Re: [Leica] Enlarging lens

[RBedw51767@aol.com]

Mark:

Thank you for your comments.  

I have intended to do a direct comparison between the El-Nikkors and the
Rodagons.  I should do this.   I have begun using the Nikkors more because I
think, without intense scrutiny, that I like the images from them better than
the Rodagon. Jim Brick reference a book about enlarger lenses in a recent post
that I will order today.  There is relatively little that I can find on the
subject.

I would be interested to know which enlarger and lense that you use.  My next
major purchase will be a 4x5 enlarger but have no idea which one to purchase.
It will be for black and white only.  I would love to see a comparison between
a Focotar and an APO Rodagon.  

Thanks again for your input.

Bob

<< D Khong wrote:
 > 
 > >Dan:
 > >
 > >Thank you for the comments.
 > >
 > >Although I feel like I am getting excellent prints from my 50 & 80mm
Nikkors
 > >and 50 & 80mm Rodagons I felt that there may be another level available to
me
 > >by going to the Focotars.  Your words about the APO Rodenstock are
positive
 > >and I should take a look there before jumping into the Focotars.  Do you
have
 > >any experience with the Focotars?
 > >
 > >Thanks for your comments.
 > >
 > >Bob Bedwell
 > 
 > Hi Bob
 > 
 > I do not have a Focotar but did receive a set of three B&W prints from my
 > friend Henry Chu, a LUGger in Denver who did a comparison study with a
 > Focotar, an Elmar and  an EL-Nikkor, all 50mm lenses.  The picture was of
 > his daughter seated in a convertible, wearing sunglasses, in bright
 > sunlight and so the pics have plenty of bright and dark tones to look at.
 > 
 > Again there was a tough fight between all three.  I looked at all three
 > prints after shuffling them around so that I did not know what was written
 > on the back of the pics.  It took me a while to decide that I did not think
 > the print with "EL-Nikkor" written on the back was not on par with the
 > other two.  It just did not have the microcontrast of the Focotar and
Elmar.
 > 
 > Then it took me a longer while to decide that the print done with the Elmar
 > was a tad better than the Focotar.  I like microcontrast in shadows which
 > gives me the impression that the lens possess the capacity to resolve
 > shadow details well.  The Elmar did possess that quality, not in the
 > darkest parts of the pictures but in the mid-grey portions.  This
 > comparison is purely subjective based entirely on what I like to see in a
 > picture.
 > 
 > As far as sharpness is concerned, all three are about equal.  Henry does
 > not have an Apo-Rodagon otherwise I'm sure he would have given me the
 > pleasure of scrutinising a 4th print.
 > 
 > Dan K.
 
 I would like to compare grain patterns center to edge on 16 by 20s in
 Black and White prints of matching contrast. That's what I would like to
 see or do if I had the lenses to comparison test.
 Mark Rabiner
  >>