Summicron lenes and enlarging?
-
A
- Thread starter ToddB
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Mamiya N 210mm, f8 lens for Mamiya 7ll camera
- Started by Keith Pitman
-
For Sale AF-Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D
- Started by Robert Kerwin
-
For Sale FS: VELBON Tripod Quick Release Plates...NOS!
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Halogen Bulbs
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Chemicals for sale
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
Flame war coming, but I don't mind 
.
Yes, I did 16x20 with summicron (and nikkor 50mm) from Technical Pan 25 and from Adox CMS 20, no loos in quality whatsoever.
.Yes, I did 16x20 with summicron (and nikkor 50mm) from Technical Pan 25 and from Adox CMS 20, no loos in quality whatsoever.
24x30
What is always lost in discussions of this type is the intended viewing distance. Most people are not going to be looking at 16x20 or larger prints from a few inches away. So arguing about perceived image sharpness is really pointless.
My Summicron gets hotter when used on my M3 if I use it out in bright sunlight. I've never has issues with enlarger lenses getting hot 
Enlarger lenses have no focus mount so aren't lubricated.
Ian
Enlarger lenses have no focus mount so aren't lubricated.
Ian
summicron is a lens made for making 2 d impression for 3d world , its everything calculated for 3d real worlds volume and grade change.
if you try to understand a leitz lens with contrast or resolution , these are their natural ability but not real story. you must put a real man or sculpture and tighten the aperture than normal , lens makes a abstract expression of the 3d world , its volume, grades and colors.
BUT when you make the first hand correction for a leica , you code the tones in to it.
second hand correction is for complex colors.
I bet if you print with it , it makes positive impression to bw tones and complex colors also.
may be you must use tanned negative to play in 3d but it is not made for film enlarging but abstract the art and humans.
what will you do now ?
dont use summicron but a leitz enlarging lens , i bet its 1/3 or less
if you try to understand a leitz lens with contrast or resolution , these are their natural ability but not real story. you must put a real man or sculpture and tighten the aperture than normal , lens makes a abstract expression of the 3d world , its volume, grades and colors.
BUT when you make the first hand correction for a leica , you code the tones in to it.
second hand correction is for complex colors.
I bet if you print with it , it makes positive impression to bw tones and complex colors also.
may be you must use tanned negative to play in 3d but it is not made for film enlarging but abstract the art and humans.
what will you do now ?
dont use summicron but a leitz enlarging lens , i bet its 1/3 or less
I would have a different approach: make first your 16x20 prints then tell us what you think. You see with your eyes, not someone else.
There is a problem with using camera lenses on an enlarger. An enlarging lens is designed to have a flat field of view. A camera lens has a curved field of view. When used on an enlarger there will be a falloff of focus at the edges of a print. When making prints use a good quality enlarging lens not a camera lens. What seems like a good idea really isn't one.
Before this thread drifts off in a completely wrong direction: I don't think the TO has the intention to use his Summicron as an enlarging lens.
He is wondering how big his shots taken with the Summicron can be printed, I suppose ...
He is wondering how big his shots taken with the Summicron can be printed, I suppose ...
I use a v.4 35mm Summicron with TMax 400. I've personally done a few 12x16 prints that were all very sharp despite the visible grain. I don't have the room to process 16x20 or I would try it. I suspect 16x20 may be pushing it.
I think Ben misunderstood the OP's post.
My Summicron is my sharpest 50-55mm lens (for a 35mm camera) with the best definition, I don't enlarge 35mm beyond 10x8 any longer. However I've seen 20x16 & 24x20 images taken with M series 50mm Summicrons and the quality was outstanding.
A lot will depend on careful exposure and processing, making sure that you've optimised your film and development, found your personal EI for that combination, making sure there's no camera shake etc.
Ian
Rereading the OP confirms this.Thanks.
Gerald is right in post #11. A Summicron isn't an ideal copy lens, either. However, it is fine for most imaging on a camera. Decades ago I did a quick, but very critical, test of about 35 lenses for 35mm use. Four were slightly sharper then the Summicron at comparable apertures: 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor, 50mm f/2.8 Elmar, 45mm f/2.8 GN Nikkor, and 50mm f/2.8 EL-Nikkor. The Summicron was close enough that the difference might never be noticed by most photographers.
For anyone interested in the quick test that used some of the same principals that Leitz used long ago, the target was the entire Bible copied onto a 2" square chip. A slide projector provided the light source through a diffuser. The image was projected to fill a 3x4' movie screen. When everything was properly aligned, it took only seconds to run through all stops of the lens. The two major characteristics this set-up didn't check were the correct infinity focus of the lens and its macro performance.
For anyone interested in the quick test that used some of the same principals that Leitz used long ago, the target was the entire Bible copied onto a 2" square chip. A slide projector provided the light source through a diffuser. The image was projected to fill a 3x4' movie screen. When everything was properly aligned, it took only seconds to run through all stops of the lens. The two major characteristics this set-up didn't check were the correct infinity focus of the lens and its macro performance.
When I use this lens on close subjects - it is so sharp that I cannot imagine that anything can be sharper. I paid for mine 20-30, best sharpness/money ratio you can get.
Using it as an enlarging lens? Just like any other enlarging lens, your massive enlargements will be limited by diffraction due to the small relative aperture at high magnification.
Sum micron are among the best taking lenses made.
For enlarging however, a lens optimized for close range is best. Flat field is also desirable, but one trait Leica surrenders to optimise other corrections.
I will pass judgement on all I have tried. 3.5 elmar enlarging lens was no good for large prints. The first 4.5 Focotar was made for 5x and was already falling apart at 8x12. The second 4.5 Focotar (large element) was the first made for large prints and was really a Schneider lens. Dead flat field and sharp from small to 16x20. Last one laitz made was the Focotar 2, a real Leica lens. Curved field returned somewhat, but very snappy contrast and good to 16x.
Before the large element was available, Leica recommended a Rigid or dual range lens head with 39 mm adapter. Unscrew the head from the focus mount. The later 1969 to `79 version 3 was even better as an enlarging lens, but neither was as good as a real enlarging lens. With any , the bigger the print, the better it works as they are for that magnification.
65 3.5 elmars were very good enlarging lenses. Black much better than chrome. Use extension tube as retain nut. Black has better contrast, less distortion, flatter field.
Also used older chrome Componons that are so so. And 4.0 Takumar Preset Macro, very flat field and good to very large prints, but lacking the contrast of a Leica lens.
50 2.8 Elmar could be used also with OK but not spectacular results. Adapters for this and Summicron head are difficult to find.
The two best of all were the large element and Focotar 2and what I use today.
And do not believe any BS about using the center of longer focal lengths. Not true for the best 50 mm lenses.
There is a 50 Rodagon G made for large prints only. I would assume it to be good.
And do not put wide angle enlarging lenses on a condenser enlarger. I have tried several and they are the worst I ever used, but they work beautifully on diffusion enlarger. Glass carriers in all cases. I can not explain why, just don`t do it.
For enlarging however, a lens optimized for close range is best. Flat field is also desirable, but one trait Leica surrenders to optimise other corrections.
I will pass judgement on all I have tried. 3.5 elmar enlarging lens was no good for large prints. The first 4.5 Focotar was made for 5x and was already falling apart at 8x12. The second 4.5 Focotar (large element) was the first made for large prints and was really a Schneider lens. Dead flat field and sharp from small to 16x20. Last one laitz made was the Focotar 2, a real Leica lens. Curved field returned somewhat, but very snappy contrast and good to 16x.
Before the large element was available, Leica recommended a Rigid or dual range lens head with 39 mm adapter. Unscrew the head from the focus mount. The later 1969 to `79 version 3 was even better as an enlarging lens, but neither was as good as a real enlarging lens. With any , the bigger the print, the better it works as they are for that magnification.
65 3.5 elmars were very good enlarging lenses. Black much better than chrome. Use extension tube as retain nut. Black has better contrast, less distortion, flatter field.
Also used older chrome Componons that are so so. And 4.0 Takumar Preset Macro, very flat field and good to very large prints, but lacking the contrast of a Leica lens.
50 2.8 Elmar could be used also with OK but not spectacular results. Adapters for this and Summicron head are difficult to find.
The two best of all were the large element and Focotar 2and what I use today.
And do not believe any BS about using the center of longer focal lengths. Not true for the best 50 mm lenses.
There is a 50 Rodagon G made for large prints only. I would assume it to be good.
And do not put wide angle enlarging lenses on a condenser enlarger. I have tried several and they are the worst I ever used, but they work beautifully on diffusion enlarger. Glass carriers in all cases. I can not explain why, just don`t do it.
When we are speaking about enlarging - I must say that best amount of details I ever got from a enlarger is without any competition V35 focomat with 40mm focotar lens. And I think it is not only about the lens, but the whole enlarger as a system - with unique light source, excellent lens and all together.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |