. I have several 135mm lenses, a 150mm Componon-S and a 180mm Componon-S. Of those I like the 135mm Omega Omicron the best. The 120mm WA Rodenstock is in a league of it's own and will be with me until I sell all my 4x5 gear. It is absolutely fantastic and the best enlarging lens purchase I have ever made and I have made a few. You've heard of lenses be described as "snappy and sharp"? Well, that it is for sure. Rodenstock did good on this one when they designed it. Still, I could easily get by with any of the 135mm lenses I have with no problem.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian,
You are right about the WA 4x5 being a 120mm. I just recently bought one. It's a Rodenstock 120mm f5.6 WA and is just an updated version of the Rodenstock Eurygon 120mm WA. I have several 135mm lenses, a 150mm Componon-S and a 180mm Componon-S. Of those I like the 135mm Omega Omicron the best. The 120mm WA Rodenstock is in a league of it's own and will be with me until I sell all my 4x5 gear. It is absolutely fantastic and the best enlarging lens purchase I have ever made and I have made a few. You've heard of lenses be described as "snappy and sharp"? Well, that it is for sure. Rodenstock did good on this one when they designed it. Still, I could easily get by with any of the 135mm lenses I have with no problem.

Thanks I was sure about there being a 120mm 5x4 WA enlarger lens. I actually prefer my 135mm Comonons to the 150mm versions for ease of use, there's no detectable difference in the resulting prints even with 20x30's. For 10x8 work I find the 300mm Symmar S unwieldy and now use a 240mm Symmar S which is actually recommended for 10x8 by Schneider, so equivalent to the 120mm Rodenstock for 5x4.

Ian

 

[mgb74]

There's a little "marker guide" on the 45 models that shows where the upper bellows should be for a given film format. It's on the right side as you face the enlarger. It's held on by 2 screws and easily removed, so you're enlarger may be missing it.

But while having the upper bellows extended might explain why you were have light falloff with the 135mm lens, it should have been worse (not better) with the 105.