Enlarging Lens for 6X7

[CPorter]

I had some discussion last night in the chat room about the best enlarging lens for the 6x7 negative, but I thought it worthy of more discussion, since I am now new to the MF enlarging, the more info I have the better. Those that I spoke to last night may remember my problem (maybe it's not a problem), but I will reiterate it below.

I am somewhat confused after visiting the the B&H site when looking at enlarging lenses. Some say the 80 mm is ideal for 6x7 and others say it is ideal for 6x6. Some advertise the 90mm is ideal for 6x7 as well as the 100mm or 105mm. I have a 80mm componon, but this does not seem to be strong enough. Meaning, when enlarging the image to the 8x10 size, I am unable to get it focused with the bellows of my Omega B8 fully extended (contains a V54 Aristo lamp). I must enlarge the image more just to be able to gain focus. By doing so, I am losing some of the negative; this does not seem right. I am thinking that I should be able to enlarge to 8x10 without losing any area of the negative. I would appreciate any comments.

Chuck

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Don't know this enlarger, but have you been using it for 35 mm with a recessed lens panel? Is it possible to remove this panel and fit it the other way round, making it a domed panel? If not, check what other lens panels are available.
I choose a 105 mm lens to enlarge 6x7, this or 90 mm would be ideal, but I would expect an 80 mm Componon to work, too.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

purely from a focal length point of view, I would go for a 105 ish, as you will have plenty of coverage (not always teh case with an 80 on 6x7) and same price as 80mm.

 

[Robert Brummitt]

I use a 105.

 

[genef]

I also use a 105. I can easily get 16X24 enlargements on the baseboard and 240X24 using a dropped bed.

Regards,

Gene

 

[Nick Zentena]

Nikon claims it's 80mm covers 6x7. Scheinder claims 6x6. Rodenstock I think claims 6x7. Like LF lens some of it is design. Some of it might be the lenses being limited by the manufacturer to have a smaller coverage.

I agree you're problem doesn't sound like a lens problem but an enlarger setup problem.

How much of an enlargement you can get from a lens depends on enlarger. I'm thinking of a wide angle lens for 6x4.5 use. 80mm limits me to just above 11x14.

 

[jd callow]

I use a 105mm el Nikkor. I tried an 80mm el Nikkor and it diddn't cover evenly. I am about to switch to Rodenstock lenses, but assume the coverage will be similar.

 

[Thilo Schmid]

Chuck,

the 80mm Componon does not cover 6x7, so your observation should be normal. I don't know your enlarger, however, it makes me wonder that it does not have enough bellows for 80mm@1:3.5.

A 90mm is usually the best choice for 6x7. A 100mm or 105mm is a good choice for a bigger enlarger. I would not recommend longer lenses, because part of their performance is wasted in this case.

IMO, the Computar 4.5/90 has the best price/performance ratio in this class. The Apo-Rodagon 4/90 isn't really better, but usually much more expensive. Although their original prices (both are discontinued for a while) have not been very different - AFAIK.

 

[John Koehrer]

90-105 are all OK for 6x7. With the longer FL usually performing moderately better since you're using the central portion of the lens. The rule of thumb I've used in the past was Enarger FL=to camera FL for normal lens. So, 90mm(~normal for 6x7)=90mm for enlarger.
However, it sounds like you have run out of bellows on the enlarger.
Although you mention the cold light, Is there a condenser in there? That could screw every thing up.

 

[CPorter]

Chuck,

the 80mm Componon does not cover 6x7, so your observation should be normal. I don't know your enlarger, however, it makes me wonder that it does not have enough bellows for 80mm@1:3.5.

Wow, a lot of good info from apugers:

Thilo,

I think that you are exactly right, my enlarger simply does not have enough bellows for that particular lens (Componon 80mm 5.6). In case you are curious, you can go to www.khbphotographix.com, click the discontinued enlargers link and find the Omega B8. I really like the enlarger I bought it already fitted with the Aristo v54 cold light lamp.

I was going through a 2001 Peterson's Photographic magazine and found a statement that says, and I paraphrase: since the proportions of the 6x7cm (actual size is 5.6cm x 6.95cm) negative format and 8 x 10 inch enalrgement are virtually the same, there should be no cropping of the negative to achieve an enlarged 8x10 inch print; however, it did not touch on which enlarger lens is required to accomplish that. So, in my case with the 80mm Componon, I was having to enlarge bigger than 8x10 to have enough bellows to acquire a focused 8x 10 image, thus I was losing some area of the negative. I hope I've made sense there!

Regarding the Computar, who makes that lens? I'm not sure that I recall seeing it listed on B&H's site, but I will double check.

Thanks again for the info.

Chuck

 

[John Koehrer]

I believe, but am not positive, the Computars have been discontinued or not imported for a number of years.

 

[CPorter]

Although you mention the cold light, Is there a condenser in there? That could screw every thing up.

Shaggy,

That rule of thumb makes sense. I think I will get a 90mm lens. To answer your question, no, the condensors must be removed when installing a cold light lamp. Thanks for the info.

Chuck

 

[Nick Zentena]

Before you spend any extra money.

Is the centre of the image in focus? Or can't you get any part of the 8x10 in focus?

If you don't have the bellows for an 80mm you won't have any more luck with a 90mm.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Chuck
If money is no problem , the best lens for this IMHO is the Apo Rodagon 90-4.5, I love this lens.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I say, go for a 100 Componon S or Rodagon 105. Cheap as Chips! In relation to the APO thing and another thread on APO lenses where the subject was discussed, I have now placed what Barry Thorntons findings were (I will point out that I am not suggesting that this is gospel only that he tended to be a thorough and objective person who placed great emphasis on 'real world results'). Testing three 80mm lenses; a brand new APO Rodagon, a Neonon and a Meogon, he printed three 18" prints (he was unaware of which lens was usd for which enlargement to ensure he could not cheat). He then showed the prints to others to decide which was sharpest. The verdict was that they were all so close to identical that nobody could chose a winner. He also commented (which I find a bit strange) that only at its best aperture (one stop down) was the APO Rodagon as good as the other two (which he knew were good lenses and were ones in his regular arsenal). At other apertures it was markedly worse. I mention this not because I am trying to scupper Bob's preference, merely becasue I read it yesterday whilst flicking thru the book once again and thought it might help someone decide if unsure of what to pay.

 

[CPorter]

Before you spend any extra money.

Is the centre of the image in focus? Or can't you get any part of the 8x10 in focus?

If you don't have the bellows for an 80mm you won't have any more luck with a 90mm.

Nick,

I will check the focus at the center, but can you elaborate on that statement? Thanks

CP

 

[Loose Gravel]

Tom, I'm no expert on reading MTF data, but from the charts of lenses, I think you (and BT) are right. Seems to me that APOs are intended for higher magnification than what might be typical for large or even medium formats. Maybe at higher mags, you'd notice the APOs. This would make sense for the use of them at one stop down.

I make 8x10s and 11x14s mostly and under the grain focusser the negs look sharp. The prints do too. In my system, it seems I'm stopped down 3 - 4 stops most of the time. I'm using symmetric Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider enlarging non-APO lenses and don't notice any difference in quality. I have printed the same neg with all three flavors and haven't been able to tell them apart.

There is so much photo legend about APOs that it would be fun to try one, but for now I think I can have more fun with something else.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Even if your lens doesn't cover 6x7 it should be able to get the 6x6 portion of the negative focussed fine. Unless the lens itself is damaged. If you've got soft corners on the long part of the negative then that would be the lens not covering the format. OTOH if you can't get any part of the negative to focus then it might not be the lens.

 

[kiku]

To Chuck1:
Hi Chuck, I have 4 El Nikkor lenses which I use as follows:

50mm for 35mm format
80mm for 6x6 format
105mm for 6x7 and 6x9 formats
150mm for 4x5 format

I believe 80mm to be too short for 6x7.
Kiku

 

[Woolliscroft]

I used to have a Rodenstock 105mm for 6 x 7, but now have a lens I have never seen anyone else using. It is a Taylor-Hobson, f4.5, 108mm Ental and will cover up to 6 x 9 (I also have an 80mm version for 6 x 6). It has been a revelation: incredibly sharp and contrasty. It beats my old lens and the Schneider 105 my last University used. I have no idea how old it is (does anyone know anything about the things?). It was made in Britain and we don't really have much of an optical industry any more so it is probably as old as me, but it is good. Regarding your focus problem, it came with an extension cone which goes between it and the lens board and which solves that one perfectly.

David

 

[dancqu]

I've two B8s. Anybody care to have one?
The one now in use has the 2 1/2 inch lens cone.
I'm using a very nice metal 105 5.6 Nikor with 6x4.5,
6x6, and 6x7. I can print any of those formats, with
that cone and lens, from 3x5 to 11x14, maybe a
little more. Shop Ebay. Dan

 

[CPorter]

I've two B8s. Anybody care to have one?
The one now in use has the 2 1/2 inch lens cone.
I'm using a very nice metal 105 5.6 Nikor with 6x4.5,
6x6, and 6x7. I can print any of those formats, with
that cone and lens, from 3x5 to 11x14, maybe a
little more. Shop Ebay. Dan

Dan,

Can you tell me how I can get a 2.5 inch lens cone? I have never seen one.
Thanks
Chuck

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Quite a few here, Chuck:
http://www.goodwinphotoinc.com/lens_boards_cones/lens_boards_cones.html
including a 1 3/4" board which could well fill the bill.

Regards,

David

PS: Out of idle curiosity, I dug out a formula which I haven't used since college:

u = f(1 + 1 /m)

u = object distance (lens to neg in an enlarger), f = focal length, m = magnification.
Assuming for ease of calculation that 6 cm of negative is enlarged to 20 cm of print, the magnification will be 3.33. In practical terms, this means you will need a total extension (bellows + lens cone) of 1.3 times the focal length to make an 8x10" from a 6x7 cm neg. This is 13.65 cm for a 10.5 cm lens, 10.4 cm for an 8 cm lens (which, as others have said, will be borderline on coverage).

 

[dancqu]

I've got a bunch of stuff for the B8, even two of them,
both in very good condition, all from eBay. Shop eBay for,
omega b8 , and for, omega cone , and any other key
words which will locate.

Also, via Google locate, classic enlargers . Omega is a
specialty. Dan

 

[Thilo Schmid]

Regarding the Computar, who makes that lens? I'm not sure that I recall seeing it listed on B&H's site, but I will double check

Chuck,
as I already wrote, the Apo-Rodagon 4/90 and the Computar dL 4.5/90 are both discontinued. However, you can find them regularly on ebay and other second hand marketplaces. The Computar lenses were designed and sold by the US-Company of the same name. They have been manufactured by Kowa. The same lenses have also been sold under the Kowa label. These are more rare, but often even less expensive, because not everybody knows that they are identical to the renowned Computar (although they actually look the same). The Computar dL lenses have a typical design with large f-stop labels and an excellent mechanical quality that is immediately noticeable.