About Leitz Enlargers

[rxmd]

LED as a point source? The spectrum of an LED is too narrow.

I would prefer using the LEDs with a diffuse light source and a mixing box, and using LEDs of different colours for split-grade printing - red for focusing, blue and green for controlling gradation. People have been using, building and selling such systems quite successfully and for quite some time.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

The advantage of the Grey Ic with the tall post is that it has a bigger baseboard and a bigger diameter post, which makes it a bit more rigid for large prints. I usually make a clamp for the top and brace it against the backwall too.

The large laminated baseboard of the late 1c is not larger than the large wooden multiplex baseboard that it replaced. The post too is not of a different diameter. The Ic that I use has a long gray era post mated to my late 1950s era Focomat Ic 250w head---- a then popular option for newsrooms--- and its large baseboard. My 1940s Focomat has both a very large baseboard but also a tall larger diameter post. It was, however, clearly designed for non fine arts applications.

I don't see any advantage of bracing the top of the column to the wall. In my darkroom we made a heavy plywood "table" and mounted it on the wall. The baseboard sits on this and is thus de-coupled from the floor. For large enlargement factors I can swing things over and project onto the floor.

There are new "high power" LED available that can substitute the small, high intensity 50w bulb on the point source IIc.

But only a narrow band of radiation. For variocontrast papers you need at least 2 LEDs.
Is the Leitz really only 50w? My Durst Variopoint is, I think, 100w.

The Elcan enlarger is basically a inverted microscope with 6 aspherical condensors above the negative stage and a "micro" focus ring on the mount.

And not designed for photography.

Resolution, according to Elcan is 275 lines/mm!!!! Kind of overkill as the paper barely resolves 25-40 lines!

But if you are interested in large scale enlargements of small portions of a negative it can be useful. Scientists and submini enthusiasts tend to like point-source.
The most popular point-source enlargers--- save MINOX which all used a modified point source illumination system (interestingly even their colour model)--- were probably from DURST.
Conversion of Durst enlargers to point-source is quite simple.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I would prefer using the LEDs with a diffuse light source and a mixing box

That's not a problem. LEDs can excel here. Diffuse illumination is, however, quite the other end of the chart from point-source. With point source the radiation must come from as small a point as possible. One typically focuses the system upon the lamp filament so that its image coincides with the entrance of the enlarging lens. That's why the diaphragms can't work to control light magnitude. A smaller aperture just results in less resolution. One is limited by diffraction.

 

[Tom A]

The ELCAN 121 was designed and built in Canada for the US Navy. They used it to produce detailed blow-ups on Technical Pan film (sheet form - up to 30x50"). It can be used for "normal" photography - but the results are not pretty. Distinct grain and harsh contrast. However, the resolution is astonishing - you can see details in the print that would not be visible with even the best of other enlargers!
I have had this monster for about 20 years. Not used it much as a/the massive control panel has a electronic "bug" and the designer (who started Uni Blitz in Rochester,NY) dies without leaving a schematic and b/ It barely covers a 24x36mm negative!
I did talk to the Navy's Image Center and got some information about these. In 1974 Leica charged them $40 000 for it (negative carrier alone is $1200!!. They were supposed to be supplied with 3 lenses, a 25f4,a 50f2 and a75f2. The 25/50 were shipped, but the 75 was never supplied as a "stock" item. The 50 was reworked DR Summicron type and I dont know the set-up for the 25.
Mine is #4 (all parts are numbered and matched) - and according to Elcan and the US Navy maybe 10-12 were built - though nobody seems to know,
The upright is 2 Focomat IIc posts welded together (48" tall - and weighing in at 40 lbs)
One day I am going to get rid of it - as it really does not serve much of a function, except cluttering up my office floor. My "regular" Ic and IIc works just fine and nothing I do needs to be that sharp!

 

[rxmd]

Diffuse illumination is, however, quite the other end of the chart from point-source. With point source the radiation must come from as small a point as possible. One typically focuses the system upon the lamp filament so that its image coincides with the entrance of the enlarging lens.

If I understand that correctly, if you want to maintain precise focus your enlarger either needs to move the lamp together with the lens when focusing, or you need to refocus your lens setup every time you focus your enlarger on the paper, or every time you change the projection size. And since your lamp filament is not a point, you get its structure projected onto your final image.

In principle you can also use a condenser setup to focus a diffuse light from a mixing box into the enlarging lens, people have been doing that with LED enlargers. It's probably a bit fiddly with the focus, for basically the same reasons as outlined above.

 

[Pico]

The Valoy is a very good, rigid enlarger, and there is a model that has an extra large baseboard, longer column, and an extra cooling bonnet so that you can use 150W bulbs. I've been using it for over thirty years. Get a good lens (I don't care for the Focotar, YMMV). No auto-focus, but that's no big deal.

For true 6x9 (Plaubel Veriwide) I use a Focomat IIa. Funny, but I don't see many of them around.

Ah! Thanks for the reminder. I'm going to 'bay the Focotar.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

One day I am going to get rid of it - as it really does not serve much of a function, except cluttering up my office floor.

If people would collect enlargers in the manner they collect cameras.... In many ways they are much more interesting artifacts than much of what Leica collectors are hunting and digging deep into their pockets for....

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Masking Frames

Masking Frames

As for the easel clamp - it is great if you use the Leica easels with the correct slots in them, but for anything 11x14" or larger I use Beseler Pro easels on the 1" base. They are heavy enough to stay put and are 4 bladed to boot.

The old Leitz frames were good. I think the heavy wooden models were mainly made by Andreas Veigel in Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt. They are of incredible quality and workmanship. The connection between Leitz enlargers and Daimler is, I think, quite interesting.. Andreas Viegel, for example, made the first tachometers.. The V in VDO was originally intended to be "Viegel" and not "Vereinigte" (United). Mercedes, Porsche etc. all sourced their tachometers from Viegel. Kienzle today still does metalworking and one of their specialties over the last decades has been working with Plexiglass and, more recently, polycarbonates.

I do have a couple of the late Leitz 8x10" easels that I use with the IIc (it still has the clamping attachement).

Masking frames with the bird-tails were made all the way up to 30x40cm in size.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

For true 6x9 (Plaubel Veriwide) I use a Focomat IIa.

Their 95mm Focotar, however, don't tend to cover 6x9.

 

[tiberno]

Wow! What a great, informative thread this turned out to be! I'm proud I started it! 😛
I already have a focomat Ic and I'm really enjoying it. It is the older model with a first version focotar. I'm looking to upgrade for a Scheneider apo-componon or a Rodenstock apo-rodagon. Can anyone tell me why the Schneider is so much more expensive and hard to find than the Rodenstock equivalent? Is it that much better? And how to these compare with the focotar 2?

 

[Tom A]

I tried bot the apo-componon and the apo Rodagon against my Focotar-2's. Not enough difference to warrant the hassle of changing.
If you can live without the auto focussing - one of the best lense for 35mm work is the Nikkor 63mm f4 (I think it also came in a 2.8). Even light and marginally sharper in the corners than the Apo Componon/Apo Rodagon and even the Focotar-2.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I'm looking to upgrade for a Scheneider apo-componon or a Rodenstock apo-rodagon. Can anyone tell me why the Schneider is so much more expensive and hard to find than the Rodenstock equivalent?

Its, I think, some specific feature of your local market. In Germany, I think, they were similar.. Schneider perhaps even a tiny bit less expensive..

Among the 50mm.... On the used market both Schneider and Rodenstock are easy to find.. Among APOs.. Rodenstock, of course, are easier as... not only were Rodenstock APO Rodagons very popular and widely considered the best general purpose 50mm.. but Schneider did not make a 50mm APO and instead opted for 45mm and it came out well after Rodenstock came to completely dominate the market. The Schneider APO Componon HM 45mm btw. will not auto-focus on a Ic.

Schneider versus Rodenstock? They are all good.. I probably own, however, more Rodagons than Componons.. When one compares one should compare them as part of your total optical system. We are, after all, splitting hairs.. and what might show better performance in one enlarger might seem slightly inferior in the next... I am familiar with also showdown tests against Nikon El-Nikkors and others.. and sometimes the one.. sometimes another "wins".. Its neck and neck and a literal "photo finish".. 🙂

Is it that much better? And how to these compare with the focotar 2?

Absolutely not. On the Ic I know of nothing better--- resolution, contrast, mechanics etc.. While they are not called APO---- and to be honest all those APO Rodagons and Componons are not really aprochromatic--- its colour correction is at least if not better than many APOs. What makes the Focotar-2 so interesting is their quality level. With Rodagons and Componons the difference between two samples can be greater than the difference between APO and non-APO.. The Focotar-2 samples seem very consistent.. I suspect that they were selected.. a not terribly uncommon practice.. and they are mechanically superior and provide on a Ic a little bit better "ergonomie"..

 

[Ronald M]

A valoy has a short distance from column to lens which limits the print size. No anti newton ring glass can be fitted under the condenser unless you jury rig it which is what I did. I also made an extension to put the head out further from the column.

You NEED the scarce as hens teeth short neck bulbs for even light distribution.
The VC filter was discussed above..

If you still want one, PM me. $100 will get you a excellent one. No AN glass or lens.

V35 is much better and comes with a decent lens. Set up properly it is just as bright as a condenser model. Getting the $1000 voltage regularor is the issue. Took me 25 years to find one

The only IC to consider is with the grey oblong head so it takes standard bulbs.

You want either the large front element lens of the Focotar II . The otiginal lenses were starting to go soft at 8x10 as they were optimised for 5x7 prints.

 

[Tom A]

I have three Focotar -2's (50mm). One I bought in 1975 and had it sent back to Elcan to be optimized for 11x14 (this was the days when they did things like that, in two weeks and at no charge!). The other two Focotar-2's have come with various Ic's over the years.
They are truly outstanding lenses and the difference between the re-collimated one and the "regular" ones is small (slightly better edge performance for wide-open prints - other wise I cant tell them apart).
The Apo- Componons and Apo- Rodagon's can have decentered elements. For some reason they suffered a lot from this. I went through 4 Apo Componons and 3 had distinct problems. One Apo Rodagon was off too. The good thing was that these were bought new and under warranty, so they were exchanged with a minimum of fuss.
The Nikkor 63 mm was used on a Valoy II for years as I found it very good for 11x14 and larger prints. I got rid of the Valoy - but kept the lens and I used it on the ELCAN 121 for point source stuff.
The other good lens to look for is the Minolta CE 50 mm. This was the preferred enlarging lens for Eugeen Smith (on a Valoy). It wont fit the Ic due to the large diameter barrel though. I have used them before and last year I got one, brand new in the plastic container at a swap-meet for $15. It is also a good macro lens on the Leica Bellows II - as is the Focotar-2.

 

[Erik van Straten]

No anti newton ring glass can be fitted under the condenser unless you jury rig it which is what I did.
You NEED the scarce as hens teeth short neck bulbs for even light distribution.

I have used a Valoy II for many years. It has an AN-condenser as standard. Normal bulbs - Philips photocrescenta 75 watt, made in Holland - are no problem at all. I've tried many 50mm lenses on it, my favorite was the EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 from the Nikon rangefinder era.
I've never noticed any difference between the original Focotar and the Focotar II lenses, apart from a difference in focal length. The Focotar II was exactly 50mm while the older Focotar was about 52mm.

Erik.

 

[tiberno]

Absolutely not. On the Ic I know of nothing better--- resolution, contrast, mechanics etc.

I've looked for them on eBay and only found a mint one at 400€! Is that the price they are supposed to go?

V35 is much better and comes with a decent lens. Set up properly it is just as bright as a condenser model. Getting the $1000 voltage regularor is the issue. Took me 25 years to find one

Tell me more about the V35. I actually bought one of those too without lens though. Why do most people don't like it? Is it just the build quality, the ergonomy?

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

V35 is much better and comes with a decent lens. Set up properly it is just as bright as a condenser model.

Its diffusion and wide angle versus half-condenser (1c, Valloy). Its also 75w (V35) versus as much as 250w tungsten.. and with even brighter and/or more flexible illumination choices..

Getting the $1000 voltage regularor is the issue. Took me 25 years to find one

If your AC mains line is poor you could as research labs have done for maybe 70 years or so... used a ferromagnetic line conditioner.. In the U.S. the most popular brand is Sola.

The only IC to consider is with the grey oblong head so it takes standard bulbs.

They all take "standard" European opal bulbs. The oblong head was intended--- and offered as as option since the 1950s--- for higher wattage bulbs. It was a popular option in newsrooms and professional studios and drugstores.. Time was of the essence and 250w bulbs made for very short printing times...
Today, of course, its not a issue.. There are many more illumination options than opal bubs.. Agfa and Wallner color heads too are not too difficult to find.. Ilford also made 400 and 500 series systems for the 1c but they were not terribly common. Aristo made also a cold light but its quite uncommon in Europe.

Between Valoy, 1c and V35 the best bang, I think, is the 1c. The Valoy was an amateur enlarger. In today's market I would not bother with one.. The V35 tend to still fetch relatively high prices. If we want to talk, however, about bulbs... the V35 models CAN have a bulb problem.. the original V35 models used a 75w bulb (Phillips 6604) that is now out of production and quite difficult to even source on the 2nd hand market. Later models (and those upgraded, demanding among other things the socket replaced) use the Phillips 13139. These bulbs are available but not terribly common.

 

[dap]

There are many more illumination options than opal bubs.. Agfa and Wallner color heads too are not too difficult to find.. Ilford also made 400 and 500 series systems for the 1c but they were not terribly common. Aristo made also a cold light but its quite uncommon in Europe.

Wallners seem to be the most common aftermarket head made for the IC. If you are looking for a straight bolt up and go option, a Wallner would probably be your best bet (FWIW the Wallner and the Kienzle head look very similar to eachother...I am assuming that the two companies are/were somehow connected). Cosar Mornick also made a dandy little color head that could be used on the 1C (this head seems to be much more scarce than the wallner). As far as the Ilfords are concerned I don't think they ever made a 400 series head for the focomat IC (I could be wrong, but I think that the 500 head was the only one offered by Ilford to fit the IC). Unfortunately the compact version of the 500 head is nearly impossible to find. The ilford heads were crazy expensive when new so I imagine that very few people/labs bought the dedicated 35mm head, but instead opted for the much more versatile 35/120/4x5 multi-format 500 series head. Trying to adapt a beseler or omega color head from one of their smaller enlargers would probably be the easiest/cheapest option (the only real limitation would be the weight of the head - most fullsize color heads are too heavy and overpower the spring on the focomat 1c).

 

[Roger Vadim]

I
The other good lens to look for is the Minolta CE 50 mm. This was the preferred enlarging lens for Eugeen Smith (on a Valoy). It wont fit the Ic due to the large diameter barrel though. I have used them before and last year I got one, brand new in the plastic container at a swap-meet for $15. It is also a good macro lens on the Leica Bellows II - as is the Focotar-2.

Seconded!
Trulyy a difference to my 4.0/50 Rodagon, contrastier, sharper, more "bite". feels good to work with.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Wallners seem to be the most common aftermarket head made for the IC.

Depends upon the market.. More Wallner heads were sold than Agfa. Agfa heads were quite expensive, intended exclusively for professionals and sold for a comparatively shorter period of time--- all well before color took off among amateurs. As many darkrooms over the past decade have been dismantled some of these heads have been rescued from the dumps... They are very good. Their biggest problem is their use of obsolete P28s base projection lamps. Since the lamps were once commonly found in many projectors they are still being stocked by a number of motion picture specialist dealers. The Wallner/Kienzle, by contrast, uses a pedestrian 12v 150w halogen reflector lamp.

If you are looking for a straight bolt up and go option, a Wallner would probably be your best bet

The Agfa actually is easier since one just removes the top with the opal bulbs and plop it down. To mount the Wallner one typically removes the lower housing bits as well.

(FWIW the Wallner and the Kienzle head look very similar to eachother...I am assuming that the two companies are/were somehow connected).

Wallner was taken over by Kienzle in 1982. The heads now branded as Kienzle used to be branded Wallner.

Cosar Mornick also made a dandy little color head that could be used on the 1C (this head seems to be much more scarce than the wallner).

I've only seen it in Agfa literature.

As far as the Ilfords are concerned I don't think they ever made a 400 series head for the focomat IC (I could be wrong, but I think that the 500 head was the only one offered by Ilford to fit the IC).

There was a 400 although I've never seen it. The 500 HLZ was then made specifically for the 1c but many people have used the 500 H with both Ic and IIc models. The main problem with using the 500 H is its weight as the brake on the Ic slips. A counterweight solves the problem.

Unfortunately the compact version of the 500 head is nearly impossible to find. The ilford heads were crazy expensive when new so I imagine that very few people/labs bought the dedicated 35mm head, but instead opted for the much more versatile 35/120/4x5 multi-format 500 series head.

Yes. The 500H head can actually go beyond 4x5 with a bit of metalwork..

There were, of course, other heads sold for the IIc. Durst, for example, sold mounting hardware to use their CLS 201, CLS450, CLS500 and CLS501 heads..

Trying to adapt a beseler or omega color head from one of their smaller enlargers would probably be the easiest/cheapest option (the only real limitation would be the weight of the head - most fullsize color heads are too heavy and overpower the spring on the focomat 1c).

Its not the spring but the brake. That's why many remove the whole housing--- which is really quite heavy. Easier (and more flexible) is, however, to just add a counterweight.