Recommendations for use of enlarger lenses

[Sharnbrook]

I am sure that I have seen a post where the merits of various enlarger lenses are debated, but after about an hour of looking, I cannot find it.

Can any helpful member please direct me to the link? If so, I would be most grateful.

Many thanks, and so to bed.

[Troels]

Johan J Ingles-Le Nobel gives a very usefull overview at :
extreme-macro.uk

Note the list in the green box to the right.

Troels

[Sharnbrook]

Thanks Troels. I apologize for not having thanked you before, I certainly wrote a note, but obviously didn't hit the 'submit' button hard enough.

I have Johan's excellent site, and have looked at the article many times, but I thought I had seen a post on this site as well. No worries, I have found enough information now.

[Chris S.]

Mike,

One quite useful resource is Mark Goodwin's Coinimaging.com. If you poke around there, I'm pretty sure you'll be glad you did.

A few caveats, though. Most people who test lenses--Mark included--usually test just a single specimen of any given model. However, for many (most?) lenses, sample variation is considerable. To my mind, this is an enormous weakness that applies to nearly every published lens test.

Second caveat is that lens testing can't be entirely objective, no matter how hard we try. Everybody's eyes/brain combination perceives differently. What looks good to someone else--or produces good numbers in a standardized test--may not look good to you. (For this reason, when I test lenses for forum members, their lens against "known good" specimens, I lay up comparison files in Photoshop and invite the person to form his own opinion before reading mine.

Lastly, I think Mark has used an APS-C sensor camera for his tests, but last I looked, this was not always specified. For some of his tests, he used a Nikon D200, a body I'm quite familiar with, which is now very long in the tooth, but was a pro-level camera at the time of the tests. I seem to recall (without taking the time to check for sure) that his later tests have been with more current camera bodies. These bodies, with their much higher pixel counts, are much more demanding--so comparing a lens tested a long time ago with one tested more recently may not be apples to apples. And if your interest is in using a different sensor size, you'll have to bear that in mind.

Cheers,

--Chris S.

[Sharnbrook]

Thanks for your additional info Chris. I have looked at the Coin Imaging site, but only once, a couple of days ago, but I shall give further time to it, and as you say, there is a wealth of information there.

I shall now hit the Submit button HARD to ensure this goes.

Thanks again,

[ChrisR]

The nice thing about them is that they're sometimes very cheap. I bought a Nikon 50m f/2.8N , then found I already had one I'd forgotten, then another. They're all different. Now well into double figures I could plot a distribution, but none of them is a match for something more specialist, so I don't use them.

Some will say the Schneider Componon S 50mm is better. I've found they overlap. (they're better at low M).
Some eg Schneider 28mm f/4s vary a lot. Some old ones aren't so good, others match the current ones. (I think I have about 7-8 ).
There's a vast number of models and specifications, some are quite expensive apos. I don't have them all, but most of the relatively common ones from Nikon, Schneider, Rodagon, Minolta, and a few from half a dozen others.
None (probably!) beats a Canon MP-E, which is a whole lot easier to use.
On a non Canon I'd use a 40mm f/2.8 or f/4 Schneider apo, 45mm apo, 75mm Rodagon D1:1 or 1:2, Rodagon 80mm M, Schneider or Rodagon 90 - 100mm apos. They're all much more expensive than a normal 50mm f/2.8 though.

I'm excludng here the exotics such as Printing Nikkors and Zeiss Orthoplanars which cost 4 figures.

Longer (say 75mm up to about 135mm) can be convenient for working distance, with good results. Having no auto-diaphragm is a pain in the field though. Some are very good and only around $100-$150 if you're lucky, but their application is fairly limited.

For someone wanting to have a dabble at good quality macro, relatively cheaply, the 6 element 50mm common ones are brilliant.

[Sharnbrook]

And thanks ChrisR for your suggestions. I have Componon 50mm and 80mm enlarging lenses, but they are old ones dating back to the mid-late 60s. I also have the EL Nikkor 50mm f2.8 enlarger lens which give very reasonable results. I missed out on a Rodagon 135mm which went a few weeks ago for about A$80, or 47 pounds, supposedly in very good condition. Now, I shall have to wait for another one. Can't afford the Canon MP-E, and half the fun is trying to come up with something that does work. I live in hope.

[Lou Jost]

ChrisR, your comment that the MPE is even better than the SK 40 2.8 is very interesting. There used to be an EOS to MFT shifting adapter so it is possible to use it on an MFT camera....I had been considering the 40 2.8 Apo HM but now you have me thinking twice.....

[Lou Jost]

Hmmm I see on another thread here that the SK enlarger lens likes to be at 5x to 7x, which may explain your finding that the MPE is better at 1-5x:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... c&start=15