Hasselblad lens for enlarging?

[eli griggs]

I loved the Special Services Center on Ft. Lewis, though I never owned a Hasselblad until a couple of years after my extended enlistment was over.

The only taking lens I've ever used, a Leica Clone, Industar 22 or 50 collapsible, was on my Valloy II, and I liked the lens it came with much better, as the aperture lever is on the face of those lenses.


The nice thing about photography and access to different kit is, if you've got the chance and curiosity, there are all kinds of things to try.

Another avenue might be using a, for example, is a or, the, Canon FD Macro 50mm, which many more folks will have, as well as their 100 macro offering of past years.

I should mention, that I have lens-boards in 25mm, 39mm and 42mm, and I have yet to try a m42 lens on any enlarger, so that might be another project, using a Pentax lens just for the fun of it.

Cheers.

 

[DonW]

I keep hearing that you can't use taking lenses as an enlarger lens or enlarger lenses as taking lenses. I think 99.9% of the people parroting this information have never tried it themselves or done any testing. Mathematically maybe it doesn't look like they should be good but I have done both and had no issues. Some of my best night images on 4x5 using a Speed Graphic were done with a Nikkor 135mm EL lens. Tack sharp, great contrast but some flare due to no coating. I was actually wanting the flare so was happy with that. I used a Schneider 150mm EL lens for daytime landscapes with outstanding results in every respect. And it's not as if my standards are low either. Ya I knew you'd be thinking that lol.

So what I am saying is if you want to have some fun give it a try. What have you got to loose.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use enlarging lenses to take pictures but wouldn't use camera lenses for enlarging. I see no advantages in doing so.

One proposed advantage is that it would reverse the vignetting effect.

 

[138S]

One proposed advantage is that it would reverse the vignetting effect.

And distortion... which otherwise it would be hard to correct in the darkroom as enlarging lenses are all very low in distortion.

My understamding is that if the taking lens had barrel distortion, then when used in the enlarging it will work reversed showing the pincushion that cancels the barrel from the taking.

 

[BMbikerider]

Two situations/conditions about using camera lenses for enlarging. Used normally I.E. with the lens towards the film plane in an enlarger the corrections for a camera lens will not bring out the best and almost certainly not as good as a enlarging lens like a Rodagon 80mm apo. You can get around this by fitting a reversing ring which allows you to close focus with significantly less quality loss. This also gets around the fitting to the enlarging by the reversing ring being equipped with a 39mm thread.

Then there is a very large BUT!

Camera lenses are designed to be on the end of a camera body but when it is attached to an enlarger, but the heat produced by the bulb could be enough to create distortion and possible cause cemented elements to seperate.
Leitz did have lenses for enlarging which were very similar to camera lenses but they were not exactly the same design the same design and were fully corrected for close focus work as in an enlarger. The humble 50mm Elmar was not too bad, but still not as good as a proper enlarging lens.

It is not often mentioned but enlarging lenses can be used to great effect as Macro lenses when mounted on a set of bellows. I use my 80mm Rodagon apo in such a way. Of course you loose some of the functions such as AF and matrix metering, but as mine is used on a Nikon F2a that is not a problem.

 

[138S]

not as good as a enlarging lens like a Rodagon 80mm

Of course, enlarging lenses do an excellent specialized job, other things may also work, more or less...

It is not often mentioned but enlarging lenses can be used to great effect as Macro lenses when mounted on a set of bellows.

IIRC some LF macro lens is just an enlarger lens reversed, with a different stamp and in shutter...

Anyway when we are considering to use a non macro lens for macro we may want to check bokeh. In macro (if not a flat thing) we usually have a background and part of the subject in the Out Of Focus, so we may want an smooth (or not) bokeh. Background depiction may not be a problem beacuse it can be too blurred to show the bokeh nature, and also we may place a blank sheet for the background... but the focus roll-off in the subject can be interesting, there are many nuances in that.

 

[BMbikerider]

Of course, enlarging lenses do an excellent specialized job, other things may also work, more or less...




IIRC some LF macro lens is just an enlarger lens reversed, with a different stamp and in shutter...

Anyway when we are considering to use a non macro lens for macro we may want to check bokeh. In macro (if not a flat thing) we usually have a background and part of the subject in the Out Of Focus, so we may want an smooth (or not) bokeh. Background depiction may not be a problem beacuse it can be too blurred to show the bokeh nature, and also we may place a blank sheet for the background... but the focus roll-off in the subject can be interesting, there are many nuances in that.

I cannot see the point of reversing an L/F enlarger lens to use as a macro lens, an enlarger lens would make a very good macro lens anyway the right way around

 

[BMbikerider]

One proposed advantage is that it would reverse the vignetting effect.

How? I have never anything so daft!

 

[Donald Qualls]

How? I have never anything so daft!

Vignetting on the negative is caused by light fall-off near the corners of the frame. The same fall-off (due to lens limitations, not to distance variation as with a very wide pinhole camera) will lighten the print, opposite of the effect of printing the lighter (due to less exposure) corners of the vignetted negative.

The correction won't be perfect (because the lens is further from the film in the enlarger due to focusing much closer), but there is some tendency to at least limit the "dark corners" effect when the same lens is used to enlarge as to expose the negative.

 

[138S]

I cannot see the point of reversing an L/F enlarger lens to use as a macro lens,

For example to cover 8x10" negatives with a 150mm lens, at 1:3, this is projection on film being triple size than the real object, that could be an ancient document, art or an scientific/technical flat issue.

I cannot see the point of reversing an L/F enlarger lens to use as a macro lens, an enlarger lens would make a very good macro lens anyway the right way around

Depending on the magnification, the lens has to be reversed for optimal yield.

A lens working well for (say) 1:4 to 1:10 will also work well from 4:1 to 10:1 when reversed, but it would not work well from 4:1 to 1:4

But for 4:1 you may use a shorter focal than would be used to enlarge that format. For example at 4:1 (or 5:1) the Nikon EL 50mm covers 8x10", in that case you reverse the lens... to take advantage of the lens optimizations that allow to work well at x4 enlarging work, (a shot at 4:1 macro expands 1 mm on the subject to 4mm on the film...)

For 1:2 or 2:1 we may use lenses that are optimal in that range, like the older Rodagon R (reproduction) and the newer Rodagon D (duplication). Of the D even we have the x1 and the x2 models... The x2 should to be reversed depending on the magnification. Those lenses are very bad for other ranges like x6 enlargement, but they are very superior when approaching 1:1 compared to regular enlarger lenses.

 

[138S]

Vignetting on the negative is caused by light fall-off near the corners of the frame. The same fall-off (due to lens limitations, not to distance variation as with a very wide pinhole camera) will lighten the print, opposite of the effect of printing the lighter (due to less exposure) corners of the vignetted negative.

The correction won't be perfect (because the lens is further from the film in the enlarger due to focusing much closer), but there is some tendency to at least limit the "dark corners" effect when the same lens is used to enlarge as to expose the negative.

Yes... the fall-off in the enlarger lens corrects (it can ever over-correct) the fall-off in the taking. The way is using a relatively short focal for the format, like the Rodagon WA 60mm for 6x6. The "correction" in the corners happens more wide open and with large prints, as we give bellows to focus an small ront the image circle (in the film plane) grows and we take only the center that has little fall-off, of course as we stop the lens fall-off decreases.

Still we have other ways to address fall-off in the taking, if we want to remove it. Most obvious is burning the corners, but for an smarter job we may place a mask (inkjet printed transparency, well OOF) in the illumination path with a diffuser under, or some enlargers may allow to move the bulb.

 

[BMbikerider]

For example to cover 8x10" negatives with a 150mm lens, at 1:3, this is projection on film being triple size than the real object, that could be an ancient document, art or an scientific/technical flat issue.




Depending on the magnification, the lens has to be reversed for optimal yield.

A lens working well for (say) 1:4 to 1:10 will also work well from 4:1 to 10:1 when reversed, but it would not work well from 4:1 to 1:4

But for 4:1 you may use a shorter focal than would be used to enlarge that format. For example at 4:1 (or 5:1) the Nikon EL 50mm covers 8x10", in that case you reverse the lens... to take advantage of the lens optimizations that allow to work well at x4 enlarging work, (a shot at 4:1 macro expands 1 mm on the subject to 4mm on the film...)

For 1:2 or 2:1 we may use lenses that are optimal in that range, like the older Rodagon R (reproduction) and the newer Rodagon D (duplication). Of the D even we have the x1 and the x2 models... The x2 should to be reversed depending on the magnification. Those lenses are very bad for other ranges like x6 enlargement, but they are very superior when approaching 1:1 compared to regular enlarger lenses.

Absolute nonsense! An enlarger lens is already set up for working at close distances. Reversing it will only make it less effective. Pretty much the same as using a normal camera lens for Macro work without reversing it. (Walks away shaking my head|)

 

[138S]

Absolute nonsense! An enlarger lens is already set up for working at close distances. Reversing it will only make it less effective.

"Reversed enlarger lenses are one of the mainstays of extreme macro photography"

Please see this: http://extreme-macro.co.uk/reversed-enlarger-lenses/

 

[MattKing]

Absolute nonsense! An enlarger lens is already set up for working at close distances. Reversing it will only make it less effective. Pretty much the same as using a normal camera lens for Macro work without reversing it. (Walks away shaking my head|)

I believe the vignetting comments were in respect to camera lenses used on enlargers, not to enlarging lenses themselves.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Kodak 100mm f3.5 5-element Ektar for the Kodak Medalist camera is said to be a more than capable enlarging lens. I have one mounted in a SuperMatic shutter, but have never tried it for enlarging. I can't see where it would be any better than the 100mm Vivitar VHE or my Rodenstock enlarging lenses that I already have. Maybe when I get my darkroom set back up after our move I might try it, but don't hold your breath. I can't imagine taking my Hasselblad lenses and trying to stick them on a lens board for my Omega D6 enlarger. JohnW

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is now way I would risk damaging my Hasselblad lenses to put them on an enlarger.

 

[Ai Print]

Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[removedacct1]

Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Exactly.

 

[MattKing]

If someone loves their Hasselblad lens, this gives them the chance to spend more time with it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

If someone loves their Hasselblad lens, this gives them the chance to spend more time with it.

Good one Matt! Nothing like spending quality time with a quality lens. I could see maybe buying an adapter and using your Hasselblad lens on one of those newfangled filmless cameras, but not on an enlarger. Actually I've seriously been thinking of buying one of those adapters to try my Pentax 67 lenses on my newfangled filmless camera. JohnW

 

[ic-racer]

Apparently,Hasselblad "V" s\Series lenses can be used as enlarging lenses.

Seems oddball. Do you have a picture or link?
Do you mean an enlarging lens with a V-series mount (like picture) or a hypothetical V-series lens with a Leica Screw Mount to fit an enlarger?

 

[Nokton48]

Apparently,Hasselblad "V" s\Series lenses can be used as enlarging lenses.
Has anyone here done this and if so, what were your likes or dislikes about the matter? Eli

Hi Eli,

I think I have the item being discussed, the "Hasselblad C Lens Holder 40177" Need to try it out some day....

Hasselblad C Lens Holder 40177 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr