HOW COME NO CANON OR HASSELBLAD ENLARGING LENSES?

[chip j]

zEISS NEVER MADE A MODERN ONE, EITHER.

 

[AgX]

Hasselblad never made any lenses.

 

[AgX]

Canon enlarging lens:

http://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=sp&c2=e50mm35

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/threads/canon-enlarger-lens.11239/

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Zeiss never made an enlarging lens? I have one word for you- Orthoplanar. Not exactly for consumers though.

 

[AgX]

Well, I googled up and down, looked into my books and I did not find even a hint at a Zeiss enlarging lens, aside an ancient 160mm Tessar at an ancient wooden-box enlarger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As noted Hasselblad does not make lenses, they use mostly Zeiss lenses and a few Rodenstock lenses. Rodenstock does make enlarging lenses.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

And how many film cameras Rodenstock made after Canon and Hasselblad started to make theirs?

 

[miha]

So who was making cameras for Canon and Hasselblad before they started to make them by themselvers?

 

[AgX]

In a way Leitz and Bentzin...

 

[miha]

Only in the spiritual sense, If I may...

 

[chip j]

Zeiss never made an enlarging lens? I have one word for you- Orthoplanar. Not exactly for consumers though.

Yes, Patrick, but that is, I believe, an old lens. How IS it, BTW? I shudder at the thought of a 'Blad negative being enlarged thru a Rodenstock--I have a few of 'em, incl. an APO. Only way to go would be a 100mm Focotar 2.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

A better question would be, why would they need to? If for any other reason than being able to say "I use a brand X enlarging lens". Can you really imagine that they would do better than Rodenstock or Schneider? Or even Nikon for that matter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And how many film cameras Rodenstock made after Canon and Hasselblad started to make theirs?

To my knowledge Rodenstock never made cameras, only lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

And how many film cameras Rodenstock made after Canon and Hasselblad started to make theirs?

Rodenstock only ever sold re-branded cameras, I have a 9x12 it's actually a Welta.

Be aware the questions are dubious . . . . . . .

Ian

 

[MattKing]

The "name" on an enlarging lens is a question of marketing.
What good reason would there have been for Canon or Hasselblad to enter the market for enlarging lenses?

 

[bdial]

Hasselblad did make a mount that would let you mount a taking lens on other stuff, like enlargers. I don't think it was common practice however.

Happily, Hasselblad negatives enlarge just fine using other maker's enlarging lenses.

 

[AgX]

A M39 adapter?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

So who was making cameras for Canon and Hasselblad before they started to make them by themselvers?

Ahh, what—??
So who were they? I find nothing in Canon's long and fascinating history starting from 1933...

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Minolta and Leica both made enlarging lenses. Leica made enlargers, too and Minolta made a colorhead for Beseler enlargers.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

As noted Hasselblad does not make lenses, they use mostly Zeiss lenses and a few Rodenstock lenses. Rodenstock does make enlarging lenses.

And don't forget the one and only zoom lens for the V-series Hasselblads, the 140-280 Variogon, by Schneider. The Rodenstocks were made specifically for the Arcbody/Flexbody cameras.

 

[chip j]

Minolta made enlargers, too--I have a MOD 3. I also have the Rokkor-X 50mm enlarging lens.

 

[Jayd]

European market Kodak Retinas often had Rodenstock lens, I have a couple of them, and while the price is usually substantially higher for a Retina with Rodenstock here in the USA I don't think they are any better than the Schneider lenses.
Kodak Jay

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Yes, Patrick, but that is, I believe, an old lens. How IS it, BTW? I shudder at the thought of a 'Blad negative being enlarged thru a Rodenstock--I have a few of 'em, incl. an APO. Only way to go would be a 100mm Focotar 2.

I think they made them in the 80s maybe? IDK. I would have to look at the serial numbers. In truth it is a great lens. Just from my personal experience with it for a couple decades now, it is about as good as you can get, but I have never used the APO El Nikkor, so it would be hard to make a comparison. It is technically a better lens than any common enlarging lenses. Does it really matter? Not sure. Probably only when it does. I've used a bunch of lenses over the years and still have a few in the range of the Orthoplanar. Two Computar ELs (50/65), Fujinon EX, Durst Neonon (Pentax apparently) and I think some others. If I was going to make a huge print, I would use the Zeiss. Otherwise, the others work just fine. The Zeiss is a special lens though. I have the 60. You would need the 105 if you wanted to enlarge a Hassy neg. Good luck finding one these days. They are ridiculously expensive. I guess macro people love them which drove the price way up. They are unforgiving too. The first thing I did after I mounted the Orthoplanar years ago was buy a laser alignment tool! No way around it. None of that mushy grain Nikkor stuff! kidding I honestly don't think I've used mine in a few years.

There are lenses though that swing above their reputation. I hesitate to mention a couple because I think I want to get another copy of them. People think that Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider are the best, but my experience with all of them and many others doesn't really jive with that. They are just the most popular lenses. Doesn't make them the best. Nitpicking though. Any lens is good enough in the end if your photos are good enough. Sharply printed crappy photos are still crap! I've got lots of those. I've seen a lot of crappily printed photos in museums too, so there is that.

 

[lantau]

To my knowledge Rodenstock never made cameras, only lenses.

I have a 6x12 folder from the 1920s, which I believe is a Rodenstock. Never used it, needs some cleaning first.

 

[Ian Grant]

European market Kodak Retinas often had Rodenstock lens, I have a couple of them, and while the price is usually substantially higher for a Retina with Rodenstock here in the USA I don't think they are any better than the Schneider lenses.
Kodak Jay

All the Retina's were made in Europe at the former Nagel factory after Kodak bought the company. Nagel himself had founded Contessa which had become part of Xeiss Ikon, when he left to form his new company (under his own name) he had to source lenses from Schneider which was a much smaller company than Zeiss, Later under Kodak Ltd (UK) the Nagel factory began using some Zeiss lenses and also Rodenstock.

Ian