Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: shift bellows
From: "Christoph Held" <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:19:37 GMT+0100

JB wrote:

> Just as camera lenses make poor enlarging lenses, enlarging lenses make
> poor camera lenses UNLESS you are photographing a flat field. Flat to flat.
> Like in an enlarger. Flat neg to flat paper. Use the enlarging lens to copy
> photographs, artwork, documents, etc. It's much better than a camera lens
> for this purpose. But not for 3-D subjects. Leitz originally used camera
> lenses on their enlargers. But soon discovered that lenses made for flat
> field work would be much better. So they designed enlarging lenses for that
> purpose. As did the rest of the industry. That's why there are
> enlarger/copy lenses, and there are camera lenses.
> I'm not saying that the resulting photographs will be horrible or even
> unusable. They will indeed be usable and possibly quite good. I'm saying
> that lenses were designed for a specific purpose and work BEST when used
> for that purpose.
> Jim

I may be a bit late on this one, I'm afraid, but could somebody be a 
bit more specific on the disadvantageous of using an enlarger lens 
when used on a SLR? 
I am planning to do so with a Rodenstock APO 105/4 on a tilt 
adapter for macro photography. I do see two disadvantages: 
1) I have to set aperture manually (not a big deal IMO)
2) The lens does not decrease its focal length as some true macro 
lenses do. Therefore I will lose more light working at close 
distances (and larger extensions) according to the square distance 

Any other disadvantages? 

Christoph Held