Focotar enlarging lenses.

[Martin Rickards]

wides concentrate their optimization in being wides...

although the differences in 6x4,5 from 60 wa and 80 from rodenstock exist, the 60mm is a fine lens...

But using it for only 35mm and only the 60% of the image circle?

 

[ruilourosa]

wa lenses for medium format used with 35mm seems a strange thing to do... you just get a smaller image than with a 50mm and a somewhat poorer lens because of it´s wideness... at least in theory...

buy a 50 2.8 from nikkor they are really good and really cheap, better, buy 2 and give one to a friend!

no apo lens will make you a better printer beyond a 6 element lens... more... the lens you have in your camera plays a superlative roll... and your photographic technique, and your enlarger alignment, and your focus, and the used f:/ stop...

miths abund regarding these things... test for yourself (enlarging...)

 

[MattKing]

I use a 60mm Focotar lens for 35mm on my Omega D6 4x5 because it requires less bellows compression than 50mm lenses, and that makes the enlarger easier to use.
The extended column helps make this practical.

 

[Martin Rickards]

wa lenses for medium format used with 35mm seems a strange thing to do... you just get a smaller image than with a 50mm and a somewhat poorer lens because of it´s wideness... at least in theory...

buy a 50 2.8 from nikkor they are really good and really cheap, better, buy 2 and give one to a friend!

no apo lens will make you a better printer beyond a 6 element lens... more... the lens you have in your camera plays a superlative roll... and your photographic technique, and your enlarger alignment, and your focus, and the used f:/ stop...

miths abund regarding these things... test for yourself (enlarging...)

I use a Minolta 50 mm f2.8 which enlarges much better than I can

 

[ruilourosa]

I use a 60mm Focotar lens for 35mm on my Omega D6 4x5 because it requires less bellows compression than 50mm lenses, and that makes the enlarger easier to use.
The extended column helps make this practical.

recessed lens board??

i do not know about omega, but durst had them...

cheers!!

 

[MattKing]

recessed lens board??

i do not know about omega, but durst had them...

cheers!!

Thanks for the suggestion.
Omega D5 and D6 enlargers use a system where the lens mount assembly slides into position from the front, rather than being attached from below.
A recessed lens plate (rather than a board) would block the assembly from sliding all the way in.
In addition, I have my lenses mounted on 3 lens turrets, which themselves slide into place. A recessed lens plate would stop the turret from turning.
For clarity, I can use a 50mm lens where i need to. The bellows compression just makes it a bit harder to achieve and maintain focus.

 

[AgX]

If necessary one could make a bored board that slides into the lens stage and then takes a recessed tube fitted from below.

 

[MattKing]

It is a lot easier to use a 60mm lens!

 

[ruilourosa]

i have a 60mm rodagon and a 63mm nikkor... they are not wa, they are very good longuish lenses for 35mm...

i have no knowledge of american enlargers... just european and japanese... one day i will have to buy one... just to see how they work... i find the variable condenser from some brands quite appealing!!

Thanks!

Rui Lourosa

 

[chip j]

Is the Focotar 2 multicoated?

 

[ruilourosa]

yes

 

[BMbikerider]

The only Focotar I have ever used was when I owned a Leitz V35 enlarger (the last of the bunch) and as far as I was concerned it was as good as any other enlarging lens I have ever used. Even the 50/2.8 Apo Rodagon, I use with my LPL7700 and that is no slouch either.

I think we are splitting hairs here and the 'in depth' discussion is getting away from the main subject which was (to remind people) did Leitz make the Focotar lenses. I think the answer to that is that we simply don't know and I cannot imagine Leitz ever saying anything one way or another.

 

[AgX]

Why should Leitz, who designed and made so many lenses themselves should source out just such enlarging lenses?
Moreover the Focotars I got in mind look diffeent from Schneider lenses.

 

[AgX]

Is the Focotar 2 multicoated?

Are you sure you would see the difference in a print against a 1-layer let alone a 2- or 3-layer coating?

In this context one also has to differ between taking and enlarging lenses!

 

[Hilo]

Why should Leitz, who designed and made so many lenses themselves should source out just such enlarging lenses?
Moreover the Focotars I got in mind look diffeent from Schneider lenses.

AgX has a point.

For thirty years I have had a dear friend Leitz repair man, who was trained with Leitz when he was plus minus 20 years old. Sadly he passed away last year. He worked for decades repairing everything Leitz and he kept going to Leitz for training during this time. I have always asked Leitz enlarger questions to him, and I have brought many Focomats to him for servicing. I still use them and they're all perfect.

I gave him all my lenses to check and clean if needed: For the Ic the Focotar 50/4.5 (written on the front ring that sits around the glass); the Focotar 50/4.5 (written on the side of the barrel) and the Focotar-2 50/4.5 (written on the side of the barrel). The second Focotar I mention he told me was made by Schneider for Leitz. He pointed out the differences in serial numbers: the second version's serial number is totally different from the first and third I mention. He called it a "Schneider serial number". This version has the larger front glass, but the same 4.5 aperture.
I also brought him Focomat IIc lenses: the Elmar 100/4.5, the Focotar-2 100/5.6 and the Focotar 60/4.5. These have the Leitz serial numbers and were made in the Leitz factory.

When I told him some people think all the Focotars were made by Schneider, he laughed and just said: "that means I must have been dreaming each time I was in the factory talking to the people who were making them right there and then".

 

[chip j]

Yes, the second Focotar (big element0 has a very typical Schneider serial # engraved on the tip of the rear element, a place where Leitz never engraved THEIR serial #s. The first Focotar wasn't very good past about 5 x 7, so Leitz turned to Schneider. The Schneider is very sharp clear across the field wide-open, something the Leitz lenses didn't macth.

 

[AgX]

Thank you both. But stillI I find this surprising for a rather simple lens.
In general taking over products from a competitor or even having a product custom manufactured by him is not unusual. Reason may be the technique is beyound the own scope technically or economically (see Leitz' cooperation with Minolta) or one just has not got any production capacity left but a feasible market (Agfa having S-8 cameras made in Japan in the 70s)

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thank you both. But stillI I find this surprising for a rather simple lens.
In general taking over products from a competitor or even having a product custom manufactured by him is not unusual. Reason may be the technique is beyound the own scope technically or economically (see Leitz' cooperation with Minolta) or one just has not got any production capacity left but a feasible market (Agfa having S-8 cameras made in Japan in the 70s)

I think the demand level was probably what mattered - as I understand it Schneider could produce small batches of lenses without a lengthy pre-order period - which in an era before more automated just-in-time manufacturing was probably a key aspect in what was probably a gently declining marketplace for the Focomat models. Further to this, I wonder to what extent Leitz made large batches of key optical/ mechanical components in one go & when they ran out of parts to assemble after a number of years (the long tail of the market for the Focomat IC design?), switched to a deal with Schneider that better suited the demand levels of the later years of the IC?

I also brought him Focomat IIc lenses: the Elmar 100/4.5, the Focotar-2 100/5.6 and the Focotar 60/4.5.

The only one of those that I've heard of in the context of a Schneider connection was the Focotar-2 100mm, though it's never been clear to what if any extent that went to - I wonder whether people assumed it must be a badge engineered Componon because of identical aperture & focal length. Or perhaps Schneider supplied optical subassemblies/ components & Leitz assembled them, which given the Portugal plant & the relationship with Minolta on a not dissimilar basis in the same time period would not be altogether surprising.

Changing topic slightly, what's the 100mm V-Elmar's performance like?

 

[BMbikerider]

Leica have history with using Schneider lenses. Didn't they use a Schneider shift lens in a Leicaflex mount. If they used one or two Minolta designs it stands to reason the could well have approached Schneider to make a Focotar.

One thing I did hear about Focotar enlarging lenses they were prone to fungus. How true this is I have no idea but mine certainly didn't have any when I sold it.

 

[chip j]

I had a 21mm Super Angulon for my M4.

 

[AgX]

Leitz not only was in business with consumer photography, but also did a lot in the world of commercial optics, typically very specialized small batch items.
So they were used to deal with small batches of any kind.

 

[AgX]

Leica have history with using Schneider lenses. Didn't they use a Schneider shift lens in a Leicaflex mount.

This was a lens offered by Schneider on their own behalf to anyone. And Schneider offered this lens in at least 9 different mounts.
In addition there were Leica and Rollei mounts which had to be bought by these two firms. In case the mount was still protected, these two likely wanted to take part in the business. Thus I assume Rollei and Leica offered not just the mount, but instead the complete lens.

But this lens was for sure not ordered by Leitz as custom toll-manufactured product.

 

[ruilourosa]

Meopta made lenses for Schneider componars... i think!

 

[Martin Rickards]

Meopta made lenses for Schneider componars... i think!

And Pentax made Durst enlarging lens, or so I have heard.

 

[Hilo]

I think the demand level was probably what mattered - as I understand it Schneider could produce small batches of lenses without a lengthy pre-order period - which in an era before more automated just-in-time manufacturing was probably a key aspect in what was probably a gently declining marketplace for the Focomat models. Further to this, I wonder to what extent Leitz made large batches of key optical/ mechanical components in one go & when they ran out of parts to assemble after a number of years (the long tail of the market for the Focomat IC design?), switched to a deal with Schneider that better suited the demand levels of the later years of the IC?

I think you could see it correctly here, but it will always be a guess. Leitz sold more than 60.000 first version Focotars 50mm before they turned to Schneider for the 2nd version. Perhaps Leitz was already designing the Focotar-2 then, but weren't ready yet to put it on the market. I have always felt the Schneider Focotar was an in-between action. That turned out to be very good ! Chip is right about that.


The only one of those that I've heard of in the context of a Schneider connection was the Focotar-2 100mm, though it's never been clear to what if any extent that went to - I wonder whether people assumed it must be a badge engineered Componon because of identical aperture & focal length. Or perhaps Schneider supplied optical subassemblies/ components & Leitz assembled them, which given the Portugal plant & the relationship with Minolta on a not dissimilar basis in the same time period would not be altogether surprising.

I have nothing to proof this, but I am convinced Leitz designed and produced both Focotar-2 lenses, the 50mm and the 100mm.

Changing topic slightly, what's the 100mm V-Elmar's performance like?

Lachlan, not sure if I am the right person for this, but the Elmar 100mm is a fine lens, provided it is clean inside. It has less contrast compared to the later Focotar-2 100mm, but nothing we can't fix while printing. And you can't use it wide open like the Focotar 100mm without loosing corner sharpness. So you don't and put up with longer exposure times and shutting off safe lights while exposing . . . I often use the Elmar with negatives that have a lot of contrast . . .