Re: [Leica] Enlarger height and enlarging lenses

["rlb" <rlb@triad.rr.com>]

Thanks....I certainly trust your evaluation more than Johnston's.  I have
run many enlarging lens tests and presented prints to the photo group and
the only difference I can see is that there appears to be a "bit" more
information in the shadows with the Focotars.  It was amazing that almost
everyone chose the Focotar prints and they didn't know which lens was used.
That amazed me.

Most of my prints are made at F11 or F16.  I am going to back down from this
and start printing at F8 or less just to see.  I use the very expensive Peak
grain focuser and I am going to look at the grain at different f stops to
see if I can tell a difference.

I purchased a 50mm Componon S off of a guy on Ebay but the F ring woulndn't
open to F2.8 and I sent it back to him.  I should get it back repaired this
week.  As you know I am a Schneider freak and everyone seems to praise them.
Wish it was an 80mm.

I have had the same problem as you with the Saunders easel not opening at
certain magnifications.   Saunders makes a focusing extender which I
purchased for very hi-mag prints.  My arms are too damn short to focus
without it on some prints.

You state that grain focusers are deceptive.  Are you saying that you will
find that being in focus with the grain focuser often will result in prints
that are out of focus?  I thought that was one of the reasons to stop down
the enlarger lens....depth of field.  Or, am I all wet?

Bob


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Enlarger height and enlarging lenses


> Mike Johnston wrote:
> ><Snip>
> > Kip,
> > The idea that you should use a longer-than-normal focal length for any
> > format is an old wives' tale.* It hasn't been remotely valid for thirty
> > years or more, and certainly isn't today. The best performance will
> > almost always be achieved with a lens designed for the format you're
> > enlarging. Stick to 50mm lenses for 35mm.
> >
> > It's also worth noting that virtually no "wide angle" lens for 35mm
> > format tests as well as similar lenses of 50mm focal length. This
> > includes the 45mm Schneider and the 40mm Leitz.
> >
> > --Mike
> >
> > * Figure of speech only. No slur intended against old wives or any of
> > the gentlemen married to them.
>
> Fred Picker taught his popular cult the necessary advantages of going up
one
> format on enlarging lenses but I never got his book or bought his print of
the
> white picket fence. I'm not a follower period. He would push the
Schneiders 90's
> on his unsuspecting  35mm worshipers and I'm sure they did  more than OK
with them.
> My first enlarger that I did any real work with was a Beseler 5x7
coldlight. The
> motorized head would not go low enough to use my dirty 50mm Componon for
my 6x9
> full frame black border images I would always made on 8x10 paper. (and
still do)
> A 6 x enlargement roughly. So I used a 75 mm Componar then an 85 Nikor for
most
> of my work. Then I got a D2 with a cold light and a 50 2.8 Nikkor but my 4
> bladed Saunders easel would almost hit my enlarging lens every time I
opened it
> and I would get a crick in my neck in the whole printing process. Advil in
advance!
> I tested my 50 against my 80 on a neg making matched prints but the only
> difference was my neck.
> I agree the "wide angle" enlarging lenes are a problem and the reason
being
> corner quality but corner quality could also be an issue with a 50 even a
high
> end 50. And that for some people like the Pickerites could be why they
would use
> and 80 or a 90. But I could not tell much of a difference as I said with
my 50
> against my 80. But I stop down one and I'm at f8 that kind of bums me
out!!!
> And Fred Picker ain't no old wife and neither am I!!! I don't think there
is a
> resolution problem as I could see none with in my prints (using various
> magnifiers closely inspecting the grain).
> I think grain magnifiers are deceptive in what they tell you I always
decide
> from the grain in a dried print.
> So there!!
> Mark Rabiner
> I make 7x7" images on 8x10 paper from medium format squre negs with my 135
> Nikkor! What a deal! Same money on Chiropractic work!