Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re:OT enlarging lenses
From: s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov)
Date: Sat Nov 12 08:56:10 2005
References: <70d5554f0511110801g49bcfc55s135cb1d027c6305f@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20051111120902.0b1f0150@192.168.100.42> <p0623090bbf9b3597ec89@[10.4.1.128]>

I'm wondering if there are only three versions of the Focotar  
(excluding the Focotar-2)?
I know of the 5cm, DOOCQ; then the 50mm, aslo DOOCQ,  new barrel with  
the same formula; 50mm, #17.581 new formula.
Anything else out there?

Slobodan Dimitrov
Studio G-8,
Angels Gate Cultural Center
http://sdimitrovphoto.com





On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:21 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:

> At 12:11 PM -0800 11/11/05, Richard wrote:
>> It appears the choice is down to Rodagon APO 50/2.8 for $199 or a  
>> Focotar 50/4.5 (original) for ~$120-$150. I am leaning toward the  
>> Rodagon in the same vein that while 99% of my photos are crap, the  
>> remaining 1% deserves the very best lens I can afford...
>
> The 'original' Focotar came in two distinct flavours. I'm probably  
> not quite right in this, but don't feel like standing up and going  
> to the bookshelf for the real deal...  The first was a Schneider  
> design, the second a Leitz design. I have the second one, the one  
> before the Focotar-2. When the Focotar-2 came out, I went down to  
> my local, borrowed two samples and brought them home to try against  
> my older one. Mostly, it was a wash. The only difference I could  
> see at any aperture and magnification was at f/4.5 and f/5.6, where  
> the older one had less vignetting due to larger front and rear  
> elements. It's essentially an f/2.8 lens that has been throttled  
> down. In fact, it had better evenness of illumination than a  
> Rodenstock Rodagon 50/2.8 and Nikkor 50/2.8 that I tried at the  
> same time, all at f/5.6. This was, I believe, in the 70's, so there  
> have been advances in the Rodenstocks and Nikkors since then. In  
> any case, I found the older Focotar to be the equal of the  
> Focotar-2's, and better than the other brands, so I still have the  
> Focotar 'late-original' from about 1958. The 40/2.8 (at least the  
> one I had) is not nearly as good, but does work reasonably well on  
> the V-35 system. Stay away from 'wideangle' enlarging lenses unless  
> you _really_ need them when using regular enlargers.
>
> All this does not, of course, mean all that much in relation to the  
> samples you might find. :-)
>
> As Frank wrote, a recent APO-Rodagon or Componon-HM is probably a  
> wise choice.
>
> -- 
>    *            Henning J. Wulff
>   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

In reply to: Message from benmarks2005 at gmail.com (Benjamin Marks) ([Leica] Re:OT enlarging lenses)
Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] Re:OT enlarging lenses)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Re:OT enlarging lenses)