Enlarger lens

[Mir]

Some of these enlarging lenses you can get for a song...

I'm not shure how usefull they can be.... outside of a darkroom....

Can they be used for macro, with a bellows ??

Are any of them recommended ??

How about E.ROKKORs.....

I'd appreciate your input....

Thanks

[martinsmith99]

I use many M39 mount enlarger lenses on bellows. My bellows are M42 so I just use a step ring. If you get 80mm lenses, they allow shooting at infinity.

[Mir]

Great !!

Thanks Martin

[Minolfan]

Most usefull are the bettter level enlarger lenses, however even the cheapest deliver rather good results in macro. Enlarger lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Minolta are great. Janpol 80mm is another attractive one as well as the better lenses from Meopta.

[Mir]

@ Minolfan

I was looking at a MINOLTA E ROKKOR 75mm 1:4.5 LENS....

Would it be a good setup, on a bellows ?

Would 30 Euros be a fair price ??

[MacTak]

I've tried a couple on bellows and extension tubes. They can be an excellent option. If you already have the bellows, adaptors, etc. then they really represent a great bargin, but otherwise I'd reccomend a regular macro lens, as they are easier to work with and by the time you buy all the other stuff....

Others have given you a good list of brands--I'd just add Fujinon-Ex to that list (their highest quality enlargers). As to the other brands, make sure you get their top tier models (with prices today, there's really not much reason not to)--for Schneider that the Componon-S, for Rodenstock that's the Rodagon. These are all 6 element designs. For Nikon look up the lens to see if it's 6 elements. I think the C.E. Rokkor's from Minolta are supposed to be the good ones, as I recall the E series are cheaper, 4-element designs. I'd also advise you to get the more recently produced ones for a given brand--the newer El-Nikkors have a much improved coating and so to the others (usually you can tell by how the barrel looks). Also, buy the way, almost none of the Componon's are M39 (unlike the others), so do keep that in mind.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yes, only one of my 5 Schneider enlarger lenses is in M39, the rest are M24 I think.

Stepper rings are available, two of my schneiders came with them already attached.

Bellows are not so expensive, new ones from hong kong are 25-30ukp but I prefer the older all metal ones. I have three of them, two Russian ones and a brandless smaller compact one I use for handheld work. I paid less than 10ukp inc shipping for each.

I am waiting for someone to produce a cheap helicoid, there is definitely a large market for them, whenever you see a schneider or Mamiya helicoid on ebay it attracts a lot of bids!

[Mir]

Thank you guys for all this info.....

I own a Macro VIVITAR 55/2.8.....
but using it at 1:1 brings the subject to close to the lens, except maybe
for flowers .....

I can always use any other of my 30 or so lenses, with
extension tubes... and i do....

But i wanted a bellows set up....

So i'll use all your input to do things right...

Thanks again

[MacTak]

Considering you already have a 1:1 macro lens at 55mm, I'd say go with a longer focal length enlarger lens (80-135mm). My 135mm El-Nikkor certainly gives me a lot of room to work.

[RioRico]

I use enlarger, projector, copy, process, medium-format, and various other lenses on bellows and/or tubes. (Lenses longer than 100mm may also need tubes to reach adequate extension on bellows.) All my bellows and tubes are cheap! Expensive lenses are fine; cheap lenses can give good or great or weird results also.

Keep in mind that non-camera lenses often aren't coated, aren't designed to have light enter their fronts, so it's always good to use a lens hood. Some shooters say they get better results by reversing the lenses. I haven't tried that yet. And some such lenses have weird or no front threads, so reversing or hooding may be tricky.

The rule for macro shooting is that shorter lenses let you work close, while longer lenses allow (or force) you to work further away. On my bellows, lenses longer than 80mm can reach infinity focus. If you want to also shoot non-macro, look for lenses between 90mm and 160mm. Longer focal lengths can be clumsy to use.

[iangreenhalgh1]

+1 to all Rico said!

I second the thought on the necessity of a hood with these lenses, great example if this Schneider Componon-S 100mm I have, it works a treat mounted in a simple extension tube that also allows focusing but flares like hell and suffers from low contreast, I had to PP these shots to increase contrast because I didn't use a hood, wouldn't use this lens without one in future.









Those are poor samples but the lens is very very sharp from corner to corner and for a 100mm lens really does a surprising amount of perspective crushing as it's designed to project a flat field image. The drawbacks are I don't know if it's even got any coatings, it flares like hell and has low contrast but a hood should help a lot in that regard and you can always increase contrast in PP.

[iangreenhalgh1]

While nearly all enlarger lenses will produce a sharp picture, they usually don't have anything unusual about their rendering.

However, projectors lenses are often the opposite - not that sharp but often something unusual about the way they render.

Some however just plain suck. Take this Aldis Anastigmat 85mm f2.5, it's not sharp in the slightest, has awful contrast and fringes very badly in both green and magenta. It's from the days when most people with a slide projector were projecting 35mm BW holiday snaps and just doesn't handle colours well. I go so far as to say I hate the pics it takes.

[martinsmith99]

How are you converting your images? The Schneider is a very sharp lens, yet your samples look soft again. Is your shutter speed high enough for the focal length and are you using any focus aids?

[iangreenhalgh1]

There's either something wrong with you or your eyes, no lack of sharpness.

I'm going to stop posting pics, everything is soft.

[martinsmith99]

I should make personal insults at me as that will make your images sharper.

I am merely pointing out that your images aren't doing your lens tests justice. If you want to show a lens is sharp then post a sharp sample. Failing that carry on insulting me if it makes you feel better. It doesn't have much effect on me though.

P.S my eyesight is fine and I don't wear specs.

[ChromaticAberration]

With the exception of the third one I also think they are not sharp, unless of course it is the lens itself. The first and last one clearly show either missed focus or plain simple lack of sharpness.

[LucisPictor]