Lens Guru needed

JMC1969 · Jul 19, 2011

I (for absolutely no reason) had to purchase another Omega D2 so it didn't end up in the trash. The real reason for purchasing it was for the lenses and cones. I don't think I really need either. Scratch that, I'm about 99% sure I don't need any of it. But, before I part with this stuff, I want to make sure I am not letting go of a gem of a lens.

Q#1. Will any of these be better suited that my modern day Rodenstock componon's, El-Nikkor's or Scheider lenses that are currently on my D5 enlargers?

Q#2. Are any of these worthy of using as a shooting lens on 4x5?

Q#3. Any worth in them?

Q#4. I now have 2 D2's and I'm considering selling part for part rather than the entire enlarger as there seems to be no one in my city that needs them. Any thoughts on whether this has any value?

Lenses

1. Bausch & Lomb Opt co.
Tessar IC 139mm E.F. f 4.5
Considering whether this is a good hat trick lens
2. Kodak Projection
Anastigmat 105mm f 4.5
3. Kodak Projection
Anastigmat 161mm f 4.5
4. Wollensak Raptar Enlarging
90mm f 4.5
5. Schneider-Kreuznach
Componon 50mm f 4 (chrome)
6. Wollensak Raptar Enlarging
75mm f 4.5

Thanks for your input,
Jody

ChuckP · Jul 20, 2011

As far as #3 goes I sold my 161mm for $10. These lenses are not worth much. Shipping costs really. And condition is everything. Any problems makes them almost worthless. Unless you have a specific look you are trying for I'd stick with my modern lenses. The 161 and 139 would probably cover 4x5 and you could try them. Again they may give you a look you like but I don't think they would make good general purpose lenses. You could play with the shorter lenses for closeups. Never know you might find something you like.

Rick A · Jul 20, 2011

The 90/4.5 enlarging raptar was designed to cover 6x9(2-1/4x3-1/4) negatives, I have two of them and they work beautifully, but aren't worth more than ten bucks. Wollensak enlarging raptars were top of the line back in the 40's through early 60's.
Save the extra D-2 for parts for yourself, just in case.

Whiteymorange · Jul 20, 2011

I don't think any of those will be better than your current stock of lenses, but they may have a different look. The Kodak Anastigmats seem to possess a certain warmth; a smoothness I haven't found in the Schneider/Rodenstock/Nikor lenses. Of course, this affinity for a certain look is completely subjective and personal. I just know that when I used the 105 to print 6x9 negatives I found I liked the prints more than I did prints made with Rodenstock and Nikor lenses, all other factors being equal. They are not worth much money, however.

Just sayin'

Neanderman · Jul 20, 2011

The only one I see in the list that might be interesting as a taking lens is the B&L Tessar. It's hard to know if it was optimized for a given distance or not, but it's pretty certain that all of the other ones were optimized for short distances.

JMC1969 · Jul 20, 2011

Thanks for the input guys. I am getting the answers I expected I suppose. I am going to rig up the B&L to a board and take a few shoots w/ the Meridian before I decide on that one. Don't take this wrong as I am not comparing this to a Petzval type lens, but I see B&L branded Petzvals for sale here all the time, so I must assume they made some pretty unique stuff. I mean, the G-Clarnon was an enlarging lens that turned out to be terrific for a LF shooting lens, some maybe this will turn out to be a poor man Petzval? HA! It's nice to have dreams, but dreams are as such.

Rick A said:
Save the extra D-2 for parts for yourself, just in case.

I am not actually using a D-2 for myself, I just have two (2) of them looking for a home. I have not yet spent much time in my darkroom because I have too much stuff. I went full blown over kill when I put it together and have three (3) D-5's set up two (2) of which have lens turrets on them. I assume once I get into the swing of using it more often, I will scale down to make room for a few things I didn't realize I would need when I built it. So the question is if there is a market for parting out both of them? I'm sure the cones and lens plates would sell, but that leaves me with the bulk of the enlarger. And, the decision to make as to whether or not to scrap them in the end. I don't make that type of decision well.

Jeff Bannow · Jul 20, 2011

JMC1969 said:
So the question is if there is a market for parting out both of them? I'm sure the cones and lens plates would sell, but that leaves me with the bulk of the enlarger. And, the decision to make as to whether or not to scrap them in the end. I don't make that type of decision well.

I've been able to sell a couple locally. If you're willing to ship them, you could definitely sell them.

JMC1969 · Jul 20, 2011

PS. The 2 D-2's are of different ages. Both are the type with the red knob door for a variable condenser (which I have one). 1 is set up as a condenser enlarger and the tension springs are mounted to the frame, on the back, lower down. The second is set up with a Aristo head and the tension springs are mounted at the top.

JMC1969 · Jul 20, 2011

Jeff Bannow said:
I've been able to sell a couple locally. If you're willing to ship them, you could definitely sell them.

I have tried and got a . Jacksonville is not holding up it's end in this market. Last year at this time I was let go from the only lab in town because they just couldn't afford it any more. I worked there for about 4 1/2 years and they have been open since 1987. There are few few guys around town, but most of them w/ enough room for a darkroom already have a set up. Thanks

Jeff Bannow · Jul 20, 2011

JMC1969 said:
I have tried and got a . Jacksonville is not holding up it's end in this market. Last year at this time I was let go from the only lab in town because they just couldn't afford it any more. I worked there for about 4 1/2 years and they have been open since 1987. There are few few guys around town, but most of them w/ enough room for a darkroom already have a set up. Thanks

That's unfortunate. I've had good luck with ebay, craigslist, and here on APUG. But, Detroit is a different market I'm sure. Although we are pretty short on pro labs (might have 1 left maybe).

artonpaper · Jul 20, 2011

I have found Kodak lenses to be of lower contrast than Schneider Componons when doing side by side comparisons. Schneider Componons are good lenses. I like them better than Rodenstock.

JMC1969 · Jul 20, 2011

artonpaper said:
I have found Kodak lenses to be of lower contrast than Schneider Componons when doing side by side comparisons. Schneider Componons are good lenses. I like them better than Rodenstock.

I would assume that is a coating situation. As some have said, these could be from 1940's to 1960's. They seem to have some sort of coating, but the only way I know of checking for a coating is to hold it in front of a light. There are 2 reflections showing in the glass of the B&L, 1 of a toned down white as the bulb, 1 very light pink/yellow. The later may just be the one given from the rear glass that is making it look pink/yellow. I don't know too much about the coatings themselves, just that they seem to boost contrast.

Neanderman · Jul 20, 2011

1. Bausch & Lomb Opt co. Tessar IC 139mm E.F. f 4.5 - Probably not coated.

2. Kodak ProjectionAnastigmat 105mm f 4.5 -- Probably not coated. It will have a 'circle L' (for 'Lumenized') engraved on the front retaining ring if it is.

3. Kodak Projection Anastigmat 161mm f 4.5 -- As with #2

4. Wollensak Raptar Enlarging 90mm f 4.5 -- Very likely coated. Wollensak used a 'circle W' (for 'Wocoated') to indicate coating.

5. Schneider-Kreuznach Componon 50mm f 4 (chrome) -- Very likely coated. Some Schneider's have a triangle, either white or, more often, red to indicate coating.

6. Wollensak Raptar Enlarging 75mm f 4.5 -- As with #4

All coatings, if present, will be single coatings, and they might not be on all surfaces. The exception might be the Schneider -- the triangle is for single coating; their multi-coated lenses were marked with MC, at least until it became just accepted that every lens would be multi-coated (not until the late 70's or early 80's).

Ed

ic-racer · Jul 20, 2011

Unless there is a particular focal length you don't have, I'd sell those lenses.

JMC1969 · Jul 20, 2011

@Ed - That is super cool. I just love learning stuff here. This piece of info got me out of my seat.

So,

1. B&L - no marks
2. Kodak 105mm - no marks
3. Koday 161mm - has the circled "L"
4. Wollensak 90mm - has the "W" w/ circle, but that circle seems to actually be a big "C"
5. Schneider 50mm - No triangle, but on the front element outer ring it is marked CPN50 and the Barrel says "OMEGA" in red letters
6. Wollensak 75mm - same as #4

JMC1969 · Jul 20, 2011

ic-racer said:
Unless there is a particular focal length you don't have, I'd sell those lenses.

What I plan on using when it is more accessible is;

1st D-5, Ilford multigrade 500H head, turret -a; schneider 50mm f2.8 Componon-S, b; Rodagon 80mm f4, c; Rodagon 105mm f5.6

2nd D-5, Zone VI head, Turret - a;empty, b;empty, c; Rodagon 150mm f5.6

3rd D-5, Super Chromega D ichroic II, El-Nikkor 135mm f5.6

though I really have no intension of printing color, I was told just in case, keep 1 color head and find the calculations to use the filters as multi contrast.

Like I said earlier, I over killed while building and I may find I just don't need all 3 enlargers set up. I'm sure of it.

The lenses listed in OP are all a stop brighter for a lack of better explanation. I think that would only come into play while focusing and I'm not sure the trade off is worth it.

MattKing · Jul 20, 2011

I'd definitely keep the 90mm Wollensak lens - that focal length can be hard to find from other manufacturers.

ic-racer · Jul 20, 2011

JMC1969 said:
keep 1 color head and find the calculations to use the filters as multi contrast.

Here is your chart: Page 3 (use 'Kodak' numbers) http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006130201152306.pdf

Neanderman · Jul 20, 2011

Yes, you're right, Wollensak did use a large "C" with a "W" inside it. Typing from memory.

As someone else pointed out, the 90mm focal length is rare these days, so it could be useful. But it really all depends on how large (or small) you want to print. I have two enlarging lenses -- and 80mm Rodagon and a 150 mm Nikkor. The 80 is for 35mm & 6x6; the 150 for 6x9 and 4x5. More critical with condenser enlargers is that the enlarging lens match the condensers in use.

I think what you have planned is fine and you have some good, newer lenses, so by all means sell any of the older ones that you don't think you'll use.

The Schneider sounds like a 'rebrand' that came with an Omega enlarger. I'd wager that it is at least single coated throughout. Schneider started multi-coating in the 1972 timeframe, so if you think it's newer than that, it may be MC.

For me, the thing that I love about the vintage lenses is that they are all metal. And mostly shiny! I do have a 50mm Enlarging Ektar that came with my first enlarger. I never use it anymore, but I'd never sell it, either. It's not of the same quality as a modern, multi-coated 6 element lens, but, for it's day, it was a damn fine lens. And Kodak's quality control under Rudolf Kingslake was second to none.

Ed

JMC1969 · Jul 22, 2011

@ Matt, thanks for that, I didn't think of that. I have an 80mm set up, but I do have an empty slot on a turret.

@ ic-racer, Awesome! you guys make it so easy on me. My appreciation.

I put the B&L on the Meridian a couple of nights ago and took a quick type 55 that is old as dirt and looked like crap on the print side, but the negs came out pretty nice I think. Once I get rid of these D-2's and can make a print I will know more. Fun anyway you look at it. I'm sure I will end up taking some more. Not exactly what I was expecting from the lens, but that really isn't a surprise.

Lens Guru needed

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency