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 lens test.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:15 am    Post subject: Enlarger lens test. Reply with quote
Testing the Schneider Krauznach 150mm f5.6 lens

I’d read that if one is using an enlarger lens on a camera (with bellows) one should reverse the orientation so that the “front of the lens should face the “film” so it is like it fits in an enlarger.

Well, I tried this as I have a 49mm reversing ring and here are the 100% blow up results: (Nothing done to the picture other than cropping, 40D focused in live view)

Enlarger orientation:



Camera orentation:




Just the opposite to what I read. The image quality is far better with the lens oriented like a camera lens.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Jules


PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jules, the second shot is clearly better. I'd have that second shot framed
if I were you....or not. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Jules, the second shot is clearly better. I'd have that second shot framed
if I were you....or not. Wink


LOL. Uhhh . .. not . . but, yeah what one reads ain't necessarily so.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It just shows how much you can rely on opinions on the internet. There are so many idiots who spread false information. I guess they're trying to appear clever. The same sort of thing happened to me with the question of silver oxide batteries on the Yahoo Spotmatic group, where some loudmouth argues with anyone who questions his (wrong) opinion. I don't really believe anything I read now unless I know I can trust the writer - thankfully it doesn't take too long to distinguish truly knowledgeable people (like Rick and Veiljo for example) from the bullsh*tters.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
It just shows how much you can rely on opinions on the internet. There are so many idiots who spread false information. I guess they're trying to appear clever. The same sort of thing happened to me with the question of silver oxide batteries on the Yahoo Spotmatic group, where some loudmouth argues with anyone who questions his (wrong) opinion. I don't really believe anything I read now unless I know I can trust the writer - thankfully it doesn't take too long to distinguish truly knowledgeable people (like Rick and Veiljo for example) from the bullsh*tters.


How is that different from the printed word? Do you believe everything you read in a newspaper, magazine, book, or flyer? (I assume not).


PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
peterqd wrote:
It just shows how much you can rely on opinions on the internet. There are so many idiots who spread false information. I guess they're trying to appear clever. The same sort of thing happened to me with the question of silver oxide batteries on the Yahoo Spotmatic group, where some loudmouth argues with anyone who questions his (wrong) opinion. I don't really believe anything I read now unless I know I can trust the writer - thankfully it doesn't take too long to distinguish truly knowledgeable people (like Rick and Veiljo for example) from the bullsh*tters.


How is that different from the printed word? Do you believe everything you read in a newspaper, magazine, book, or flyer? (I assume not).

Are you kidding? There's a big difference. Can you be sued for giving false info on the net?

I certainly don't trust newspapers, there have been so many false stories printed just to sell copies and then a payout settlement later. The Robert Murat story this week is a classic example. They have forgotten the importance of truth and honour.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Enlarger lens test. Reply with quote
generaly reversed lens using 50mm or less for greater magnification..make smallest f number (e.g. F11) and focus set to infinity, but reversed lens had a shallow dof.

you should try again with 50mm Very Happy


lulalake wrote:
Testing the Schneider Krauznach 150mm f5.6 lens

I’d read that if one is using an enlarger lens on a camera (with bellows) one should reverse the orientation so that the “front of the lens should face the “film” so it is like it fits in an enlarger.

Well, I tried this as I have a 49mm reversing ring and here are the 100% blow up results: (Nothing done to the picture other than cropping, 40D focused in live view)

Enlarger orientation:



Camera orentation:




Just the opposite to what I read. The image quality is far better with the lens oriented like a camera lens.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Jules


PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great bug shot Harya,
I have a 50mm El Nikkor but it won't work on my 40D, too short register.

It may on a different body however. I will try it if I can.

Thanks

Jules


PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First off, thank you for doing the experiment, that second shot shows why Schneider enlarging lenses have the rep they do.

Assuming a person has actually seen and worked with an enlarger (which these days may be doubtful) then a simple reflection on the geometries would guide one to the correct answer. The lens has some (shorter) distance to the negative which then is focused to a much larger distance on the easel. Unless one was doing macro, with bellows the shorter distance is to the film and the longer distance is to the subject.

Reversing a non-bellows lens for macro works for the same reason: now the short distance is to the subject and the long distance is to the film.

I'm scratching my head here, maybe the root of the error is in thinking the light has to travel in the intended direction Rolling Eyes so if enlarging you are PROJECTING, you must reverse so the light goes through the same direction?

And if you manage to roll your eyeballs all the way around you'd shoot light out of your eyes.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
First off, thank you for doing the experiment, that second shot shows why Schneider enlarging lenses have the rep they do.

Assuming a person has actually seen and worked with an enlarger (which these days may be doubtful) then a simple reflection on the geometries would guide one to the correct answer. The lens has some (shorter) distance to the negative which then is focused to a much larger distance on the easel. Unless one was doing macro, with bellows the shorter distance is to the film and the longer distance is to the subject.

Reversing a non-bellows lens for macro works for the same reason: now the short distance is to the subject and the long distance is to the film.

I'm scratching my head here, maybe the root of the error is in thinking the light has to travel in the intended direction Rolling Eyes so if enlarging you are PROJECTING, you must reverse so the light goes through the same direction?

And if you manage to roll your eyeballs all the way around you'd shoot light out of your eyes.


Thanks and yes I think your right., the lens should be "reversed" as if it were on an enlarger so that the image is "projected" onto the sensor . . . but . . it doesn't meet the theoretical outcome.

I took a couple of macros with the lens on both ways and there was virtually no difference in the images.

Jules


PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jules, perhaps I wasn't clear: I meant no reversing of the lens, ie. I agree with the evidence


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
Jules, perhaps I wasn't clear: I meant no reversing of the lens, ie. I agree with the evidence


Oops .. my eyeballs must have been reversed and I got temporarily blinded. Embarassed

Jules
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1