Enlarger lenses at infinity

[iangreenhalgh1]

I've read so many conflicting opinions of how well enlarger lenses work as taking lenses at infinity.

So, does anyone have any image samples using enlarger lenses to shoot distant subjects?

[danfromm]

Ian, there is no single answer to your question. Not all enlarging lenses are alike. It is possible to generalize about them without testing them all, but not safe.

Possibly of interest, Schneider and Rodenstock enlarging lenses made for making gigantic prints should be at least ok at infinity, but they typically cost more than the comparable Symmar-S or Sironar-N.

FWIW, some manufacturers made enlarging and taking lenses to the same prescription. My pet example is Boyer's Zircon taking lenses (better than the plasmat type Symmar, possibly not quite up to Symmar-S) and Saphir BX enlarging lenses are identical. I've got good results at distance with my 105/5.6 and 150/5.6 Saphir BX. Good luck finding them, and by the way they go in #1 shutters.

My Saphir BXs are the only enlarging lenses I've tried that were any good at distance.

All that said, your best bet for finding enlarging lenses that are good at distance is to look for Schneider Symmars and Xenars in barrel offered as enlarging lenses. They're taking lenses, no matter what their ignorant sellers say, but you'll need shutters for them.

[Attila]

Look VNEX topic you can see there enlarger lenses at infinity.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have a few enlarger lenses to play with, I shot this with a Componon-S 5.6/100 on bellows on a 35mm SLR a few days ago, seems sharp enough to me, which got me thinking about the use of an enlarger lens for a larger format. I have a Componon 5.6/80 that the cells just unscrew from, but the only spare shutter of the right size I have is a Vario that has a deep fixed shim inserted into which the middle element of the triplet it formerly housed was held by a retaining ring. Before I bothered finding another shutter these cells will fit, I wondered what results people had had with enlarger lenses at infinty.

[calvin83]

I have tried some triplets, some tessars and a helioplan for infinity on my NEX 5N. Most lens has acceptable sharpness one stop down and most of them are quiet sharp at F5.6 to F8. I have no planar type enlarger but I think all of them will also behave the same although all of them are optimised for close focus.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I'd be shooting them at f11-f16 so i would think they would be fine at distance at those apertures.

[ForenSeil]

My general experience is the more elements - the more tolerance towards different magnfication.
Rodagons/Componons are working better than Rogonars/ Trinars and so on.
And wide angle and 50mm enlarger lenses are worse than 80-150mm enlarger lenses for macros because they are made for higher magnifications - maybe they work better for infinity instead.

PS: G-Claron lenses are an example of very awful IQ at infinity in my experience - they need to be stopped down past F22 for infinity
Because they are made for large format repros and small enlargements so they only work nice for up to a few meters.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I'd like a WA Componon 60mm but I see very few of them for sale.

Process lenses are usually pretty good at infinity, aren't the G-Clarons process lenses?

[ForenSeil]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Process lenses were camera lenses, they reproduced a large original, such as a newspaper layout to a usually same size negative. One example is the Apo-Tessar 9/240.

The three process lenses I tried were all apochromatic and very high resolution, what I read was that they were optimised for 1:1-1:10 but were still very impressive at infinity.

G-Glarons come in barrel but the cells screw into a shutter, many large format guys have put a G-Claron in a shutter to use as a camera lens.

Without using one myself, I can't say how good they are as a taking lens, with large format you usually aren't enlarging much and usually making contrast prints, which is much less demanding than a smaller format so while the G-Clarons might be adequate for large format use, they might not be good enough for smaller formats.

[tinybynature]

[iangreenhalgh1]

28mm is too short, it would only work for high magnifications due to the short flange focal distance, also, it would have a very short working distance to the object.

75mm is the shortest I would try, 50mm may be okay at a pinch, but would still have the same issues as the 28mm, just not as severe.

[Lloydy]

I have used a Wilon Wetzlar 105 / 4.5 and a LZOS / Industar 50 / 3.5 on bellows with some success, the 50 isn't brilliant and is difficult to nail focus with, the 105 isn't bad though. But that's only for macro. I'll try them at infinity though.

[IAZA]

my sample at infinity with Rodagon 50/2,8




please check my post before;
http://forum.mflenses.com/rodenstock-rodagon-50-2-8-t52198,highlight,%2Brodagon.html
and
http://forum.mflenses.com/rodenstcok-rodagon-50-2-8-t52494,highlight,%2Brodagon.html

[ForenSeil]

[ForenSeil]

[danfromm]

Forenseil, I think you are making things up.

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/componon_comparon.pdf (9/66)

[iangreenhalgh1]

I tried my Componon-S 5.6/100 on bellows with my NEX-3 today. Light was crappy but the lens seems to perform rather well as a taking lens. This was at f8 and I have no complaints about the sharpness, contrast seems fine too, considering the bad light. No CA either, but I'll reserve judgment on that until I see results of bright highlights in direct sunlight.

[Ray Parkhurst]

Quite a few enlarger lenses are optimized for big enlarging ratios, and these lenses do well at infinity. Look at the specs for the lens and if it's rated up to 1:15 or 1:20 then it will do well. This is often the case for shorter lenses, so there is a correlation of short lens to high magnification, but there are also plenty of longer lenses that are made for higher mag work and thus should work well at infinity. Avoid lenses optimized around 1:1 including anything considered for process, duplication, reproduction, etc work. These will generally be optimized from 1:2 to 2:1 and don't do as well at infinity...Ray

[danfromm]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Sadly process lenses tend to be too long for my application. The shortest I have seen is a C-Claron 5.6/135. No idea if it would make a good taking lens like the G-Clarons, maybe not as it's a copier lens and in it's original application was for making high contrast bw copies. I've seen them in two different barrel mounts and one of them looked like the cells would unscrew like a Componon and would maybe fit a shutter. I'm interested in lenses upto 100mm mostly, definitely nothing longer than 150mm.

Sometime I'll stick the cells from the Componon-S 5.6/100 in a 0 shutter on a 6x9 folder and see how it does shooting 6x9, I suspect it will do rather well.

I researched the differences in design between the Componon and Symmar and the difference is that in the Componon, the front cell is 3 lenses in 3 groups whereas in a Symmar, the front 2 lenses are cemented. Therefore it occurred to me if you put two back cells from a Componon in a shutter, you pretty much have a Symmar. Of course, glass types, coatings etc could differ, but I suspect the performance would not be radically different to a pukka Symmar.

[Ray Parkhurst]

[danfromm]

Ian, keep an eye out for 150/9 G-Clarons, whose cells are direct fits in a #0, and 150/9 Apo-Ronars, some of which have cells that are direct fits in a #0. Beware of the tiny 150/9 Klimsch Apo-Ronars whose cells don't go into a standard shutter. I have a couple of these last, they're great, but they need adapters to be front-mounted. TTH made a very nice little tessar type 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens that's quite good but, like the Klimsch Apo Ronars, has cells that don't go into a standard shutter. Boyer made a 100/9 Apo Saphir but they're quite rare.

None of these lenses but the G-Claron covers much more than 45 degrees. Chris Perez and Kerry Thalmann tested a couple of G-Clarons. You might find their results interesting. See http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

Ray, are you speaking from general principles or from measurement? I ask because I've measured and the process lenses I mentioned don't agree with your assessment of them. Slow symmetrical dialytes, in particular, hold their corrections surprisingly well at all distances.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks for the tips Dan. I'm tempted to grab the C-Claron 5.6/135 as I strongly suspect the cells will go into a #0, same as the Componon-S 5.6/100 will.

[Lloydy]

Ian, I've got you a Prontor S ( with a Baltar 75 2.9 ) today, and a bunch of other stuff - call me. answer your phone!