Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

best enlarger lens ever
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
A propos of Apo El Nikkors

FluffPuppy wrote:



Again, probably a repro lens.


Not quite, fluffy, not quite. http://savazzi.freehostia.com/download/manuals/Apo-EL-Nikkor%201.pdf

Fluffy, I have no idea who you are or what you've done. I'm slightly acquainted with Ctein, respect him highly. Until proven otherwise, he's a better printer and evaluator of everything related to printing than you. He rates the 105/5.6 Apo El Nikkor above the 100/5.6 Focotar II.

Here's the book: http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

To open another can of worms, does anyone here have any experience with the Goerz Magnar enlarging lenses? I've seen extravagant claims made for them.


Well that's something else again. I was talking about the 50mm Focotar-2. I am unaware of a 100mm Focotar 2.

I have corresponded with Mr Ctein and we know one another.

He doesn't know everything and neither do I, but when I have had the opportunity to test lenses (not infrequently) the Leitz products always came out on top.

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are we in danger of splitting hairs? That is to say, one cracking good lens versus another cracking good lens?

Just asking Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:

I did test the lens, as I said, many moons ago, against the major competitors (Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider). What more do you want?


Well let's see the actual evidence, that's what more I want. Without evidence it's just your opinion and not a fact.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
GrahamNR17 wrote:
Are we in danger of splitting hairs? That is to say, one cracking good lens versus another cracking good lens?

Just asking Wink


Fair question. As I read the report, if you need the best a 105/5.6 Apo El Nikkor can give then none of the alternatives will do for you. Ctein, who's very exacting, doesn't own one. And that, I think, answers your question, Graham. I'm not sure that fluffy would agree; I get the impression he wants the absolutely best by test or assertion and that nothing else will do for him.

One of the interesting things about Ctein's report on enlarging lenses is that there's no mention of the 50 Focotar-2. One explanation, untestable, is that it didn't make the cut.

I find assertions of any lens' or lens maker's superiority offensive. Not that I have anything against any maker's lenses a priori, rather that assertions of superiority not supported by exhaustive testing (all of the plausible alternatives) are offensive. In most photographic situations, what's good enough is good enough and there's little to be gained by getting something marginally better.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:

I did test the lens, as I said, many moons ago, against the major competitors (Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider). What more do you want?


Well let's see the actual evidence, that's what more I want. Without evidence it's just your opinion and not a fact.


No. It's hard to see some of these things on a scan anyway. I don't have time or the interest. I did the tests, and they were conclusive. I don't have all these lenses available anymore, and I would have to purchase them to do this, and I'm simply not going to do it all over again. I did the test already, in 1977.

The Leitz lens had better sharpness and tonality. It was obvious, but not overwhelming. I had been using an EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8, itself a very good lens. But the Focotar-2 bettered it in every way.

If we put the Focotar-2 at 10, the others would be about 7.5-8.5. The EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 was my previous favorite. When the Focotar-2 came out I bought it and tested it just to make sure it was as good as they said. I needn't have bothered.

If you look at the projected image under magnification, such as an enlarging scope, you can see the differences quite easily.

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:51 pm; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
GrahamNR17 wrote:
Are we in danger of splitting hairs? That is to say, one cracking good lens versus another cracking good lens?

Just asking Wink


Fair question. As I read the report, if you need the best a 105/5.6 Apo El Nikkor can give then none of the alternatives will do for you. Ctein, who's very exacting, doesn't own one. And that, I think, answers your question, Graham. I'm not sure that fluffy would agree; I get the impression he wants the absolutely best by test or assertion and that nothing else will do for him.

One of the interesting things about Ctein's report on enlarging lenses is that there's no mention of the 50 Focotar-2. One explanation, untestable, is that it didn't make the cut.


Hilarious. It's quite possible he didn't know of it as it is no longer made. It was hardly even advertised.

I do remember Barry Thornton, author of Edge of Darkness, in that book showed a test he performed of several enlarging lenses. Among them was the old, original Focotar (not the improved second version). He raved about it.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:


Hilarious. It's quite possible he didn't know of it as it is no longer made. It was hardly even advertised.


Not hilarious, just another untested conjecture.

Since you don't seem to have read what Ctein wrote, here's something to ponder:

Quote:
Like so many other photographers, Ken
Werner (one of the first editors of the late,
lamented Camera and Darkroom) and I wondered
what the truth was from the very first day we set
foot in a darkroom. Back in the 1980s, we did
something about it. Since Ken has a degree in
physics from Columbia University and I have one
from Caltech, we knew our share of optics. First,
we worked out a comprehensive testing program
for enlarging lenses. Then we contacted every
maker of top-notch enlarging lenses and
requested samples. I spent 6 months testing 90
lenses with 70 different designs in search of the
answer to the main question: What are the
absolute best enlarging lenses for 35mm, 120,
and 4 x 5 formats?


Ctein tested a 100 Focotar-2. When was the 50 Focotar-2 released?

I see that in another post you did your tests in 1977. Which vintages of Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock, other non-Leitz lenses did you test? I ask because Ctein got good results -- go read his book -- with -N El Nikkors, all released after 1977.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:


Hilarious. It's quite possible he didn't know of it as it is no longer made. It was hardly even advertised.


Not hilarious, just another untested conjecture.

Since you don't seem to have read what Ctein wrote, here's something to ponder:

Quote:
Like so many other photographers, Ken
Werner (one of the first editors of the late,
lamented Camera and Darkroom) and I wondered
what the truth was from the very first day we set
foot in a darkroom. Back in the 1980s, we did
something about it. Since Ken has a degree in
physics from Columbia University and I have one
from Caltech, we knew our share of optics. First,
we worked out a comprehensive testing program
for enlarging lenses. Then we contacted every
maker of top-notch enlarging lenses and
requested samples. I spent 6 months testing 90
lenses with 70 different designs in search of the
answer to the main question: What are the
absolute best enlarging lenses for 35mm, 120,
and 4 x 5 formats?


Ctein tested a 100 Focotar-2. When was the 50 Focotar-2 released?

I see that in another post you did your tests in 1977. Which vintages of Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock, other non-Leitz lenses did you test? I ask because Ctein got good results -- go read his book -- with -N El Nikkors, all released after 1977.


I think Leitz ceased manufacturing of the lens by the early 1990s, so Ctein may not have heard of it. They did not publicize it except in their magazine. I used contemporary lenses, of course, when I did the test back in 1976 or 1977 (I don't remember now). I had owned an EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 up to that time. It was a very good lens, no doubt, but the Focotar-2 clearly is a better lens. I sincerely doubt it has been equaled. Really, not many of these lenses were made. By 'better' I mean sharper, especially in the corners, and much better tonality. Shadow-tone separation has to be seen to be believed!

Here is some info, though it may be incorrect, because the lens was still available, I believe, after 1979:

http://test.www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Focotar_-_2_1:4.5_/_50_mm

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:43 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You don't read what I write either.

It is wrong to criticize, let alone dismiss, what you haven't read. Go read Ctein's book. It is a free download and I provided a link to it earlier in this thread.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
You don't read what I write either.

It is wrong to criticize, let alone dismiss, what you haven't read. Go read Ctein's book. It is a free download and I provided a link to it earlier in this thread.


I haven't the slightest interest in doing so. I know what I see under the magnifier and in my prints. There are some good enlarging lenses out there, but I have not seen another with all the virtues of this one in such abundance. Ctein's understanding of some issues is less than perfect, and I did point out something to him in an issue of Photo Technique, in a letter published in that magazine, which he confessed he did not know about. For one thing, it is a matter of taste, to some extent, what particular properties an enlarging lens should have. Two lenses may be overall of the same quality but may give slightly different-looking images. So, to say "what is the absolute best lens" shows that he lacks this understanding. It's not perfect, no lens is, but in any case, the Focotar-2 pretty much outclasses every other lens I have had the opportunity to try, in every way.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Two lenses may be overall of the same quality but may give slightly different-looking images. So, to say "what is the absolute best lens" shows that he lacks this understanding. It's not perfect, no lens is, but in any case, the Focotar-2 pretty much outclasses every other lens I have had the opportunity to try, in every way.


Laughing Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
Two lenses may be overall of the same quality but may give slightly different-looking images. So, to say "what is the absolute best lens" shows that he lacks this understanding. It's not perfect, no lens is, but in any case, the Focotar-2 pretty much outclasses every other lens I have had the opportunity to try, in every way.


Laughing Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Laughing


No, not at all. But, as has already been demonstrated here, I'm incurably dense.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
Two lenses may be overall of the same quality but may give slightly different-looking images. So, to say "what is the absolute best lens" shows that he lacks this understanding. It's not perfect, no lens is, but in any case, the Focotar-2 pretty much outclasses every other lens I have had the opportunity to try, in every way.


Laughing Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Laughing


Are you not a native English speaker? I spoke carefully. In some cases, there are products that are very good but different, with none clearly superior, the choice being a matter of taste. But in other cases, there are clearly unmatched products. My point was that Ctein naively supposed that there was a single best enlarging lens. This was by no means inevitable. The fact that the Focotar-2 is better than the others in every way is somewhat odd, in that most lenses are better than others in some ways, worse in others.

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
Two lenses may be overall of the same quality but may give slightly different-looking images. So, to say "what is the absolute best lens" shows that he lacks this understanding. It's not perfect, no lens is, but in any case, the Focotar-2 pretty much outclasses every other lens I have had the opportunity to try, in every way.


Laughing Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Laughing


Are you not a native English speaker? I spoke carefully. In some cases, there are products that are very good but different, with none clearly superior, the choice being a matter of taste. But in other cases, there are clearly unmatched products. My point was that Ctein naively supposed that there was a single best enlarging lens. That there is one was by no means inevitable.


Hmm. You've asserted that in your tests, not described in detail, the 50 Focotar-2 came out best. Your tests were limited, your test protocol is suspect because unpresented. You didn't settle the question of whether the 50 Focotar-2 is "clearly unmatched."

You still haven't read what I wrote or what Ctein wrote. You misrepresent both. Until proven otherwise, I've smoked out a rat.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
Two lenses may be overall of the same quality but may give slightly different-looking images. So, to say "what is the absolute best lens" shows that he lacks this understanding. It's not perfect, no lens is, but in any case, the Focotar-2 pretty much outclasses every other lens I have had the opportunity to try, in every way.


Laughing Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Laughing


Are you not a native English speaker? I spoke carefully. In some cases, there are products that are very good but different, with none clearly superior, the choice being a matter of taste. But in other cases, there are clearly unmatched products. My point was that Ctein naively supposed that there was a single best enlarging lens. That there is one was by no means inevitable.


Hmm. You've asserted that in your tests, not described in detail, the 50 Focotar-2 came out best. Your tests were limited, your test protocol is suspect because unpresented. You didn't settle the question of whether the 50 Focotar-2 is "clearly unmatched."

You still haven't read what I wrote or what Ctein wrote. You misrepresent both. Until proven otherwise, I've smoked out a rat.


Testing enlarging lenses is a little different. The ultimate criterion is: how good do the prints look?

First of all, you have to know how to print, using good films and papers. Secondly, you have to have good negatives. I took negatives, a few favorites, and made prints (I use Leica lenses, so my negatives are a little better to start with). I saw things in the prints that I had never seen in the prints made with the EL-Nikkor. In particular, I saw separation of tones in shadow areas that I had never seen before. Sharpness in the center was not all that much different, but the corners were better.

I also used a 25x focussing magnifier to examine the projected image. I checked the centers and edges. It was clear enough which lens stood out. Under the magnifier you can see everything, even the effects of diffraction, quite clearly. That's why I use the lens at f/6, which is the optimum aperture.

You can understand that such a procedure cannot be used over the internet.

If you want a superb lens, check it out and see if I'm not right. A few thousand were made, so they are out there.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon Repro NIKKOR 85 mm F/1.0
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130624948203+

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/repro1pon.html
via http://nikonrumors.com/


PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Nikon Repro NIKKOR 85 mm F/1.0
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130624948203+

...


Feedback of 3!

JJ


PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Nikon Repro NIKKOR 85 mm F/1.0
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130624948203+

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/repro1pon.html
via http://nikonrumors.com/


Not really an enlarging lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, but thought it was still interesting enough to post.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, my 2 two cents are:

1) The Apo EL Nikkor (105mm that is), beats any other enlarger lens I have (including the Zeiss S-Orthoplanar 105mm)
2) The Leitz Focotar II (50mm + 100mm) beats any other enlarger lenses I have, except #1 and both are about on par with the Zeiss S-Orthoplanar 105mm + 50mm that I have. Of course always comparing matching focal lengths only.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:02 pm    Post subject: Focotar 50 4,5 = Componon Reply with quote
According to the Schneider production list, they made a large number of Focotar 50 4,5 which were ordered by Leitz. The note after the order says "Componon". The Componons at the time were listed as 50 f 4.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Focotar 50 4,5 = Componon Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
According to the Schneider production list, they made a large number of Focotar 50 4,5 which were ordered by Leitz. The note after the order says "Componon". The Componons at the time were listed as 50 f 4.

p.


Where did you fibnd this info Paul? I heard rumors about that but never found a confirmation. Also about that Focotar II 100mm which supposedly was a Componon-S 100mm. I measured both and they are NOT identical.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Componon-S 5.6/100, I have used it as a taking lens and I think it's superb, renders unlike a camera lens, which I think is due to the flat field, it's very sharp indeed but needs a hood as it's sensitive to flare.

I harbour thoughts of putting the cells in a shutter, but I'm not sure if the one I have is one of the models where the cells will fit a shutter, I think it may be the earlier Componons that have cells that will unscrew and then screw straight into a shutter.

I have seen some CZJ Dokumars for sale very cheap, not technically an enlarger lens. The 8/38 interests me, but I can't find any info about it, I need to know the image circle. Marco Cavina wrote that the image circle of the Dokumar 5.6/47 is 53.8mm, which covers 35mm but not 6x6, which is my interest in the Dokumar 8/38, the design is similar to the Super Angulon but Marco says the angle of coverage is much lower.

Does anyone know where I can find info on the Dokumars? Also, is the 8/38 the same lens as the 5.6/38 just with an internal fixed aperture disk to reduce the max opening down to f8? I particularly need to know the image circle, the flange focal distance and how well the corrections hold up at infinity, rather than the close distance they were intended for.



PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Schneider list as far as I recall, is thst of mr. Thiele. It is page after page of who bought what and when.

I used it to search for items bought by Pignons, but was surprised not only to find that the angulons and the shift lenses, the variogons and the 10mm cinegons were delivered to them, but also M-mount Elmarit 90es and Focotar/Componons.

I can fish out the page refernce when I get back to my library later today.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting discoveries. A collegue of mine (from the Leica R4-days) used to argue all his lenses were signifantly better than my Zuiko's. He shot Kodacolor II, I shot Kodachrome 25 and 64 and won back all that he lost, I think. Besides that, he couldn't be convinced that he actually was a Rokkor-lover Very Happy
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3