Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"Henning J. Wulff" wrote: > > At 3:26 PM -0500 10/4/99, Anderson, Ferrel E wrote: ><Snip> > 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, ><Snip> So you wanted to print wide open like Ralph Gibson. Stopping down a couple was a problem? Were you all Zip aligned? ><Snip> > 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 :-). ><Snip> Huh? the 105/5.6 El Nikkor that covers 6x9cm and cast about $250? Mark Rabiner I've been using the 80/5.6 El Nikkor which cost $180 and the extra $60 would have gotten me top quality I think instead of "real good" quality. I'm due for an upgrade and will wait for Erwins Report before deciding what to do.