Lens advice for medium format

[etn]

I suppose I should set it all up (currently boxed in the cupboard) and try it out and see what can and can't be done (I don't have chemicals yet but at least I can work it out for when I do.

Tangentially - I don't have negative carriers for 6x7 or 6x4.5 either (just 35mm and something else, maybe 6x6) but am planning to make some DIY ones up (after seeing the low supply / going rate of the sizes I need).

Probably the best indeed is to try!

What kind of neg carrier do you have for 35mm? they are of 2 types: glass and glassless.
Glassless is fine for 35mm but you might run into film flatness issues with larger formats. I use my 6x9 glass carrier with all film formats I print. It's great but a dust magnet... there's no way around cleaning it as well as the neg with a can of compressed air prior to printing.



Hope this helps!

-- Etienne

 

[etn]

It is indeed 39!

I have a German friend so am used to these bad jokes

By the way, let me know if you happen to be in Munich and let's have this beer! (the invitation is valid for all Photrio members of course! )

 

[Mike Chalmers]

Thanks Paul,

Over the years I've gathered up many lens 50mm for 35m 60mm for 4X4 also works with 35mm and 6X4.5, 75mm and 80 for 6X6, 90mm for 6X7 100 and 105 for 6X9 and 135, 150 and 162mm for 4X5. The 162 is for 4X5 from 4X5. I dont have any APO lens, have not enlarged color in many years, but might get a 50 APO as I am gearing up for color in a week or so.

Okay I'm jealous, my collection starts now

Most 4 element and 5 elements lens do well at 8X10 to 11X14, 6 element likely do better at 16X20 and larger. I find that my old Wollensake and Kodak Extar lens are just sharp as my German lens at 8X10 and 11X14.

Interesting.. I am a fan of buying amateur equipment until I hit a wall with its limitations and upgrade.

In terms of a contact sheet, I use a lens matched to the format set to F8, with the enlarger as close to 8X10 as I can get and still cover the negative file page, then use the same time I use for most of 8X10s. With 75watt blub grade 2 filter, around 22 seconds for most RC VC papers. I dont think it would matter much if I used say 50mm for all formats, just a habit I got into.

Gotcha, thanks for the info on your process.

 

[Mike Chalmers]

What kind of neg carrier do you have for 35mm? they are of 2 types: glass and glassless.
Glassless is fine for 35mm but you might run into film flatness issues with larger formats. I use my 6x9 glass carrier with all film formats I print. It's great but a dust magnet... there's no way around cleaning it as well as the neg with a can of compressed air prior to printing.

OH wow - yes I have glassless ones that came with the kit, but this looks ideal for using with all the formats I'll be using.. I'll look into this as I think it would be a big help for my kit.

By the way, let me know if you happen to be in Munich and let's have this beer!

Absolutely, same goes for London

 

[MattKing]

Probably the best indeed is to try!

What kind of neg carrier do you have for 35mm? they are of 2 types: glass and glassless.
Glassless is fine for 35mm but you might run into film flatness issues with larger formats. I use my 6x9 glass carrier with all film formats I print. It's great but a dust magnet... there's no way around cleaning it as well as the neg with a can of compressed air prior to printing.

View attachment 226917

Hope this helps!

-- Etienne

Durst nomenclature and accessory choice can be somewhat complex, but I would guess that if that carrier works with 6x9, it won't work in the OP's Durst M670.
My searches haven't led me to a link for a manual for the M670, but based on the manual for the M605, it looks like there is at least two different lens mounts -
SIRIOPLA for 80mm and SIRIOTUB for 50mm lenses - with a third mount for lenses 100mm and longer.

 

[etn]

OH wow - yes I have glassless ones that came with the kit, but this looks ideal for using with all the formats I'll be using.. I'll look into this as I think it would be a big help for my kit.

Dunno about the M670, but spare parts for the M805 which I have are rare and expensive - I paid more than 100 € for these two silly pieces of glass. I hope they can be found cheaper for the 670!

Absolutely, same goes for London

Thanks. I met several great people in various places of the world thanks to this forum - always a pleasure!
By the way I had a look at your blog, man those portraits are incredible! Terrific pictures!

 

[Mike Chalmers]

Durst nomenclature and accessory choice can be somewhat complex, but I would guess that if that carrier works with 6x9, it won't work in the OP's Durst M670.
My searches haven't led me to a link for a manual for the M670, but based on the manual for the M605, it looks like there is at least two different lens mounts -
SIRIOPLA for 80mm and SIRIOTUB for 50mm lenses - with a third mount for lenses 100mm and longer.

I'll have to look further into this, but thanks for the input. I do know that the M670 only allows up to 6x7. So maybe a DIY option would be worth a shot in the meantime..

Thanks. I met several great people in various places of the world thanks to this forum - always a pleasure!
By the way I had a look at your blog, man those portraits are incredible! Terrific pictures!

Thanks pal!

 

[Mike Chalmers]

with a third mount for lenses 100mm and longer.

My manual says a Vegatub 39 for 100/105mm lenses for 6x7

 

[etn]

Durst nomenclature and accessory choice can be somewhat complex, but I would guess that if that carrier works with 6x9, it won't work in the OP's Durst M670.

Yes definitely! It was not my intent to say he has to use the very same carrier - was just meant as an example. Sorry if my post was misleading.
Just trying to find an M670 user manual in English on the web, not much luck so far.
Here's one in French: http://durst.loremi.com/instruction/M670_FR.pdf





Man, is that obscure... and I am native French speaker! Apparently the glass carrier is called VEGACOLSET 67. It comes with an anti-newton glass and a few other accessories (such as a tube for the lens etc.). Mike, if you buy one, be sure that it is sold with all accessories unless you already have some. I don't feel like writing a full translation of the above text, but can provide you the important points if you wish. (also over the phone... we can discuss in pm)

 

[Mike Chalmers]

Man, is that obscure... and I am native French speaker! Apparently the glass carrier is called VEGACOLSET 67. It comes with an anti-newton glass and a few other accessories (such as a tube for the lens etc.). Mike, if you buy one, be sure that it is sold with all accessories unless you already have some. I don't feel like writing a full translation of the above text, but can provide you the important points if you wish. (also over the phone... we can discuss in pm)

That's funny I think we discovered that around the same time - I found an English manual: http://www.darkroomdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/durst-m670bw-m670color-operating-manual.pdf

As I thought, costs are ramping up to find all the correct equipment so I might start by testing 35mm and possibly some medium format crops, while I set up some searches on eBay etc. to find the right stuff!

 

[Paul Howell]

↑
Most 4 element and 5 elements lens do well at 8X10 to 11X14, 6 element likely do better at 16X20 and larger. I find that my old Wollensake and Kodak Extar lens are just sharp as my German lens at 8X10 and 11X14.

Interesting.. I am a fan of buying amateur equipment until I hit a wall with its limitations and upgrade.

In the day 4 element lens were the pro level lens, both Kodak and Wollensake made a line of amateur 3 element lens. Wollensake also made 5 and 6 elements lens, in the 135 to 162 range. I have a couple of 3 element lens, Schneider and a Omegar lens, they are ok at F8, but clearly not as good as a 4 element lens. I also have a double, made by a company called Federal, installed on a enlarger called a Stowaway Jr. Not sure the focal length, must be in the 90 to 105 range as the enlarger is a 6X9, it is soft, but pleasantly soft, I use it from time to time for a soft look. My 50mm 4.5 Wollensake which is just as sharp if not sharper at 8x10 to 11X14 as my Componon 60 80 5.6 or Componon 50 2.8. If I print at 16X20 I would use the 50 2.8. As a matter of fact I taught a intro to the darkroom before my local community college stopped teaching analog photography. I had the class do a blind test of different 50mm lens, the winner was the Wollensake. But as 16X20 the colleges Minolta 2.8 was the clear winner. When the darkroom equip was sold off I tired to buy the Minolta but had to work the day of the auction. I dont have the link, there are charts on line that list the magnification each lens are optimized for. One work a caution, Kodak and Wollensake lens were last made in the 60s, (Wollensake in the early 70s maybe) so quality control was not what it is today. it is very possible to buy a real dog or a winner, so if you find one don't pay too much.

 

[Paul Howell]

Here is a site that I looked at over the years when thinking about what lens to buy.

Photo Cornucopia Home

Topic:
The Big List of Enlarging Lenses

Author/Copyright:

John Jovic

 

[mshchem]

80mm 6 element, good deal, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi folks,

I acquired a lot of darkroom equipment last year to initially process my own C-41 film - which has gone really well so far.

I've been looking forward to starting to use the Durst M670 Color - although setting this up has taken some time while I work out some challenges.

The enlarger came with a Durst 50mm lens, but I'm aware this may not be best for what I shoot. While I do shoot 35mm on occasion, mostly I shoot medium format: 6x7 and sometimes 6x4.5.

I'm wondering if anyone has advice for the best lens to get that perhaps covers both medium format sizes, or if there are other things like magnifiers or any other options to me.

I would obviously like very high quality but I don't have much of a budget for this at the moment, especially when coupled with chemicals and papers (along with the constant rising price of Portra) so I'd love to hear any economical options.

I completed an 'intro to colour darkroom' course which included a day of printing, but any other advice for a newbie would also be appreciated!

Thanks!

the ideal focal length for an enlarger lens is always the same focal length as the'normal' focal length of the negative format. In your case that would be 75 or 80 mm.

 

[Martin Rickards]

Here is a site that I looked at over the years when thinking about what lens to buy.

Photo Cornucopia Home

Topic:
The Big List of Enlarging Lenses

Author/Copyright:

John Jovic

Apart from El Nikkor, Rodenstock and Schneider, Meopta Meogon, Fuji and Minolta (among others) made excellent MF enlarging lenses.

 

[JensH]

I found a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon 90mm at some point and "upgraded" my 80mm Componon. The difference was very minor and in line with what Markbau says 2 posts above. Never saw light fall off with mine, but the largest I print is 6x6 as well as 24 x 67 (Xpan). I am not a case for vignetting I guess...

PS. I print B&W exclusively.

Hi,

the Componon-S 4/80mm seems to be the "sweet spot" in the Componon-S range.
I even wouldn't wonder if the Apo-Digitar 4/80mm was the same design... I love it for 6x6.
For 6x7 a Componon-S 5.6/100mm or Rodagon 5.6/105mm should be fine.

Best
Jens

 

[Mike Chalmers]

Here is a site that I looked at over the years when thinking about what lens to buy.

Photo Cornucopia Home

What a fascinating website, lots of good resources - thanks for sharing!

 

[Martin Rickards]

Be careful to avoid the Componar or the Rodagar lenses which are the cheap and cheerful ranges.

 

[Mike Chalmers]

Be careful to avoid the Componar or the Rodagar lenses which are the cheap and cheerful ranges.

If I was to find one of these cheap cheap to start playing (before getting a great lens), what would be the major drawback(s)?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Probably the best indeed is to try!

What kind of neg carrier do you have for 35mm? they are of 2 types: glass and glassless.
Glassless is fine for 35mm but you might run into film flatness issues with larger formats. I use my 6x9 glass carrier with all film formats I print. It's great but a dust magnet... there's no way around cleaning it as well as the neg with a can of compressed air prior to printing.

View attachment 226917

Hope this helps!

-- Etienne

Also, cleaning the neg and carrier with an antistatic brush prior to printing helps;canned air is expensive and just blows the dust around.

 

[btaylor]

If I was to find one of these cheap cheap to start playing (before getting a great lens), what would be the major drawback(s)?

I was just browsing eBay, and great MF enlarging lenses can be had for $25- 50.
Come to think of it, someone traded me a box of quality enlarging lenses for a damaged camera lens, I’ll look through them, perhaps there is one you would be interested in.

 

[Mike Chalmers]

I was just browsing eBay, and great MF enlarging lenses can be had for $25- 50.
Come to think of it, someone traded me a box of quality enlarging lenses for a damaged camera lens, I’ll look through them, perhaps there is one you would be interested in.

Thanks btaylor - that's very generous - bear in mind I'm in the UK (but would happily page postage).

 

[MattKing]

If I was to find one of these cheap cheap to start playing (before getting a great lens), what would be the major drawback(s)?

The money you spent on the cheap lenses wouldn't be available to spend on the better lenses.
And probably more importantly, the time and the money for the paper you printed on with the cheap lenses would be used up - you would have to use new money and time if you felt the need to reprint using better lenses.
All that being said, if they are in good shape, the cheap lenses are probably fine if you are seeking to make competent, fairly small (8"x10" or smaller) prints for sharing and temporary display. As an example, I'd be happy to use them for something like the Photrio postcard exchange.

 

[Mike Chalmers]

The money you spent on the cheap lenses wouldn't be available to spend on the better lenses.
And probably more importantly, the time and the money for the paper you printed on with the cheap lenses would be used up - you would have to use new money and time if you felt the need to reprint using better lenses.
All that being said, if they are in good shape, the cheap lenses are probably fine if you are seeking to make competent, fairly small (8"x10" or smaller) prints for sharing and temporary display. As an example, I'd be happy to use them for something like the Photrio postcard exchange.

I hear what you're saying but, for me, getting a cheap lens now wouldn't impact me getting a better one in the future and would allow me to start experimenting. I was moreso meaning what technical / visible differences are obvious between the lenses you suggest avoiding - and better lenses i.e. why specifically are they to be avoided?

I'm sure you're correct, but I use a camera I bought for £20 and one I bought for £2000 on jobs - the latter is clearly better but, knowing the limitations of the cheaper one, I can use it in certain situations and wondered how that would apply to cheap enlarger lenses.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, I was trying to answer that part of your question with the last part of my post.
Assuming both lenses are in good condition, when it comes to comparing cheap lenses to better lenses, and assuming you are printing close to full frame, at the centre of the image the resolution and the contrast is likely to be at least slightly less than what you would achieve with a better lens. Nearer the edges, the differences are usually more obvious. There also may be a difference in the evenness of illumination.
All of those differences are strongly related to how much magnification you are using. The 8"x10" or smaller prints are likely to be fairly similar in appearance. Anything requiring more magnification is more likely to show more differences.
Some of the more expensive lenses also offer some convenience features like illuminated aperture scales and switchable aperture range restrictions. Those features are nice, but not necessary, and there are really good lenses that don't have them.
There are additional differences if you are considering printing colour - better lenses tend to give better and more consistent results across the colour spectrum.
I've printed with and enjoyed using less expensive lenses - a 75mm Rodagon Ysaron is an example that comes to mind. If starting out with a less expensive lens is going to get you printing earlier, and more, I would say go for it.