Success! My first good print.

[MattKing]

The wide angle lens that I got for 8x10 prints is a Spiratone, 35mm, f/3.5

This explains a lot .
I'm trying to think of a modern equivalent of Spiratone - how about Walmart house brand, but sold only through mail order?

 

[GregY]

This explains a lot .
I'm trying to think of a modern equivalent of Spiratone - how about Walmart house brand, but sold only through mail order?

not the sharpest knife in the drawer...?

Spiratone 35 mm f/3.5 enlarging lens

Spiratone 35 mm f/3.5 enlarging lens test as bellows lens for macro photography

coinimaging.com

 

[dcy]

This explains a lot .
I'm trying to think of a modern equivalent of Spiratone - how about Walmart house brand, but sold only through mail order?

Ha ha.

Thing is, I looked up Spiratone before I bought it. I knew it was a "generic" brand and I read that it'd sometimes be sold under various names like Durst and it might come in by default in a budget enlarger. I reasoned "Ok, so it's a budget lens, but if gets rebranded then it can't be *bad*. It's like buying Walmart brand products."

What can I say? I bought it 3 weeks ago. I was young and naive back then.

I don't feel too bad over the $30 lost. I was reluctant to invest into an expensive lens not knowing if it would actually enlarge half-frame to 8x10.

At this point I can confirm that the projected image appears to fill an 8x10 but I have not yet made any actual prints. I have 8x10 paper but I haven't used it yet. If I was looking to upgrade my 35 mm lens, would you think that this Schneider 35mm f/4 Componon for $125 USD on eBay would be a good purchase? Or should I wait until I'm ready to spend more on something else?

 

[GregY]

Ha ha.

Thing is, I looked up Spiratone before I bought it. I knew it was a "generic" brand and I read that it'd sometimes be sold under various names like Durst and it might come in by default in a budget enlarger. I reasoned "Ok, so it's a budget lens, but if gets rebranded then it can't be *bad*. It's like buying Walmart brand products."

What can I say? I bought it 3 weeks ago. I was young and naive back then.

I don't feel too bad over the $30 lost. I was reluctant to invest into an expensive lens not knowing if it would actually enlarge half-frame to 8x10.

At this point I can confirm that the projected image appears to fill an 8x10 but I have not yet made any actual prints. I have 8x10 paper but I haven't used it yet. If I was looking to upgrade my 35 mm lens, would you think that this Schneider 35mm f/4 Componon for $125 USD on eBay would be a good purchase? Or should I wait until I'm ready to spend more on something else?

If you're going to continue using a 1/2 frame camera, I'd spring for the Componon. They are very good lenses.
As long as you stay with the Spiratone....check out the article in the link i added:

"Corner Sharpness vs. Aperture:
The corner performance of this lens is only so-so at the sharpest aperture of f/4. At higher magnification, f/4 improves enough to not be a problem. If you want improved corner sharpness, f/5.6 is a good compromise."

 

[dcy]

Make yourself a test negative, as follows. Take a piece of black, developed film, such as a film leader. Lightly scratch a grid of fine lines on the emulsion side, using a very sharp point, such as the tip of a knife. It doesn’t have to be neat. Put this in your enlarger (emulsion down, of course), open the aperture fully, and study the projected pattern (with all the other lights off). The back of a scrap print makes a better focusing surface than the shiny enlarger easel. You’ll be able to see clearly where any unsharpness lies. You don’t need an expensive grain focusser for this.

Thanks! That's brilliant.

I'm going to ask a really dumb question: Which side is the emulsion side? Like... if I am holding the film and I can read the text "Kentmere 100" correctly, am I staring at the emulsion or the back?

Next dumb question: Why does it matter if I place the film emulsion side down?

Remember to stop down the enlarger lens from wide open when you're done composing and focusing and are ready to start making test strips and print. With the Rodenstock, the sharpest setting would probably be around f/4 to f/5.6 (assuming you don't need depth of field to compensate for other issues).

Thanks! ... I have not been remembering to step down the enlarger lens.

If you do go down the path of checking the alignment of your enlarger, The Naked Photographer has a pretty good series on en larger alignment. But he doesn't have your spesific enlarger, unfortunately.

Thanks for the link!

 

[snusmumriken]

I'm going to ask a really dumb question: Which side is the emulsion side? Like... if I am holding the film and I can read the text "Kentmere 100" correctly, am I staring at the emulsion or the back?

You will then be looking at the back of the film. The emulsion side is generally dull in appearance.

Next dumb question: Why does it matter if I place the film emulsion side down?

Because you should be placing your negatives in the enlarger emulsion side down. Otherwise you would be projecting your image through the back of the film, which will degrade its sharpness, besides which the image will be flipped L-R.

 

[pentaxuser]

dcy thanks for your reply covering all my points. The great outcome from what I see is that the whole thread has moved a long way and opened out from what seemed an almost definite conclusion on your part that lack of enlarger alignment was the issue

Other avenues have opened up

pentaxuser

 

[dcy]

If you're going to continue using a 1/2 frame camera, I'd spring for the Componon. They are very good lenses.

It's always so difficult to know what I'm buying when I buy used. The description of the lens I linked to says

"There is internal dust, haze, and fungus in the glass. This item has been well loved, having the look only a photographer could admire. The glass will have imperfections which will negatively impact image quality."



But for all I know, all the other 35 mm lenses at this price point could be just as bad or worse and the sellers are less forthcoming about defects, or don't even know to look for them. There are two 35mm f/4 Rodenstocks with no information and not a single image that allows you to actually see the lens, nor claims about the lens condition.

Some sellers clearly have no idea what they're selling. I'm looking at a post that says it's a "35 mm lens, Nikon mount, unknown brand", so of course it is an f = 50 mm El Nikkor. The seller thought that a 35 mm lens is one intended for enlarging 35 mm film.


I don't want to buy a bad 35 mm lens. For that, I can keep using the one I have to learn the ropes. But if the $125 USD Componon is a good improvement over what I have and the seller is just being cautious with their description of haze + fungus, then $125 is a price I am willing to pay to get reasonably sharp corners at 8x10.

As long as you stay with the Spiratone....check out the article in the link i added:

"Corner Sharpness vs. Aperture:
The corner performance of this lens is only so-so at the sharpest aperture of f/4. At higher magnification, f/4 improves enough to not be a problem. If you want improved corner sharpness, f/5.6 is a good compromise."

Thanks for the link! Ok. Now I know to use it at f/5.6

From the link: "Street Price: About $5 in good used condition." Ok. I wasted $25.

 

[GregY]

It's always so difficult to know what I'm buying when I buy used. The description of the lens I linked to says

"There is internal dust, haze, and fungus in the glass. This item has been well loved, having the look only a photographer could admire. The glass will have imperfections which will negatively impact image quality."



But for all I know, all the other 35 mm lenses at this price point could be just as bad or worse and the sellers are less forthcoming about defects, or don't even know to look for them. There are two 35mm f/4 Rodenstocks with no information and not a single image that allows you to actually see the lens, nor claims about the lens condition.

Some sellers clearly have no idea what they're selling. I'm looking at a post that says it's a "35 mm lens, Nikon mount, unknown brand", so of course it is an f = 50 mm El Nikkor. The seller thought that a 35 mm lens is one intended for enlarging 35 mm film.


I don't want to buy a bad 35 mm lens. For that, I can keep using the one I have to learn the ropes. But if the $125 USD Componon is a good improvement over what I have and the seller is just being cautious with their description of haze + fungus, then $125 is a price I am willing to pay to get reasonably sharp corners at 8x10.




Thanks for the link! Ok. Now I know to use it at f/5.6

From the link: "Street Price: About $5 in good used condition." Ok. I wasted $25.

I have enlarging lenses from 50mm to 210..... all with pristine glass.
I would not buy an enlarging lens with fungus....especially not for that price.
Igors has a clean El Nikkor 40mm for $95......

DARKROOM -

Darkroom: Specializing darkroom equipment, enlarges, Seal Press, Jobo Processor, Leica Focomat IIC, enlarging lenses, Durst 1200, Omega D5500, Leitz enlargers, Rodenstock, Computar, Componon-S, Rodagon and Gerogon

igorcamera.com

 

[Craig]

A good rule of thumb is enlarging lenses perform best about 2 stops down from maximum aperture. I focus wide open (for the brightest image) then close down to the working aperture to make the exposure.

I agree with Greg, stay away from anything with fungus

 

[dcy]

I have enlarging lenses from 50mm to 210..... all with pristine glass.
I would not buy an enlarging lens with fungus....especially not for that price.

Thanks!

Igors has a clean El Nikkor 40mm for $95......

DARKROOM -

Darkroom: Specializing darkroom equipment, enlarges, Seal Press, Jobo Processor, Leica Focomat IIC, enlarging lenses, Durst 1200, Omega D5500, Leitz enlargers, Rodenstock, Computar, Componon-S, Rodagon and Gerogon

igorcamera.com

Hmm... I can't find it on their eBay store (which appears to be their online online store).

I found this El Nikkor 40mm for $90 with shipping from a different seller. The description says it "saw little use". There's another one here for $106 with shipping that also claims to be well cared-for. I think the second lens looks a bit cleaner, but it's hard to tell.

 

[GregY]

Thanks!



Hmm... I can't find it on their eBay store (which appears to be their online online store).

I found this El Nikkor 40mm for $90 with shipping from a different seller. The description says it "saw little use". There's another one here for $106 with shipping that also claims to be well cared-for. I think the second lens looks a bit cleaner, but it's hard to tell.

Anyone of them would be better than the Componon w fungus.....

 

[ags2mikon]

I would agree with @GregY 100%.

 

[dcy]

Alright.

After much deliberation, squinting at online images, and measuring the size of my enlarger, I went ahead and purchased the second lens. This isn't a huge cost in the greater scheme --- I've spent more than this on paper --- but I feel better having taken the time to consider the purchase.

Most of the time was just trying to convince myself that I didn't see any fungus. I picked the lens for which I felt most confident based on the online photos.

Thanks for the help.

Quick question: My impression is that the El-Nikkor and Rodenstock are similar quality and my best strategy is to use the 50 mm Rodenstock for 5x7 prints and the new 40 mm for 8x10 so as to keep the enlarger head higher up. Would that be accurate?

 

[MattKing]

With that size of negative, you may want to use the 40mm lens mostly, but save the 50mm lens for even smaller than 5x7 prints.

 

[Craig]

Quick question: My impression is that the El-Nikkor and Rodenstock are similar quality and my best strategy is to use the 50 mm Rodenstock for 5x7 prints and the new 40 mm for 8x10 so as to keep the enlarger head higher up. Would that be accurate?

Maybe. There are a number of different kinds of Rodenstock lens. In general, you always want a 6 element lens over a 3 or 4 element, it will have better corrections and give a higher quality image.

As far as I know, the recent Nikkors are all 6 element.

 

[dcy]

With that size of negative, you may want to use the 40mm lens mostly, but save the 50mm lens for even smaller than 5x7 prints.

Leaving the 40 mm lens on all the time is convenient. Can you explain to me why that's a better strategy for my small size negative?

I am looking for information online about which brand is better, and I'm not seeing a lot of definitive answers, which suggests that they are at lest comparable.

 

[GregY]

Leaving the 40 mm lens on all the time is convenient. Can you explain to me why that's a better strategy for my small size negative?

I am looking for information online about which brand is better, and I'm not seeing a lot of definitive answers, which suggests that they are at lest comparable.

Schneider, Rodenstock, El Nikkor, Fuji...... are all on a level playing field.

 

[dcy]

Maybe. There are a number of different kinds of Rodenstock lens. In general, you always want a 6 element lens over a 3 or 4 element, it will have better corrections and give a higher quality image.

As far as I know, the recent Nikkors are all 6 element.

Thanks for the explanation. Knowing this, I looked for information about the number of elements. I can confirm that my Rodenstock and my new Nikkor are 6 elements.

 

[mshchem]

I found a PDF of a Nikon EL Nikkor brochure. The 40mm f4 is for 5X-30X where the 50mm 2.8 is for 2X-20X from a standard 24x36mm 35mm negative. Apparently it's for big prints with a standard enlarger column without having to project on a wall etc.

I always imagined that the 40mm was for half frame, I learned something.

30X would be approximately 28x42 inches. You'd need Technical Pan film and some NASA soup for that

 

[MattKing]

Leaving the 40 mm lens on all the time is convenient. Can you explain to me why that's a better strategy for my small size negative?

Most likely it will lead to the enlarger head being at a convenient working height, but not right at the top of the column, where any instability in the enlarger is most likely to reveal itself.
And based on the data quoted above by @mschchem, a 5x7 enlargement is ~ 7X, so within the range it was designed for.
Soon enough you will get a feel for where it is most convenient to have the enlarger head, and if you have a choice between quality alternatives, you can let convenience inform your choice.
An f/2.8 lens does have one advantage over an f/4 lens: at maximum opening, the image is brighter and easy to use for composing and focusing. That isn't as much an issue for B&W as it is colour.

 

[dcy]

I found a PDF of a Nikon EL Nikkor brochure. The 40mm f4 is for 5X-30X where the 50mm 2.8 is for 2X-20X from a standard 24x36mm 35mm negative. Apparently it's for big prints with a standard enlarger column without having to project on a wall etc.

I always imagined that the 40mm was for half frame, I learned something.

30X would be approximately 28x42 inches. You'd need Technical Pan film and some NASA soup for that

Can I get a copy of that PDF? I've looked for information online and I found a forum post that also said 5X - 30X, but I'd rather hear it from a brochure.

• Half-Frame --> 8x10 == ~ 11.3X
• Half-Frame --> 5x7 == ~ 7.4X
• Full-Frame --> 8x10 == ~ 7.8X
• Full-Frame --> 5x7 == ~ 5.1X

Ok. So when my wife asks me to make a 5x7 print from her full-frame, that might be a good time to grab the Rodenstock and celebrate the fact that now I have a choice between two good lenses.

 

[GregY]

Most likely it will lead to the enlarger head being at a convenient working height, but not right at the top of the column, where any instability in the enlarger is most likely to reveal itself.
And based on the data quoted above by @mschchem, a 5x7 enlargement is ~ 7X, so within the range it was designed for.
Soon enough you will get a feel for where it is most convenient to have the enlarger head, and if you have a choice between quality alternatives, you can let convenience inform your choice.
An f/2.8 lens does have one advantage over an f/4 lens: at maximum opening, the image is brighter and easy to use for composing and focusing. That isn't as much an issue for B&W as it is colour.

It really depends on your light source. My 50mm is 2.8, my 80mm f4, and my 105, 150 Rodagons and 210 Componon are 5.6. The lens i choose depends on the film format and i never have difficulty focusing despite the differing maximum apertures.
It would be interesting to see where dcy ends up in his lightsource lamp search. 25sec exposure time for a 5x7" print either indicates that the lightsource is weak or the negative is far too dense.

 

[Craig]

Can I get a copy of that PDF?

It's here: https://galerie-photo.com/manuels/el-nikkor-enlarging-lenses.pdf

 

[Bill Burk]

You asked about emulsion. It’s the dull side when looking at the film. A rule of thumb is to always have “emulsion to emulsion” - so the emulsion goes down on the negative carrier. And the paper of course goes emulsion up. This also pertains to projecting slides. You’re going to put slides in the projector with the emulsion facing the screen.

I learned that from a phone caller to the Dr. Demento show, Steph Papke, who would tell me stories about working in the school photo lab and she complained about having to always tell people “emulsion to emulsion”. I knew it from graphic arts, contact printing, but didn’t think of it in enlarging and projecting before.