Can anyone tell me whether Leitz Focomat V35 enlarger will work on autofocus with the Schneider 40mm/2.8 Componon APO HM enlarging lens?

I know the V35 is designed for the 40mm/2.8 Focotar lens, however I've heard that the Schneider is the superior lens.

Many thanks.

-- graeme nelmes (gnelmes@xtra.co.nz), December 15, 2000

Answers

Where did you hear that?

-- Bill Mitchell (Bmitch@home.com), December 15, 2000.

The autofocus of the V35 only works with its own 40/2.8 Focotar, but you can certainly use the Schneider. I have also heard that the Schneider is sharper out to the edges, so I don't know for sure. I can say that the Focotar is an excellent lens which produces stunning results.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 15, 2000.

The V35 is designed to work in autofocus ONLY with the lense with which it is shipped.

I would be interested to here about any real tests with other lenses.

Kind regards

-- Matthew Pulzer (pulzer@dial.pipex.com), December 16, 2000.

Here is a review on the Schneider 40/2.8 on a V35.

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg09226.html

-- T.A. (mahv@xtra.co.nz), December 16, 2000.

I have heared many things in my life, I don't have to believe them. I am not denigrating Schneider lenses but, Messrs Leitz are not entirely unknown for optical excellence. The V35 is without doubt the finest 35mm enlarger that has ever been made. As to the lens, although the nominal focal length is 40mm each varies a minute amount and every enlarger iscalibrated and set accordingly. To ask this question I guarentee that you have heard about the lens and read about the enlarger. Now I have heard that a Ferrari engine is....

-- Brian Tompkins. (AnnTompkins@btinternet.com), March 22, 2001.

I'm no V35 owner, but there is an interesting short dissenting review by Mike Johnston (editor of Photo Techniques and a contributor here) about it at this site.

http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/enlargers/product_6246.asp

The site is excellent, BTW.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 22, 2001.

Everything that Mike Johnston says about the V35 is true, or at least half-true. It is a terrible value, which seems to be his main criticism. This is a word-of-mouth product, not bought because it is "Leica" but because it does it's job better (and easier) than anything else on the market. My 50 year old Omega D-2 is capable of making prints just as good as the V35, but it sits in the corner, unused. Is the V35 perfect? No. But right now there's nothing else out there in the same class. At ANY price.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), March 22, 2001.

Hm.

Bill, any comments on the usability/efficiency of the V35 in producing proofs?

It seems the most tedious part of 35mm home darkroom work has to be producing multiple proofs, which a lot of people avoid by doing contacts. But I like to have as full a set of 4x7s as possible for each roll I shoot and have this done commercially, typically.

I'm also looking at a Beseler, which has the negatrans carrier which is supposed to improve productivity.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 22, 2001.

For fixed enlargements I see no advantage in the V35. I hate contact prints, also, and can't really tell what I've got from them. Omega made a carrier for the D-2 which holds three rows of three 35mm negatives so one can print 9 proofs on a single sheet of paper at a time, whatever size you want. I don't think there's any really good way.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), March 22, 2001.

I'm not sure if it's fair for me to comment because I have the Heiland Splitgrade unit (which is utterly awesome), and I don't really have an answer for Graeme's actual question, but I can make a whole roll of 5x7 proofs (each perfect starting prints) without a single test strip! No, this doesn't include critical adjustments to local density like burning and dodging with varying contrast grades, and much of this advantage is due of course to the Heiland unit. But it does say a lot for the usability of the V35 w/ 40/2.8 Focotar lens. E x t r e e e m e l y fast work without really even being in a hurry.

ZZ Top came to down last year, and I ended up doing a printing job for them from their photo session after the concert. Because it was a rush job, and they needed the prints before they flew off the next morning, I charged $35 per 8x10 print, and they amounted to basically "proof" shots. I made about 13 prints in less than two hours.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), March 22, 2001.

Yeah, I have the same setup as Tony (V35 w/Heiland Splitgrade). Also I have about the same experience as he had - roughly one "proof" print per 10 minutes. But that proof print is pretty good. What I do is proof and then come back to then at least a day later and make judgements on better cropping, dodge/burn, contrast, etc... Seems to work really well. Also I used to use the Saunders 6x7 enlarger and I find that I much perfer the V35. It seems the prices are getting cheaper for them now. I got mine for roughly DM2,250 last fall...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), March 23, 2001.

I use an Omega C700 with a Nikkor 40mm lens (great lens BTW). The C700 is a hobby enlarger, I guess. But,not meant to be bragging, I use a fixed full frame printing proceedure to 8x10 paper (the smallest size I ever buy) and I can run proofs at about 5-6 minutes per frame. That's 10-12 per hour (even faster if the shots are all in the same light). I use a grain focuser for every frame too.

How would a Leitz enlarger improve on this?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 23, 2001.

Dan, that's pretty quick for a C700. I own a C700 as well; it was the one I was raised on. If you're not adjusting the size with each shot, as with proof printing, then certainly the autofocus of the V35 isn't really much of a benefit, but it's still much more pleasant to use. It grips your negatives with a precision and tact that is hard to describe. It is leaps and bounds more robust, and it is aligned better and it's much heavier and much more sturdy (you don't have to wait for 5 seconds for the enlarger to steady itself after you touch it before you begin an exposure). It has image masking so that you can keep extraneous light from bouncing from the easel onto the walls or your white shirt and then back down to the print which means less contrast loss. It's a Sherman Tank with Kid Gloves, if you will. Given the same lens, these characteristics add up to sharper pictures and a more pleasurable time. This is not to dismiss the handy little C700 by any means, however. Even the lens that came with it, the 50/3.5, is a great lens. For routine and specialized (local density/contrast control, etc.) darkroom work, the V35 is a faster unit to work with. It has to be.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), March 23, 2001.

I just came across this thread and thought I would add my thoughts. I purchased the 40mm focotar, a 40 symmar HM and a 40 WA Rodagon three years ago and tested them all. I ended up sending the Rodagon and Symmar back and keeping the Focotar. When I made prints in the 11x14 range I could tell almost no difference but thought I saw a slight increase in sharpness in the Symmar. When I made 16 x24 prints, the Focotar was clearly better in the corners. Since my purpose in purchasing the shorter enlarging lens was to make prints this size, the Focotar was better for me.

The WA Rodagon wasn't close to the others except right in the center.

Ron McKinney

-- wilchas (rmckinne@ilstu.edu), July 10, 2001.