Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Aaron Ruby wrote: > > I know this may be considered off-topic, but it seems that there are > several printers on the LUG whose expertise and knowledge far surpass > any other resource I both trust and have ready access to. > > The question is whether an 80mm enlarging lens will have sufficient > coverage for 6cmX7cm negs. I am looking at the Schneider 80/4, but the > Calumet web site says that the recommended neg size is 6X6. Should I go > up to 100mm? The problem there is that it might unnecessarily limit > maximum magnification on my Saunders 670VCCE relative to the 80mm lens. > On the other hand, I hate dealing with unnecessary light fall off due to > poor coverage. > > I just bought a used Fuji GW670III and I'm dying to be able to print > negs from it! Any recommendations would be more than welcome. If you > don't want to clog up the list with off-topic mail, you could even email > me privately. But, in a way, I'm slightly on topic. My GW670 is kind of > like a noninterchangeable lens, plastic bodied version of my M2 on > STEROIDS. > > Best, > > Aaron Around here i might be in the minority but lots of people think it's good to go one up on your enlarger lens. (The Zone VIers for one) This definitely gives you not low quality outer areas (edges of the print) or fall off of light and other sorts and it can make printing more ergonomic; less slumping over. All my 35mm 8x10's are made with an 80.(Nikkor unfortunately but that's ok) For 16x20s and larger i have to go to my 50. For 6x6 and 645 I use the 135 to make my 8x10's. A limiting factor to take into consideration is that enlarger lenses have areas of magnification that they are optimized for. And if you used your larger format enlarger lens for 15x enlargements you could be loosing something. Mark Rabiner get at least a 90, I'd got with a 135