Omega D Series 3-Lens Turret on an Omega DII

[dswiger]

Will this fit/attach & work properly? I would like this setup for my "soon to be equipped" darkroom

 

[Donald Qualls]

Utility of the turret is limited by the bellows length on the D2. Normally, you'd use a flat lens board for 50mm lens, a short cone for 80-105 (though 80, at least, *can* be used with a flat board), and a long cone for 135-150mm lens. If you're not enlarging 9x12/4x5, you might manage with a turret for 35mm, 6x4.5 and 6x6, possibly even 6x7 and 6x9 -- but I don't see it saving much time if you have to switch back and forth between flat and cone lens boards.

 

[ic-racer]

In addition to the good points Donald mentions, the shorter lenses will frequently need more precision in their alignment. For example my 25mm, 35mm, 45mm lenses need to be individually aligned when on the 3-lens turret. The 35mm won't even let the turret turn, because of the lens sticks up into the bellows. So, those lenses are all on their own boards and calibrated with shims, so I can swap them in and out and not have to re-align the lens stage each time.
So, having just the long lenses on the turret (105mm, 135mm, 150mm) makes more sense for me. The alignment of those three is all pretty close, without having to re-do the lens stage alignment each time.

 

[dswiger]

In addition to the good points Donald mentions, the shorter lenses will frequently need more precision in their alignment. For example my 25mm, 35mm, 45mm lenses need to be individually aligned when on the 3-lens turret. The 35mm won't even let the turret turn, because of the lens sticks up into the bellows. So, those lenses are all on their own boards and calibrated with shims, so I can swap them in and out and not have to re-align the lens stage each time.
So, having just the long lenses on the turret (105mm, 135mm, 150mm) makes more sense for me. The alignment of those three is all pretty close, without having to re-do the lens stage alignment each time.

Thanks for the reality check from both of you. I spotted it on Ebay & thought it might make a nice addition to the gear. I'm shooting 6x7 MF & 4x5. Enlargements are most likely to either 11x14 or 16x20.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For 6x7 you want a 90 mm (though you can get by with an 80, if it covers well, or a 105 that's correct for 6x9). For 4x5, you need 135-150 mm. If the column is tall enough (haven't tested this myself) and your ceiling high enough (mine isn't, with the condenser lamp house), going from 4x at most on 4x5 to around 7x on 6x7, you might get by with a 135mm for both formats. That'd be a real time saver...

If you find the results acceptable with a camera lens (I've used an 80mm Anastar off a Kodak Reflex II for 6x6 since I got my D2), a 105/110 mm will cover 4x5 at the focus positions for enlarging, and that would fit under my low ceiling, printing 16x20 from 6x7 cm negatives.

 

[dswiger]

For 6x7 you want a 90 mm (though you can get by with an 80, if it covers well, or a 105 that's correct for 6x9). For 4x5, you need 135-150 mm. If the column is tall enough (haven't tested this myself) and your ceiling high enough (mine isn't, with the condenser lamp house), going from 4x at most on 4x5 to around 7x on 6x7, you might get by with a 135mm for both formats. That'd be a real time saver...

If you find the results acceptable with a camera lens (I've used an 80mm Anastar off a Kodak Reflex II for 6x6 since I got my D2), a 105/110 mm will cover 4x5 at the focus positions for enlarging, and that would fit under my low ceiling, printing 16x20 from 6x7 cm negatives.

Don, for enlarger height - negative to easel distance, I'm building an adjustable baseboard setup that should allow me get the easel down low enough for the height that I anticipate for print sizes.
I am looking at getting a 135mm. I do have a 150mm that came with the enlarger but it's in pretty sad condition. I do have all lens cone sizes from a lucky Ebay score.
Still building out the darkroom so I've got time to make better gear choices. This setup will be my first darkroom/wet printing since I was in Vietnam 50+ years ago.
I presently do the hybrid thing by scanning my 4x5 & 6x7 work.
Thanks

 

[Donald Qualls]

Excellent. My enlargers (one condenser head, one color head, both D2) live on kitchen carts, so if I'm short on space and still have column height, I can (temporarily) move one to a lower table. Of course, there's also the option on all D2 enlargers to reverse the column on the base plate, though that requires the base be hard mounted to something heavy enough to avoid crashing the hardware...

 

[ic-racer]

I like the turret because I can flip to a lens that gives me the correct magnification for a comfortable head (both my head and the enlarger's head) location. For example if I look back, my usual lens for 6x6cm negatives would be the 105. Almost always the 80mm lens projects too big of an image, forcing the head to be too low for comfortable work.
Critical enlargements require the projected image to be checked in many locations with the magnifier, that includes all 4 corners. No different than checking the whole ground glass when the negative was exposed in the camera. If one has never ever been hit in the head by the lens or lens stage, maybe the projected image is not being examined thoroughly.
Same with 6x9. With that I usually am using the 150mm. And on up the line. When I'm doing 4x5 with my big enlarger, my 135mm lens projects an image about twice the size of my usual print size, so I use a 210mm lens for that.