Industar-100 110mm f4 enlarging lens

[TheFlyingCamera]

Anyone here have any experience with these lenses for enlarging? I saw some of them on the auction site, and I'm looking for something between my Nikkor 80mm f5.6 and my Nikkor 135mm f5.6 for enlarging my 6x12 negatives. They're quite cheap, so I may just get one anyway to give a try. I know I've been impressed with the quality of the Zenit lenses for my Lomo Belair, and my ex-Soviet Navy ship's clock I have in my hall, so I'm not afraid of Russian equipment, even if the fit and finish may seem a bit crude.

 

[Pierre Barrellon]

Hi,
I have no experience with them, but I am not sure that they have enough coverage for a 6x12. Isn't your 135mm good for this job?
Anyway, you can for sure give it a try, but IMHO your Nikkor is fine glass and proper focal length (I own this one!).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hi,
I have no experience with them, but I am not sure that they have enough coverage for a 6x12. Isn't your 135mm good for this job?
Anyway, you can for sure give it a try, but IMHO your Nikkor is fine glass and proper focal length (I own this one!).

Yes, the 135 will cover, but I'd like something a bit faster and a bit shorter so my exposures aren't so long.

 

[afriman]

Yes, the 135 will cover, but I'd like something a bit faster and a bit shorter so my exposures aren't so long.

For the same size print, a shorter lens at the same aperture won't give you a brighter image (and thus a shorter exposure). Another factor to consider, is that Soviet lenses tend to require a fair bit of stopping down. So you may in effect not be gaining anything in terms of usable speed.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For the same size print, a shorter lens at the same aperture won't give you a brighter image (and thus a shorter exposure). Another factor to consider, is that Soviet lenses tend to require a fair bit of stopping down. So you may in effect not be gaining anything in terms of usable speed.

Well, this is an f4 whereas my 135 Nikkor is an f5.6, so it would be brighter, and being a shorter focal length, it wouldn't need as much elevation of the head to make the same size print, therefore less exposure time. But your point is well taken about needing to stop the lens down to get best quality out of it, which would negate any savings from the larger aperture and/or shorter projection distance.

 

[MattKing]

being a shorter focal length, it wouldn't need as much elevation of the head to make the same size print, therefore less exposure time

It doesn't work that way.
Exposure time is a function of magnification. Whether you achieve that by using a shorter focal length, lower on the column, or a longer focal length, higher on the column, it will result in the same light intensity at the easel.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes to the above, but a faster lens aperture and a shorter lens to easel distance does mean brighter. The only other solution might be something like a 120mm f5.6 WA Rodenstock. It is a 4X5 lens that will get you closer to the easel, which will make things a tad brighter. I got mine very cheap (under $100.00) off eBay, but they usually go for more.

 

[afriman]

Yes to the above, but a faster lens aperture and a shorter lens to easel distance does mean brighter.

As I pointed out, and as confirmed by Matt King's explanation, a shorter lens to easel distance does not mean a brighter image for the same size print from the same size negative. The determining factor for brightness is the degree of magnification, not distance per se. This is a common misunderstanding.
As for the maximum aperture, yes, f4 will indeed provide a brighter image than f5.6. But the point I was making, was that Soviet lenses are quite well known for requiring a fair bit of stopping down before achieving good performance. Depending on how critical you are about things like corner-to-corner sharpness and minimal vignetting, you may find that you have to stop down that FSU lens to f8 in order to get similar performance to the EL-Nikkor at f5.6, thereby mitigating any possible advantage regarding brightness.

 

[John Wiegerink]

As I pointed out, and as confirmed by Matt King's explanation, a shorter lens to easel distance does not mean a brighter image for the same size print from the same size negative. The determining factor for brightness is the degree of magnification, not distance per se. This is a common misunderstanding.
As for the maximum aperture, yes, f4 will indeed provide a brighter image than f5.6. But the point I was making, was that Soviet lenses are quite well known for requiring a fair bit of stopping down before achieving good performance. Depending on how critical you are about things like corner-to-corner sharpness and minimal vignetting, you may find that you have to stop down that FSU lens to f8 in order to get similar performance to the EL-Nikkor at f5.6, thereby mitigating any possible advantage regarding brightness.

Whoops, not thinking before I type. In enlarging and reproduction what you say is pretty much true. Until you go to extreme distances that is. I have one of those 110/4 FSU enlarging lenses, but have not actually tested it. I did put it into my enlarger and it will cover 6x7 and 6x9 easily.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It doesn't work that way.
Exposure time is a function of magnification. Whether you achieve that by using a shorter focal length, lower on the column, or a longer focal length, higher on the column, it will result in the same light intensity at the easel.

absolutely!

 

[MattKing]

The one qualification to that point about magnification is that it assumes that the light source is providing the same amount of light to the negative in both circumstances. I can envisage a situation where the mis-match between light source coverage and lens coverage might affect exposure.