Wollensack vs Contemporary lenses?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread

This may be a no brainer, but here goes anyway: There was a good short discussion recently about the relative differences between Nikkor, Rodenstock and Schneider enlarging lenses. The result was, of the top types of each, there's little difference.

What about a Wollensack Velostigmat or Raptar 127mm vs a 135m of the contemporary brands? A friend says his Wollensack is sharper. My argument is "maybe in the very center, but not 2/3 of the way to the corner of a 4x5 neg."

Comments?

-- Andy (Buckwiet@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002

Answers

Cant help with all the comparisons, but I used to have a 1/4 plate Speed Graphic with raptar 127mm it was sharp right to the corners two stops in. The comparison issue may be with lens contrast rather than sharpness. But for b/w Id go for the Raptar every time.

-- George otigbah (george.otigbah@btinternet.com), April 12, 2002.

I once made a test comparing a very old lens with a recent one. I shot 5x7 velvia with a Rodenstock 240 mm (new) lens and with a Voigtlaender that must date from beginnings of the past century (1920s maybe, or even before that). The results were incredible, as the Rodenstock was much more contrasty, but the overall plasticity of the image was much more pleasant with the old lens, which was very sharp all over the image area (I was shooting with something like f32). I didn't do thorough tests on the geometry or the flare- handling abilities of the lenses, but I think that the little I did proves that last century's lens designers knew very well how to make good stuff and computers have just helped them to make them cheaper, smaller and lighter. After all, the Planar is a 1896 design and I won't trade it with anything.

-- George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr), April 13, 2002.

George -

I was talkig about enlaging lenses, not shooting lenses. I agree with you for the most part about shooting lenses, but I think it's different with enlarging lenses.

Andy

-- Andy (buckwiet@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.


That changes things a bit. I would agree that a taking lens, closed down a ways, can be very nice. But, I used to use a Wollensak 135mm for all my 4x5 enlarging. It was okay, but I only thought it sharp across the image at f16 and beyond. I bought a used Nikor 150mm, and have never looked back. The Nikor is wonderful, even wide open, let alone at f11 or f16. I would not hesitate to tell someone to use the Wollensak if they don't have a better lens, but if possible, I would opt for the better names. I eventually replaced my 90mm Raptar with a 105mm Nikor, too, for the same reasons.

-- Chris (bwdesert@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

The Componon-s series of enlarging lenses are pretty near perfect, and I'm sure that goes for Rodenstock and Nikon's offerings too.
I'd take your friends statement about his old lens being sharper than near-perfect with a big pinch of salt. Has he shown you any of his prints?
BTW, nearly all the commercial darkrooms I've been in used Schneider enlarging lenses, with Rodenstock and El-Nikkor lenses being slightly less common, but still highly rated. None of them used old Wollensacks!

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 15, 2002.


Chris & Pete -

That's what I thought. His prints are sharp in the center, but not as at the edges. I've wondered it was the fault of his taking (newer schneiders) or enlarging lenses. Sounds like the latter.

Thanks!

-- Andy B. (buckwiet@yahoo.com), April 15, 2002.


I have an old 135 Wollensak enlarging lens that is so unsharp that you can't use a grain magnifier to focus.

-- Ken Burns (kenburns@twave.net), April 16, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ