About Leitz Enlargers

[dap]

Depends upon the market.. More Wallner heads were sold than Agfa.

I does seem to depend on the market. Aftermarket heads for the Focomat 1c seem to be very rare in the US. Of the few heads sold here Wallner seems to be the most common (by far) on the 1c. I have never come across an Agfa head for the 1c. Focomat users in Europe seem to have been treated to a greater number and variety of aftermarket heads than US focomat users.

In any case if you are in the market for a used aftermarket head I would advise everybody to buy sooner rather than later. Most enlarging equipment is ending up in the dump (at an alarming rate). In 5 years I would imagine that it will be pretty hard to find some of the more specialized/unique items.

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.

Was this a special compact version of the 400 or just a regular full size 400 adapted to the 1c?

I tried using a regular 500h before I found a Hlz. It works but it is a bit of a Kludge...It turns a nice nimble balanced machine into a bloated top-heavy one. If somebody's heart is set on using the 500h you would be better off mounting it on a more substantial enlarger frame (focomat 2c or durst/omega/beseler/devere).

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.

When I had the 500H mounted on the 1c the brake held well enough (when adjusted to compensate for the added weight and kept in a very clean/oil free state), but the spring was not strong enough to assist in the raising/lowering of the head. It was workable, but left much to be desired. I never thought of using a counterweight (that is a "duh" moment on my part :bang🙂, but I did discover that Kienzle makes stronger springs that can be substituted (made to withstand the heavier weight of their 250v heads). The replacement springs are very expensive and a counterweight seems like it would be just as effective for MUCH less money.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I have never come across an Agfa head for the 1c. Focomat users in Europe seem to have been treated to a greater number and variety of aftermarket heads than US focomat users.

Perhaps because these enlargers---- Focomat and Varioskop--- were also more common. In the US the most common enlargers were the Omegas.. and then the Beselers.. and loads of older brands like Solar (Burke and James), Elwood, De Jur and even Kodak... Most of these that one finds in Europe were brought over by Americans... mainly GIs.

Most enlarging equipment is ending up in the dump (at an alarming rate).

And most of us have our darkrooms already filled to brim.

In 5 years I would imagine that it will be pretty hard to find some of the more specialized/unique items.

I've noticed the supply has diminished significantly over the past 5 years. Before that the market was literally being flooded as archives, studios and labs closed down their darkrooms... A lot of companies also shut down.

Was this a special compact version of the 400 or just a regular full size 400 adapted to the 1c?

I don't recall.

 

[john_s]

......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.

I have the 63mm f3.5 Nikkor. I bought it new in the late 1970s and it's a terrific lens (for 35mm). I use it all the time except when I need a shorter fl for big enlargements.

 

[sanmich]

The Nikkor 63 mm was used on a Valoy II for years as I found it very good for 11x14 and larger prints.

How would it compare to the EL nikkor 50mm 2.8?

 

[Tom A]

The difference betwen the various EL Nikkors is small. The 2.8 can be easier to focus with a dense negative.
I suspect that part of the image quality of the EL Nikkors comes from very good quality control. I never had one that had centering problems. They were all even focus across the easel, even with large prints (16x20). The slightly longer focal length helps too.
With the Valoy II it was very good, as the housing was slightly "higher" than with a 50mm lens - less chance of banging your forehead into it when checking focus!!! This is a case with the IIc - printing 8x10 puts the head right at forehead level - and checking details or focus, usually results in painful contact between the head and lamphousing. Of course, with the IIc - it doesn't shake or vibrate when this happens - your brain tends to get a bit scrambled though! I am surprised that I dont have the Leica logo permanently impressed on my head!

 

[sanmich]

Informative AND funny as always. Thanks, Tom 🙂

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

The difference betwen the various EL Nikkors is small. The 2.8 can be easier to focus with a dense negative.

The difference in prints with all of these are small--- but there.

Is there an advantage to using 60mm for 135 film?

With a well designed and correctly aligned enlarger illumination system there is no advantage to using longer focal lengths than needed for coverage. In some cases, depending upon the design of the condenser, it can be a disadvantage.

the housing was slightly "higher" than with a 50mm lens - less chance of banging your forehead into it when checking focus!!! This is a case with the IIc - printing 8x10 puts the head right at forehead level - and checking details or focus, usually results in painful contact between the head and lamphousing.

Another argument for the upright designs deployed by Durst and others.

The whole point, I think, of the double parallelogram linkage is to allow one to precisely but also very quickly raise and lower the head. On the Focomats going from a 9x13cm to a 20x30cm is extremely quick. This was quite important back in the days when drugstores printed in their back rooms.. Another, more modern, approach was offered by Schneider and Rodenstock with their Betavaron, resp. Vario-Rodagon, zooms.

To today's "fine art" approach it does not matter if it takes [me] a bit of time to crank up or down the head. For that matter.. auto-focus is not that important either.. [even if its something I tend to want]. For stability and damping the modern rectangular columns and counterweight is, in general, superior... Leitz btw. when it mattered used 2 columns and counter-weights..

 

[Erik van Straten]

On the Focomats going from a 9x13cm to a 20x30cm is extremely quick.

Another lovely feature of the Focomat IIc is the small film clip in the negative carrier. When printing 35mm and using the special 35mm carrier one positions really quickly the negative exactly in the carrier. There is no need to check or alter the position of the negative when it is pushed back into the enlarger. One simply positions the easel and is then ready to print. No other enlager, not even the Focomat Ic or the Valoy II, has this feature.

Erik.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Another lovely feature of the Focomat IIc is the small film clip in the negative carrier. When printing 35mm and using the special 35mm carrier one positions really quickly the negative exactly in the carrier.

Note the predicate "special". The standard carrier is just a double glass carrier with metal masks for each format. While the special carrier might dramatically improve 135 film handling ....

There is no need to check or alter the position of the negative when it is pushed back into the enlarger.

Only the vertical can be mechanically aligned. The user--- or some electronics--- must always optically align the horizontal frame position as there is no standard relationship in 24x36mm between sprockets and frame--- only the relative relationship that there be 8 sprocket holes advance for the next frame (and this is not always 100% as there are some 35mm cameras that don't use perforations).
Vertical alignment? With the Ic each film format gets its own masking bottom carrier--- the top glass being the condenser and glassless bottom. For each film format there is a track and/or pins for the negative. One just slips the negative in and its vertical position is always perfect. For negatives where this is not possible--- such as single frames--- there is a double glass "envelope" and a carrier. For formats larger than 24x36mm (e.g. 4x4cm) there are even glass carriers. Standard slides (5cm) too are printable via a slide-in holder. One can even use the Ic as a very crude copy camera.

One simply positions the easel and is then ready to print. No other enlager, not even the Focomat Ic or the Valoy II, has this feature.

Different but the feature is wide spread. My Durst, for example, has a double glass carrier with little movable (with click positions) "stops" to allow one to more easily align various standard negative widths. The mask itself is user controllable via 4-blades. There is another carrier, its "glassless" and takes a number of masks for both top and bottom. The top mask can also be a piece of (anti-newton) glass. The bottom masks are, not unlike the Focomat 1c, specific to each film format and available in sizes from 8x11mm (MINOX) to 6x9cm. Alignment, of course, is only along the width (vertical frame position in mask).

 

[tj01]

I love the Durst adjustable negative carrier. The adjustable four blade glass mask on the negative carrier has two adjustable knobs. Turning it will 'center' the top and bottom blades towards the middle, the other knob will turn the left and right as well in concert towards the middle. This makes sure the negative is alway centred. I tend to remove the bottom glass if my negatives are flat ( which means when I have them under it's own weight for a few days ).

Different but the feature is wide spread. My Durst, for example, has a double glass carrier with little movable (with click positions) "stops" to allow one to more easily align various standard negative widths. The mask itself is user controllable via 4-blades. There is another carrier, its "glassless" and takes a number of masks for both top and bottom. The top mask can also be a piece of (anti-newton) glass. The bottom masks are, not unlike the Focomat 1c, specific to each film format and available in sizes from 8x11mm (MINOX) to 6x9cm. Alignment, of course, is only along the width (vertical frame position in mask).

 

[tiberno]

How do you compare the focotar-2 50 with the focotar 40? And between the 40s what are the other good alternatives besides the focotar? I read somewhere that the schneider apo-componon 40 was actually better. I need a lens to my v35. I know most people don't like the v35 that much but, (regardless of handling, ergonomics, its feel or whatever) concerning image quality alone, how do you compare it with the Ic?

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

How do you compare the focotar-2 50 with the focotar 40?

The same way one compares anything.. The only thing specific to the Focotar 40 is that one needs to compare it either to other 40mm on the V35 or against others, including 50mm, on another enlarger using diffuse light.

And between the 40s what are the other good alternatives besides the focotar?

Schneider APO Componon HM.

concerning image quality alone, how do you compare it with the Ic?

Sure one can.. the same way one compares.. Its a question of resolving power, contrast, edge-to-edge .. The Ic needs, however, to have its bulb correctly aligned for even illumination etc.. Then the V35 despite its Ulbricht-Kugel is less even than the 1c.. Of course, on the other hand, the V35 is a bit less prone to show dust spots.. And contrast can be compensated for these days not just in development but with via modern vario-contrast papers... Recall people have been hotly debating diffusion, cold light, condenser, half-condenser etc. for longer than most of us have walked the planet.. and not to get into that ..

 

[palec]

How do you compare the focotar-2 50 with the focotar 40?

I like Focotar 2 better. At 10x enlargement it projects very detailed picture. WA-Focotar 40 showed some field curvature in corners resulting in slightly fuzzy grain.

And between the 40s what are the other good alternatives besides the focotar? I read somewhere that the schneider apo-componon 40 was actually better. I need a lens to my v35.

I compared Focotar 2 with APO-Componon at 10x enlargement and they were nearly indistinguishable. I liked the F-2 image better for some undescribable reason. But Componon is designed for high magnifications (HM) and sings at maximum height. I was able to enlarge very small crop from 35mm negative into 40x30 cm in acceptable quality.

There is also WA-Rodagon 40/4 which is supposed to be better than WA-Focotar 40, too. Anyway, the Focotar 40 is very good all-purpose lens.

I know most people don't like the v35 that much but, (regardless of handling, ergonomics, its feel or whatever) concerning image quality alone, how do you compare it with the Ic?

I don't have Ic but IIc and I can say that V35 is much easier to work with, especially with variable contrast head. Because I don't have permanent darkroom, V35 is very easy to move and setup, glass carrier is easy to clean from dust. Overall it is dellcate but solid piece and joy to use.

 

[tiberno]

Sorry, didn't mean to upset you with all those questions. Of course, I read from people who prefer the Ic and others how prefer the v35 and I know they are quite different in the way they render images. So when I say compare I don't mean "tell me what is best" but rather, tell me which one do you prefer and why. I hope that, getting to know what people like about them would help me find out which one I would prefer based on my tastes and preferences. Ultimately, since I have both, I'm sure I will get to know them well and maybe keep both because one may suite better some images rather than the other. Mr. Edward C. Zimmermann, you've been enriching this thread greatly with your knowledge and I thank you for that. I'm sorry if I didn't put my questions in the best manner.
Regards! 🙂

tiberno

 

[Erik van Straten]

With the Ic each film format gets its own masking bottom carrier--- the top glass being the condenser and glassless bottom. For each film format there is a track and/or pins for the negative. One just slips the negative in and its vertical position is always perfect. For negatives where this is not possible--- such as single frames--- there is a double glass "envelope" and a carrier.

It is very hard to position a negative into a Focomat Ic or Valoy II that is at one of the ends of a piece of film with five or six frames on it. The ones in the middle are easy to position as one can pull at both ends of the film. When one tries to position the last frame in the enlarger, there is only ONE end of the film to pull at. One can pull at it, but not push it into the enlarger. It can take quite some time to position the frame correctly into the enlarger.

The Focomat IIc special 135 film carrier solves this problem, because with the small clip you can fix the film firmly at any position before sliding it back into the enlarger. The early Focomat IIc has a small light box with wich one can check the position of the negative in the carrier. No other enlarger has this feature.

Erik.

 

[tiberno]

Then the V35 despite its Ulbricht-Kugel is less even than the 1c..

I read that there are differences in the condenser of the v35: the older ones had only one condenser and the newer had two condensers for more even illumination. So the double condenser model is less even than the Ic too or is it just the single condenser one?

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I read that there are differences in the condenser of the v35: the older ones had only one condenser and the newer had two condensers for more even illumination. So the double condenser model is less even than the Ic too or is it just the single condenser one?

http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/v35.htm#Light Path
They did in the late 1980s change the mixing box but it was to try to address the poor center edge illumination differences--- they also need to compensate for the effects of the wide angle 40mm used. It did not quite work. The change was add another lens to reduce the center illumination even more. Its really an odd design. Instead of using a mixing box and diffusor they use a simple EPS (styropor) box--- which actually works--- to scatter the light coming from the right (without a mirror). The combination with lens to creates the effect of an Ulbricht half-sphere using a box. The whole point of the design was to try to (with a min. of effort and cost) and create highly diffused and bright ilumination. Since its either/or one pulled a simple optical trick.
Leitz wanted a color enlarger and they got one. They needed such as design to keep in the game against the dominance of Durst and other German players such as Kaiser and Dunco with well accepted color enlargers. The mid to late 1970s was not just the era of Ramones, Television, Sex Pistols, Bonny-M, Barry Manilow, Abba, Donna Summer, Patty Smith, Eagles and Queen but also color film and video and the consensus that b&w and film were dying.
Even without the wide-angle the center-edge difference of the V35 is greater than with its "obsolete" and "old fashioned" predecessors. They, however, were much less suitable--- outboard color head or not--- for the kind of printing their potential customers wanted to make.. More importantly.. they were hardly changed from the 1950s and horribly un-modern..

 

[martin s]

I don't think the nerd title has ever been claimed by anyone more deserving. Very interesting by the way, I'll have to check what version I have.

martin

 

[tiberno]

I don't think the nerd title has ever been claimed by anyone more deserving. Very interesting by the way, I'll have to check what version I have.

Agreed! You should write books about this!

More importantly.. they were hardly changed from the 1950s and horribly un-modern..

That's a god one... Those old enlargers are works of art!

 

[M.Hilo]

Several times in the past years I have come back to this thread. It may well be the most practical and historical piece of information that exists about these beautiful enlargers. I have used them (IC, IIC and Valoy II) professionally since the late 70ties and I still do.

Thank you, those who contributed here !

Michael