Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, I'm a bigger sucker and spent more than $125 for a mint, but used one. My motivation was not due to the alleged improvements in quality (with my shoddy printing technique, a coke bottle would do) but due to the limitation of my 4x5 enlarger. The minimum bellow extension does not allow me to make prints larger than 5x7 with a 50mm lens. With a 63mm, the I can make prints up to 16x20. Since I sold my 50mm for just about $100, I was reasonably satisfied. Ken Iisaka kiisaka@pacbell.net Lost in Mill Valley in Marin County, California - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 8:50 AM Subject: [Leica] Re: enlarging lens > I bought a 63mm El-Nikkor on Ebay last month (maybe Jan). Brand new, US > version with warranty for $125. Since then, two have sold (used - but how > used can an enlarging lens be?) for under $100. I havent mounted or used it > yet. Seems like a perfect focal length for 35mm enlarging. > > Jim > > > At 07:42 AM 3/10/00 -0800, Mark Rabiner wrote: > > > >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 >