Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 3:26 PM -0500 10/4/99, Anderson, Ferrel E wrote: >The Focotar lenses are excellent, especially in terms of contrast, i.e., in >their control of flare and color fringing from f5.6 on). There are three 50mm >f4.5 Focotar optical designs. The first is a modified triplet, or Tessar or >Elmar design that uses 5 elements, with the front element split into two >elements. it can be easily identified by the fact that the lens >information is >printed on the front of the aperture ring (i.e., towards the easel when >the lens >is mounted on the enlarger). The second design is a Schneider design, and >is a >five element, four component Gauss type. The third design is called the >Focotar-2, and is a six element, five component gauss Leica design of superb >performance. These two lenses can be differentiated from the first design by >the fact that the lens information is printed on the side of the barrel. I am >not knowledgeable about the performance of the Schneider designed Focotar, but >it is described by Leica USA as better than that of the first design, I have one of the Schneider Focotars. When the Focotar-2 came out, I got one on trial for a week, but brought it back. I could see no advantage to it in my work, and one two disadvantages: a) it was going to cost me some money and b) it had more vignetting at 5.6 than my Focotar. My older Focotar is actually built more like an f/2.8 or f/3.5 lens that has a diaphragm that just doesn't open all the way. The Focotar-2 might have a performance edge in some part of the envelope, but not in any I tried during my tests. I also tried the first Focotar, and it definitely was a poorer performer. At f/8 (its optimum aperture) it was not nearly as good as the latter Focotars at 5.6, and probably not as good as the newer ones at 4.5. At f/11 it also fell off noticeably. I've tried a lot of enlarging lenses, but mostly in the 70's. The El Nikkors, Componons and Apo-Rodagons of the time were no match for my Focotar, and even though all the competitors were f/2.8 lenses, they all had to be stopped down to 5.6 to print reasonably; same as my Focotar. The f/2.8 apertures were only good for focussing, but even that was misleading since some had noticeable focus shift. I also have the Focotar 40/2.8, and while it is a decent wideangle enlarging lens, it is a definite step down from my Focotar and the Focotar-2. So I still use the 50's Focotar, and the 40 Focotar if I am making enlargements that make using the 50mm lens very inconvenient or impossible. Probably I haven't used it enough to make it worth keeping, so I'll probably sell it at some point (not right now, though). One lens I've wanted to try was the 105/5.6 El Nikkor that covered only 35. Apparently it defined the pinnacle of enlarger lens performance in the 70's. Unfortunately, it cost around $1500 or more at the time that I bought my Leica Hologon for less than $600 Canadian. Priorities :-). * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com