Rodagon 50/2.8 older version as good as newer?

[fotomas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn't know that f8-11-16 aren't that good for macro shots.

I also know that regardless the dof, any aperture more than f11-16 won't work well with any lens.

It depends: for 35 mm film this is roughly right. For larger film formats not. There 22 or more can be fine.

The optimal aperture (in German it's called Förderliche Blende, but I couldn't find a translation) depends on the grade of magnification and the wavelength of the light. With blue light you can close the aperture further then with red light.

It is rather a difficulty to understand special photographic terms, like "stop down",

I'm not an English native speaker. Read this some times. Hope I used this in the right manner!? Means to close the aperture.

F11-16 on the EL LENS in the darkroom printing/exposing paper, means shorter exposure time therefore more difficult to control. F5.6-8 will require longer paper exposure therefore more time frame for control.

Should be the other way round: F5.6 shorter F11 longer exposure time.

The Nikon El 50/4 is not a six element lens, the 50/2.8 is though, but is there such a big difference between the Apo Rodagon 50-2.8 and the Nikon 50/2.8? One thing about the price the Nikon costs 1/3 of the Rodagon.

Question:

Is the older Nikon 50/2.8 lens a 6 element one?

I have a 2.8/50 Nikkor and it is a 6 element one. But I can't tell if there are other version of Nikons around, that might be different. Bought it in 1981. I've compared it with a APO-Rodagon 2.8/50 and found the difference minor. Not worth paying 3 a three-rated price IMHO.

The question is:

Is it worth spending 140 euro on a 40 WA, when I can probably get a larger enlarger with a 75mm Rodagon capable of enlarging 8x10inches images?

These WA lenses are specially for larger enlargements if your equipment won't let get the size you want with a normal lens. If you get the size you want with a normal lens I would prefer that one.

To get maximum possible size you have to use a enlarging lens with the normal focal length for your film format.

Common is 50 mm for 35 mm film, 75/80 mm for 6x6 cm, 100 mm for 6x9 cm, 150 mm for 4x5 inches, 210 mm for 5x7 inches and 300 mm for 8x10 inches.

So will only get larger enlargements if you can get higher with the enlarger head and the normal lens. If you use a 75 mm lens for 35 mm film you will get only smaller prints. With this limitation you can use longer lenses. But you can't use shorter ones except these special WA lenses because their image circle is to small to cover the film format.

So if the 8x10 enlarger will have a higher column you can make larger prints with it with the 50 mm lens. Since the Durst 301 is a rather small and basic one I suppose that the 8x10 probably will have a higher column.

[crow]

"Should be the other way round: F5.6 shorter F11 longer exposure time."

Then it is easier to work with f11 rather than f5.6.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[crow]

Anyone knows where/how do I find an adapter from

a 39mm APO Rodagon 2.8 to a Durst M301 enlarger?

[crow]

How do I stabilize the 35mm film frame into/onto/through the Durst M301?

Is there a frame I buy separately that fits the particular enlarger?

[joeswe]

How do I stabilize the 35mm film frame into/onto/through the Durst M301?

Is there a frame I buy separately that fits the particular enlarger?

I don't have an answer for your question but I recommend you open a different thread with a specific thread title to get the attention of any potential Durst M301 user.

[pico]

How do I stabilize the 35mm film frame into/onto/through the Durst M301?

Is there a frame I buy separately that fits the particular enlarger?

 

Start a new thread, please.

 

What you are probably looking for is a negative carrier.