large format printing - 4x5

[MarcoGiardini]

Finally i have got my durst 1200 laborator for printing large format (4x5) sheet.
What focal lenght do I need for printing?
May i use the 80mm used for my 6x6 / 6x9 ?
Thanks

marco

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

You need something around 150mm for 4 x 5.

 

[MarcoGiardini]

what happens if i use a shorter lens? Vignetting?

 

[Ian Grant]

A 135 Componon or Componon S is designed for 5x4, and this focal length can often be a little more practical than a 150mm.

I was surprised at the image circle of my 80mm Componon S it almost covers 5x4 but vignettes the corners.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

IF it doesn't vignette, the shorter focal length will make it hard to do dodging and burning because it will bring the enlarger head too close to the paper for a comfortable working distance. But most likely it will vignette and produce uneven illumination across the image area it does cover.

 

[Marco B]

what happens if i use a shorter lens? Vignetting?

In addition to what the FlyingCamera said (or a variation upon it), with the wrong lens attached to it, you may find you can not focus the projected image at the enlargement size you want to achieve.

Regular uses of lenses are:

35mm: 50mm lens
MF: 105mm
LF: 150mm

At least, that is the set of lenses I have with mine...

Congratulations with your L1200 by the way! It is a great machine to work with.

 

[Ian Grant]

Marco, a 105mm is rather long for 6x45 and 6x6, it's great for 6x9 but quite impractical for the others, on a bench mounted enlarger.

I made the mistake of fitting my 105mm to my Durst last week and couldn't understand why I needed full column height to make a relatively small (for me) enlargement, mine looks identical to my 80mm Componon S

Ian

 

[fschifano]

The 80 mm lens is good for 6x6, and some of the 80 mm lenses are god for 6x7. None are good for 4x5. For that you need a 135 or 150 mm lens. The larger the negative, the longer the lens you need to provide adequate coverage without vignetting and with good sharpness. That's just the way it is.

 

[Rick A]

I have both a 150mm and 135mm for printing 4x5 negs on my Omega ProLab 4x5, prefer the 135. The 150 works well for smaller prints, but anything above 11x14 I switch to the 135, that way I dont have to raise my enlarger head so very high and makes for easier adjustments without having to stretch. I have a Wollensak 90mm enlarging Raptar that was designed for 6x9, it covers extremely well with no fall-off in the corners, I use it for 6x6 and 6x9 negatives.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you need a recommendation of a high-quality yet affordable enlarging lens for 4x5, The El-Nikkor 135 f5.6 is a terrific lens. I picked up one new-in-box on Ebay a while back for $100 (I think). Although you're not likely to find that good a deal anytime soon, they're still a fair bit cheaper than the Schneider and/or Rodenstock lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you go round asking (pro labs who have downsized) you may be lucky and find a turret or two full of lenses from older roll head printers. I was given two turrets full of Compons about 4 or 5 years ago, every thing from 50mm to 135mm. I donated the spares to a school and a workshop facility as well members at the time via APUG.

Ian

 

[Marco B]

Marco, a 105mm is rather long for 6x45 and 6x6, it's great for 6x9 but quite impractical for the others, on a bench mounted enlarger.

I made the mistake of fitting my 105mm to my Durst last week and couldn't understand why I needed full column height to make a relatively small (for me) enlargement, mine looks identical to my 80mm Componon S

Ian

Ah well, you may well be right. To be honest, I still haven't used my L1200 for MF, because I also still need to get a MF camera

However, the L1200 came with, besides other stuff for 35mm and 4x5, a 105mm lens and a MF mixing box, so I always assumed it was for MF since the 150mm worked with 4x5 for most normal purposes... Well, have to have a closer look in the box of unused parts, maybe there is an 80mm lens in there too.

 

[Neal]

Dear Marco,

Another vote for the Nikon. They are sharp and relatively cheap.

Neal Wydra

 

[fschifano]

If you need a recommendation of a high-quality yet affordable enlarging lens for 4x5, The El-Nikkor 135 f5.6 is a terrific lens. I picked up one new-in-box on Ebay a while back for $100 (I think). Although you're not likely to find that good a deal anytime soon, they're still a fair bit cheaper than the Schneider and/or Rodenstock lenses.

...and I can vouch for that. I've had a 135 El-Nikkor for a while and it is a fine lens. I've absolutely no complaints with it. Recently, I picked up a 135 Schneider Componon-S and decided to do some comparisons between the two. Bottom line? No difference that I can see on the print. They're both fantastic lenses.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...and I can vouch for that. I've had a 135 El-Nikkor for a while and it is a fine lens. I've absolutely no complaints with it. Recently, I picked up a 135 Schneider Componon-S and decided to do some comparisons between the two. Bottom line? No difference that I can see on the print. They're both fantastic lenses.

That's my experience with the 50 and 80mm comparisons too.

 

[fschifano]

That's my experience with the 50 and 80mm comparisons too.

I should run the comparison between my 50 mm f/2.8 El-Nikkor and another 50 mm f/2.8 Schneider Componon-S that I have too. But I'm not terribly fond of the 50 mm Schneider. The click stops for the aperture don't have a very positive detent, and this is an earlier lens without the preset stop down lever. That makes it difficult to set the aperture as precisely as I'd like. I have used it on a new to me Beseler 45MXT and found nothing lacking optically with this lens either. If you stick to the big three, Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock, you can't really go wrong. Only the obsessively compulsive would worry about having a matched set.

 

[23mjm]

As stated by a few above--the Nikon 135mm works wonderfully and I haven't noticed any issues with dodging n burning. Plenty of room.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I should run the comparison between my 50 mm f/2.8 El-Nikkor and another 50 mm f/2.8 Schneider Componon-S that I have too. But I'm not terribly fond of the 50 mm Schneider. The click stops for the aperture don't have a very positive detent, and this is an earlier lens without the preset stop down lever. That makes it difficult to set the aperture as precisely as I'd like. I have used it on a new to me Beseler 45MXT and found nothing lacking optically with this lens either. If you stick to the big three, Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock, you can't really go wrong. Only the obsessively compulsive would worry about having a matched set.

Exactly right, and I have to admit to belong to that group.

 

[NikoSperi]

Ciao Marco,
I just got back here from a long absence.
A few years back I recovered a Laborator from a closing lab. It was in pieces and is a huge piece of rusting junk.
But...
I did also get some lenses and have a Schneider 150mm which I even had serviced. Not being able to use the enlarger, I can give you the lense...
As we're neighbours, should be easy if you're still looking.
PM me if interested.

 

[darkroom_rookie]

Just out of curiosity, what is the required distance between the lens and the paper if one were to use a 210mm lens for very large prints - 60" and up - from 4x5? I'm guessing around 12-15 feet. Anyone tried/done that?

Thanks
d_rookie

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't know about the actual distance, but it would be counterproductive as it would increase the distance between the film and the paper significantly, which would require an exponentially brighter light source to yield acceptable enlarging times - you'd be looking at possibly having to compute reciprocity for your enlarging paper if you were trying to print anything other than wide open. Just to give you an idea, a 4x5 enlarger typically takes a 250-300 watt bulb. An 8x10 enlarger often uses a combined 500 - 1000 watts using one or more bulbs.

 

[darkroom_rookie]

Could you expand on the reciprocity problem? If it can help, the paper is Ultra Endura N, I'm using a 210mm Rodagon-G lens and only wide open (5.6) and the bulb is a 200 watt one. Enlargement ratio would be around 15x. I haven't decided on the film yet, but I can easily re-shoot. And I can have it processed very well, pulled if necessary, to reduce contrast.

d_rookie

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just out of curiosity, what is the required distance between the lens and the paper if one were to use a 210mm lens for very large prints - 60" and up - from 4x5? I'm guessing around 12-15 feet. Anyone tried/done that?

Thanks
d_rookie

The required distance (u) between the paper and the nodal point of the lens (assume the lens center for simplicity) calculates as follows:

u = f*(m+1)

where 'f' is the focal length and 'm' is the negative magnification.

By the way, if you are doing test strips, reciprocity failure is never an issue! Also, reciprocity failure is not something that magically shows up starting with a certain exposure time. For most papers, assume 1/16 stop speed loss per f/stop of exposure change, or 1/3 stop loss per 5 f/stop difference in exposure. But again, that's not unique to what you're doing. We all have to deal with it (or ignore it when doing test strips).

 

[Ian Grant]

Before minilabs and particularly minilabs were the norm pro labs printing colour would set their roll head printers to give exactly the same exposure regardless of the enlargement. Remember that apart from hand prints enlargements were fixed sizes. This was done to eliminate reciprocity failure which with colour can effect the colour balance. With B&W and some papers it can affect the contrast.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... With B&W and some papers it can affect the contrast.

Ian

That's my experience too.
I estimate a 1/4 grade per 5 stops of exposure difference.