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

Enlarger Taking Lens Survey (ETLS.22)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Amar might make the cut, and the Neonon 80 is already in the frame. I've updated the first entry in the thread to show the lens obtained and scheduled so far. Testing will begin when I can track down an APO EL 105.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've owned several Amar/S 105mm over the years, and they have all been quite hazy, with manufacturing defects. Have I just not received good lenses? None have been good enough to include in any test I've done. They may be excellent but it seems very tough to find one in good condition...


PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
16:9 wrote:
I aim to please: bought a Fujinon EX 105 and Ektar 75 in the past few hours for inclusion.


I have little doubt the Ektar 75 will have the most pleasing bokeh of all the lenses on test. Smile


Many El-lenses have quite ugly bokeh, Including my beloved Rodagon 105, G-Claron 150 and several more I had


PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
I've owned several Amar/S 105mm over the years, and they have all been quite hazy, with manufacturing defects. Have I just not received good lenses? None have been good enough to include in any test I've done. They may be excellent but it seems very tough to find one in good condition...

That's good to know. Out of curiosity, were they like the one in the thread I posted (as I've seen earlier versions of it on Ebay too; perhaps it was only those you had bad experiences with?).


PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
MacTak wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
I've owned several Amar/S 105mm over the years, and they have all been quite hazy, with manufacturing defects. Have I just not received good lenses? None have been good enough to include in any test I've done. They may be excellent but it seems very tough to find one in good condition...

That's good to know. Out of curiosity, were they like the one in the thread I posted (as I've seen earlier versions of it on Ebay too; perhaps it was only those you had bad experiences with?).


Would you please provide a link to that thread? Search doesn't seem to be working, only returning 404 errors...Ray


PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
MacTak wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
I've owned several Amar/S 105mm over the years, and they have all been quite hazy, with manufacturing defects. Have I just not received good lenses? None have been good enough to include in any test I've done. They may be excellent but it seems very tough to find one in good condition...

That's good to know. Out of curiosity, were they like the one in the thread I posted (as I've seen earlier versions of it on Ebay too; perhaps it was only those you had bad experiences with?).


Would you please provide a link to that thread? Search doesn't seem to be working, only returning 404 errors...Ray


Here's the link:

http://forum.mflenses.com/amar-s-4-5-105mm-made-in-poland-my-new-105-tele-t37668.html


PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
MacTak wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
MacTak wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
I've owned several Amar/S 105mm over the years, and they have all been quite hazy, with manufacturing defects. Have I just not received good lenses? None have been good enough to include in any test I've done. They may be excellent but it seems very tough to find one in good condition...

That's good to know. Out of curiosity, were they like the one in the thread I posted (as I've seen earlier versions of it on Ebay too; perhaps it was only those you had bad experiences with?).


Would you please provide a link to that thread? Search doesn't seem to be working, only returning 404 errors...Ray


Here's the link:

http://forum.mflenses.com/amar-s-4-5-105mm-made-in-poland-my-new-105-tele-t37668.html


That is the same type I have. The haze is internal, and I can't figure out how to open the lens to clean inner surfaces...


PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Any update on the lens testing?


PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Almost done tracking down the last of the candidates . . .

Still no APO EL 105, though - looks like I may have to begin without it, and add a comparison down the line. I'm also going to need an adaptor like your PN105 for the Printing Nikkor 150mm. In its range what a lens! Having said that, all the models in the line-up are superbly useable - it will be quite a challenge to tease them apart.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
Almost done tracking down the last of the candidates . . .

Still no APO EL 105, though - looks like I may have to begin without it, and add a comparison down the line. I'm also going to need an adaptor like your PN105 for the Printing Nikkor 150mm. In its range what a lens! Having said that, all the models in the line-up are superbly useable - it will be quite a challenge to tease them apart.


Did you ever complete your lens tests?


PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Super necropost, but was this lens test ever done? I guess not. =(


PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Super necropost, but was this lens test ever done? I guess not. =(


Good to see you here again Arkku!


PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Good to see you here again Arkku!


Thanks, I've been lurking here on and off but haven't really had anything to post as I've been fairly inactive in photography and using AF lenses (oh noes, heresy!)

Anyway, as for the topic, a test of affordable enlarger lenses would still be interesting to me, or even just opinions from someone who has many. I'm looking to do some higher than 1× macro and since I have bellows and M39 adapters etc., enlarger lenses would be an easy way to do it.


PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2021 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
visualopsins wrote:

Good to see you here again Arkku!


Thanks, I've been lurking here on and off but haven't really had anything to post as I've been fairly inactive in photography and using AF lenses (oh noes, heresy!)

Anyway, as for the topic, a test of affordable enlarger lenses would still be interesting to me, or even just opinions from someone who has many. I'm looking to do some higher than 1× macro and since I have bellows and M39 adapters etc., enlarger lenses would be an easy way to do it.


You can view several shootouts and tests over on the Photomacrography.net forum. Also, Robert OToole has done quite a lot of testing and publishes on his closeuphotography website. I did a shootout at 2.4x a while back and included some enlarger lenses as well as duplication lenses and some objectives. Even at 2.4x you need to focus stack for best results:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20173

Most of the enlarger lens testing I've done has been at around 0.7x for coin photography, so won't help you much if you're trying for higher mags. But if you're interested, take a look at these links:

http://www.macrocoins.com/100mm-lens-shootout.html
http://www.macrocoins.com/80mm-lens-shootout.html


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:43 pm    Post subject: Necropost alert Reply with quote
Yes - that's a good idea: a group test of enlarger lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I know I may seem a little pinicky but, most decent enlarger lenses are optimised for a certain range of image enlargement ie 4-10x, 8-15x etc.
Does this allow for a fair comparison if each lens is optimised differently?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SilverPrintMan wrote:
I know I may seem a little pinicky but, most decent enlarger lenses are optimised for a certain range of image enlargement ie 4-10x, 8-15x etc.
Does this allow for a fair comparison if each lens is optimised differently?


In my case, my shootout tests were focused on the specific application of coin photography, and I wanted to find the best lenses for that app. The result was that lenses more optimized for that mag range, which is 0.25...1.0 on APSC (or 0.4 to 1.6 on FF), stood out above those which were optimized for different mag ranges. In reality, most enlarger lenses are optimized somewhere within the 2-20x range (forward mounted, from perspective of the negative), and it is a rare lens that works well at 1x. Duplication lenses were designed to fill the void from 0.5...2x, and it is this type which stands out for coins and for low-macro work generally.

So I guess the answer is that if we are evaluating enlarger lenses as enlarger lenses, they should be tested across their intended and optimized ranges to be fair in that application. But for the taking work that most folks are using these lenses for, they should be evaluated with the application ranges in mind.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes. Once upon a time I wanted to do a group test of enlarger lenses as taking lenses. It was pointed out that such an undertaking was a waste of time, pointlessly retreading the efforts of others. And this was partly true. However, I do not shoot coins, I rarely shoot macro and I have a kit-bag of pro glass. What I'm interested in is their tiny form factor and their big image circles. Their look is peculiar.

Even (especially) humdrum enlarger lenses (this is the almost free Perfex 75mm f3.5 - not much bigger than a coin itself - shooting the most humdrum of scenes) combine interesting factors . . .



The simplicity of these lenses gives a look that is optically 'pure': a cinematically large depth of field with a perfectly circular aperture; low contrast (like a 'vintage' lens - no bad thing) but a high degree of consistency across the frame (unlike a vintage lens) with regard to resolution and vignetting. On a tilt adaptor, one has powerful depth of field control and place of focus effects. And the Apo versions punch all that home with deep, rich colour - simultaneously doing dreamy and precise.

Doubling as macro lenses is merely a handy bonus.


Rodenstock Apo Rodagon N 105/4

Last edited by 16:9 on Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:12 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
Yes. Once upon a time I wanted to do a group test of enlarger lenses as taking lenses. It was pointed out that such an undertaking was a waste of time, pointlessly retreading the efforts of others. And this was partly true. However, I do not shoot coins, I rarely shoot macro and I have a kit-bag of pro glass. What I'm interested in is their tiny form factor and their big image circles. Their look is peculiar.

Even (especially) humdrum enlarger lenses (this is a really tatty copy of a really poor Perfex 75mm f4.5 - not much bigger than a coin itself - shooting the most humdrum of scenes) combine interesting factors . . .
...
The simplicity of these lenses gives a look that is optically 'pure': a cinematically large depth of field with a perfectly circular aperture; low contrast (like a 'vintage' lens - no bad thing) but a high degree of consistency across the frame (unlike a vintage lens) with regard to resolution and vignetting. On a tilt adaptor, one has powerful depth of field control and place of focus effects. And the Apo versions punch all that home with deep, rich colour - simultaneously doing dreamy and precise.

Doubling as macro lenses is merely a handy bonus.


Yes, a handy bonus for your portrait app, which is conversely a handy bonus for my macro app. Wink

Indeed as taking lenses, enlarger lenses are generally more closely-optimized to the application space of portrait lenses, given their typical mag range of 2-20, which when used for taking is .05-0.5.

I find it interesting you mention the 75mm Perfex. Is it the Anastigmat version? I found that lens to be superbly sharp as a taking lens for coins, all the way to 0.7:1. It's good to hear it does well for portrait work as well, but indeed it should be even better for that than for macro work.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:

Yes, a handy bonus for your portrait app, which is conversely a handy bonus for my macro app. Wink

Indeed as taking lenses, enlarger lenses are generally more closely-optimized to the application space of portrait lenses, given their typical mag range of 2-20, which when used for taking is .05-0.5.

I find it interesting you mention the 75mm Perfex. Is it the Anastigmat version? I found that lens to be superbly sharp as a taking lens for coins, all the way to 0.7:1. It's good to hear it does well for portrait work as well, but indeed it should be even better for that than for macro work.


That's the joy of complementary approaches: together we build a bigger picture. I've spent a happy few hours poring over your macro shots, Ray, and enjoyed my time with the Printing Nikkor, but mainly I'm in the business of looking up, not down!

Today, seven years late, I finally began testing my little batch of 9x enlarger lenses against conventional taking lenses. I'm only really interested in their regular distance performance (say, 1-30m), light handling (flare, sunstars, specular highlights), bokeh, and ease of use for stills and video. More on this soon. Today we learned:

1. Judged on sharpness and absence of aberration from these single samples at a working distance of 1m, my Fujinon 105/5.6 is levels above my copies of the Rodenstock 105/5.6 and Schneider 100/5.6.
2. Similarly, the basic Nikkor 80/5.6 is a big step up from the Minolta 80/5.6 and Perfex 75/3.5 - not too far off the Apo trio (Focotar II, Apo Rodagon 105/4 and Schneider Apo 90/4.5)
3. The latter-mentioned premium lenses justify their prices. At 1m, the Schneider Apo Componon might, by a tiny margin, be the highest resolution lens of the bunch. But I need to re-run these and a number of other tests to be sure.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
...Today we learned:

1. Judged on sharpness and absence of aberration from these single samples at a working distance of 1m, my Fujinon 105/5.6 is levels above my copies of the Rodenstock 105/5.6 and Schneider 100/5.6.
2. Similarly, the basic Nikkor 80/5.6 is a big step up from the Minolta 80/5.6 and Perfex 75/3.5 - not too far off the Apo trio (Focotar II, Apo Rodagon 105/4 and Schneider Apo 90/4.5)
3. The latter-mentioned premium lenses justify their prices. At 1m, the Schneider Apo Componon might, by a tiny margin, be the highest resolution lens of the bunch. But I need to re-run these and a number of other tests to be sure.


Yours is the second positive review I've heard regarding the 80mm EL-Nikkor in the last week. I've never had any respect for the lens, as the several examples I've owned all showed poor LoCAs and mediocre sharpness. However, a week ago I saw some pics of a coin taken with this lens around 1x that were among the best I've seen, and it has me more open-minded about the lens. I have recently changed from my HRT2i to an A7Rm4, and am embarking on a re-test of all my go-to lenses to verify their FF performance. I plan to add the 80mm Nikon into the mix of lenses to test.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sunstars / point source light rendering:



The Rodenstock Apo N 105/4 doesn't do stars at any aperture. The Fujinon 105/5.6 does them rather beautifully at every aperture.

On my Fujinon sample the lens isn't fully stopped open at f5.6 - can anyone confirm whether that's typical?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:

I find it interesting you mention the 75mm Perfex. Is it the Anastigmat version? I found that lens to be superbly sharp as a taking lens for coins, all the way to 0.7:1. It's good to hear it does well for portrait work as well, but indeed it should be even better for that than for macro work.


My sample doesn't have Anastigmat written on it, like some I've seen, but it's hazed inside the front element pair which seem to be cemented together. The rendering is good, and the f3.5 aperture is a bonus. If this copy isn't repairable I'll track down a healthy one.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:

I find it interesting you mention the 75mm Perfex. Is it the Anastigmat version? I found that lens to be superbly sharp as a taking lens for coins, all the way to 0.7:1. It's good to hear it does well for portrait work as well, but indeed it should be even better for that than for macro work.


My sample doesn't have Anastigmat written on it, like some I've seen, but it's hazed inside the front element pair which seem to be cemented together. The rendering is good, and the f3.5 aperture is a bonus. If this copy isn't repairable I'll track down a healthy one.


The version without Anastigmat notation is different from the one with notation. I found the Anastigmat to be better for macro, but did not test it (or the non-Anastigmat) for portraits. It is hard to find an Anastigmat in good condition. I've purchased perhaps 10 of them over the years, and only a couple were in good enough shape to keep. Mostly they have lots of scratches and fungus. I have not seen one with haze between elements.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
16:9 wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:

I find it interesting you mention the 75mm Perfex. Is it the Anastigmat version? I found that lens to be superbly sharp as a taking lens for coins, all the way to 0.7:1. It's good to hear it does well for portrait work as well, but indeed it should be even better for that than for macro work.


My sample doesn't have Anastigmat written on it, like some I've seen, but it's hazed inside the front element pair which seem to be cemented together. The rendering is good, and the f3.5 aperture is a bonus. If this copy isn't repairable I'll track down a healthy one.


The version without Anastigmat notation is different from the one with notation. I found the Anastigmat to be better for macro, but did not test it (or the non-Anastigmat) for portraits. It is hard to find an Anastigmat in good condition. I've purchased perhaps 10 of them over the years, and only a couple were in good enough shape to keep. Mostly they have lots of scratches and fungus. I have not seen one with haze between elements.


How does it compare to the 90mm f4.5 Perfex Anastigmat?

Frustratingly, it looks like the Fujinon EX 105/5.6 is actually an f4 lens, but the aperture mechanism doesn't permit it be shot fully open. Hence impressive sharpness at f5.6, but poor bokeh (and nice stars) from its straight-sided 8-blade aperture that's always in view. Shame.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3