Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, Here's the poop from the latest (1993!) brochure (I have one spare copy I can air-mail if you really need to study it before making a decision)... El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 63mm f/2.8 Focal length 52mm 62.9mm Min f/stop f/16 f/16 Construction 4/6 4/6 Std magnification 8x 8x Usable mag. range 2x-20x 2x-20x Covering power 41 deg 43 deg Original size 43.2mm diameter 55.2mm dia Format size 24x36mm 32x45mm Weight 105 gms 120 gms Length 39mm 42.5mm Diameter 51mm 51mm The 63mm was originally intended for slide duplicating rigs... the extra focal length gives 1:1 with mounted slides ccropping the edges of the mounts. BTW: I use the 63mm for 35mm enlarging... Mike J prefers the 50mm... as you can see we still have our little differences *-) Cheers, Ed Buziak / Publisher "Camera & Darkroom" ed.buziak@camera-and-darkroom.co.uk * Web site under construction * - ---------- >From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: [Leica] enlarging lens >Date: Fri, Mar 10, 2000, 3:42 pm > >Ken Iisaka wrote: >> >> Oops, I forgot to mention the enlarging lens FS. >> >> I'm also selling a Bogen wide-angle 60mm 1:4 lens that covers at least >> 2 1/4" square. It is used for enlargements where the enlarger column >> or the distance to the paper is a limitation. >> >> I am selling it not only to finance the Elmarit 24mm, I no longer need >> this >> lens because I recently acquired a EL-Nikkor 63mm 1:2.8 which is a very >> good lens. I am now also using a 4x5 enlarger that allows me to enlarge >> my MF negs up to 16x20, so I have no need for this lens. >><Snip> > >I called Nikon in Chicago this week to get them to send me stuff on their >enlarging lenes as I am interesting in the EL-Nikkor 63mm 1:2.8. >It was recommended to me by Bill Ziegler the Zig-Align guy this month. >Friday I got a Brochure containing every kind of Nikon lenses but enlarging lenes. >I was a little interested what the optimal magnifications might be for this lens >weather if differs much from the 50 and how it falls between the 50 and the 80 >both of which I now use with the 135. And what ever else they might have to tell >me about it. >I was going to get all angry with Nikon and get a Rodenstock but I'm probably >just going to go ahead with it anyway. I've always heard it was a gem from >most sources. >Mark Rabiner