Which 135mm and 300mm Enlarging Lenses For BIG Prints?

[Old-N-Feeble]

I finally found a phone number to call Cameraquest. I spoke to someone who told me that was an old web page and he doesn't know if they still have the 300-G. He said he'd return my email in a couple of days. I don't know if I can hold my breath for that long.....

 

[Ian C]

Regarding post #23, the formula shown is incorrect.

For a negative whose format rectangle measures 56mm x 112mm and 4270mm of negative-to-print distance and using a 135mm lens, the magnification is 29.6X.

That makes the dimensions of the projection approximately 1657mm x 3315mm = 65” x 130”.


For an 8” x 10” negative whose format rectangle measures 195.5mm x 245.5mm and with 4270mm of negative-to-print distance and using a 300mm lens, the magnification is 12.1X.

That makes the dimensions of the projection approximately 2365mm x 2970mm = 93” x 117”

You can print whatever fits inside the projections.

 

[darkroom_rookie]

Perhaps an Apo-Ronar might prove good enough. If you haven't seen it, here's a video of a German photographer using a 1800mm Apo-Ronar for a 50x90" Ilfochrome (interesting parts: 21:30-41:35 and 57:34-end): http://www.ereignis21.de/Ereignis21.mp4

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thank you, Ian. Can you post the formula you're using?

 

[ic-racer]

I priced a handful of Rodagon-G lenses .

They can be expensive. An alternative is the 'poor-man's' high magnification enlarging lens. That is, use a lens with a longer focal length. For example, when I'm projecting 8x10 on the wall for up to 50" I use a 'standard' 360mm enlarging lens. Realize that, just like large format photography with lenses that 'just cover' you problems arise at infinity, not close-up. So when enlarging, small magnifications are like close-up and you don't need a lens with great coverage. The more magnification you need the more it is like a camera lens at infinity, thus you can run out of sharp image circle.

UPDATE: I saw above that you may have got a bargain priced Rodagon G 300! Good work!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

ic-r, I'm a firm believer in using enlarging lenses at least twenty percent longer than the film's diagonal and I think fifty percent is probably optimal provided the lenses are used within their optimum magnification range. At least this was my personal experience thirty-five years ago with EL Nikkors and Rodagons of the time. I just don't have enough room in my little building to facilitate the print size I want and use lenses longer than "normal".

 

[Ian C]

In answer to post #29

Let

k = negative-to-print distance

f = focal length

n = negative dimension (length, width, or any other dimension of interest in the negative)

p = projected dimension of n

p = ([(k + sqrt(k^2 – 4kf) )/2f] – 1)n

Example: k = 4270mm, f = 135mm, n = 56mm

P = ([4270 + sqrt(4270^2 – 4*4270*135)/2*135] – 1)*56mm = 1657mm = 65”

It’s not pretty, but that’s the way it is.


The calculation is much simpler if you use the lens-to-print distance.

In that case we’d let

u = lens-to-print distance

p = [u/f – 1]n

Example:

u = 4130mm

p = [4130/135 – 1]*56mm = 1657mm = 65”

 

[DREW WILEY]

I assume you talked to Stephen Gandy at Cameraquest. Just wait for him to get back to you. But if he
has already sold that 300G, there are some decent bargains out there on the 305 Apo Nikkors. They'll
be around a stop slower, but are probably going to be superior in several respects to any ordinary enlarging lenses. The formal specs for these are a bit misleading because they were composed with the printing industry in mind (copy cameras) and not enlarger use.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yes, it was Stephen Gandy.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

We-e-e-e-llll darn... I called Stephen Gandy today and he can't find the 300 Rodagon-G nor the 300 EL Nikkor.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sorry to hear that. The viewing brightness would have been easier with a G-Claron than with an Apo Nikkor, but the optimum printing f-stop similar - around f/11.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Up again...

First, I've decided to lengthen the building ten feet. This will net me about twenty-four feet of internal work space which is more than long enough for my purposes. It's also a better fit for most automobiles so this is a logical decision.

If I can't find affordable Rodagon-G's I guess I'll have to try normal taking lenses. Maybe they'll work well at high magnification. I'll find out once I have the building lengthened and set up a darkroom.

Any more advice is greatly appreciated... or if you have a nice 150mm or 300mm Rodagon-G you want to sell on the cheap then please let me know before I spend all my money on booze and ladies!!

A little more research and trying to drill information into my thick skull... It appears that a standard Componon-S or similar will work fine for 8x10" at 12-16x magnification but I'll need a Rodagon-G or similar for enlarging 6x12cm to 25-30x. Gee whiz... it may be cheaper to shoot 8x10" all the time.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I ran across some references to Fax-Nikkor and Agfa Repromaster lenses. Anyone have info on those?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE 300mm Componon-S: All I can find is anecdotal opinion regarding magnification range. Schneider claims 2-20x for the entire line. If this is accurate then very large prints at 12-16x are well within their specs and prints should be very sharp center-to-corner. Any more data available?

 

[ic-racer]

As far as my Schneider Literature indicates, they never made a "HM" high magnification lens in the 300mm focal length (unlike Rodenstock). So 2 to 20x is it.

My 300mm is a Rodenstock (non-G) and my 360mm is a Componon (non-S) so I cannot give you any first-hand information about the 300mm Componon-S. My guess is that it will be just fine for your purposes. (B&W enlarging , right?)

Do you have a lens yet? Here is a Componon-S 300mm for $100: http://www.largeformatphotography.i...-Schneider-enlarging-lens-125&highlight=300mm

The only reason I have not bought that lens is that I already have four lenses for 8x10 enlarging and they pretty much do the same thing.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thanks, ic-r.

 

[ic-racer]

For the record and according to John Sexton, Ansel Adams used an early 60cm f9 Apo-Nikkor process lens for his 8x10 film enlarging. That is NOT the rare Apo-EL-Nikkor enlarging lens, but the common process lens introduced in the 1940s.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

ic-r, I wonder why AA used the 600mm Tessar formula rather than the 605mm dialyte. For that matter, I wonder why such a long focal length. It seems that a 360 or 420 dialyte would have been a better overall choice.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I meant 610mm dialyte... and up once more.

 

[DREW WILEY]

How does AA creep into this equation? His work has aritstic and historic significance and he put a lot of effort into it, but his enlargements were pretty damn fuzzy compared to what can be done today.
That's why he used matte paper for anything bigger than 20x24. We've got way better film, enlargers,
and lenses than he did - in fact, some of his dkrm gear was badly out of date before his career ended.
No pro lab would have used such things. I don't think there ever was a 600 Apo El. The regular Apo is
common, though I doubt he owned the latest version. He wanted distance between the horizontal enlgr
and himself, so he could sneak around and dodge/burn close to the vertical panel where the paper was.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I just remembered I have a cosmetically-challenged 120mm WA Rodagon sitting on a shelf. Optically it appears to be perfect. I've seen reference that it's optimum magnification range is 4-15x. I don't want to use a wide-angle on any enlargements but this is close enough to normal for 6x12cm. Has anyone used this lens for 25-30x enlargements with 6x12cm? If so, how was the sharpness and contrast center-to-corner? Yes, I can test it... eventually.

 

[PKM-25]

Has anyone used this lens for 25-30x enlargements with 6x12cm?

There seems to be a thread on that lens over at LFPF...

25-30X from 2.25" x 5", are you sure? 6x12 at 25X roughly 56x112, I am not sure your 120 WA can handle that, at least with clarity...

No matter how you slice it, you are out of Apo-N territory at that point, only a 150 or 210 Rodagon G will be worth the paper you are printing on at that size. I went through the same maddening gear hunt when I decided that at some point, I want to be able to take advantage of 56" rolls of Ilford paper and had to wait quite awhile and spend some major bucks in getting both my 105 F5.6 Rodagon G and 150 F4 Apo-N, I ended up getting a 50 2.8 G for a song when I bought a set of three lenses from a guy...

I found a finished auction for a 150 Rodagon G from over a year ago, it went for $700, some have found them for less but despite what Bob Saloman says about big labs dumping them for peanuts, they have kind of dried up.

Aside from near-obssesive search strategies, you might want to put an ad up in one of a few macro photography forums, those guys tend to snatch them up too....maybe one of them is getting bored with mundane flower photos on his D-something or other and will part with it...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

PKM... thank you for the LFPI link.

The spec for the 120 WA Rodagon is 15x max so I think you're right that it won't perform as I want. Yes, I'm sure I want 25-30x magnification. I have a garage that I'm having an extra 10 feet of length added so I'll have approximately 24 feet of space to work with. I want to make 56x112 inch enlargements on fiber based paper.

You're confirming what some others have stated regarding the Rodagon-G or G-Componon. I hate to keep looking, and looking, and looking because time is money. Pretty soon I might as well have paid $1000 for a lens I bought for $500 because of the time spent looking for the thing.

I'll take your suggestion and place an ad on photomacrography.net but I imagine they all know what these lenses are worth.

The good news is I "think" a 300mm Componon-S will work very well for 112 inch wide prints from 8x10 and those aren't "quite" as pricey as a G or an Apo. At least I "hope" Schneider's specs are right... 2-20x magnification.

 

[ic-racer]

least I "hope" Schneider's specs are right... 2-20x magnification.

20x is a 'soft' physical limit of the system. Your effective aperture wide open (f5.6) with that lens will be f117 at 20x. That is the same effective aperture as making a 16x20" print from 35mm negative using a 50mm lens set to f8. The effective aperture will determine your diffraction.

Beyond 20x you can eventually get into the range where the diffraction is so bad even with the lens wide open that use of a grain focuser is futile, the grain is always mush. In those cases, standing back by the enlarger and just focusing until it looks sharp on the wall can be the best option. The huge prints can still come out very good as long as the viewer has some distance on them is not looking at them with a 10x loupe.

 

[Nige]

Pretty soon I might as well have paid $1000 for a lens I bought for $500 because of the time spent looking for the thing.

Just wondering, what is the paper worth in the size you want to print? Whenever I look at large sheet prices I cringe... but if it's coming of a roll, maybe the cost per foot or whatever is not to bad? (just need to fork out the initial $$$$ to get started)