Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Check the focus of the viewing lens. Also have the position of the focusing screen checked. Over the 60-year life of the camera, someone may have reassembled it improperly. The 75/3.5 Rokkor is a very, very sharp lens.
rolleistef
Well-known
Well, as somebody said, be careful that below 1/60, the print may not be as sharp.
A 60x60 print is rather big and is not to be looked at from too near.
The optimum is 11 for many MF lenses. From 16 on, diffraction is coming with its big boots and (Infra)Red riding hood is fleeing away!
A 60x60 print is rather big and is not to be looked at from too near.
The optimum is 11 for many MF lenses. From 16 on, diffraction is coming with its big boots and (Infra)Red riding hood is fleeing away!
Steve M.
Veteran
Like zorkicat said, you have to address the variables, and there are quite a few of them. Is your enlarger head properly aligned? Do you have a really good lens on it? What film are you using in the camera? I love Tri-X, but can't expect it to resolve like Acros does. Are the negs properly developed? Have you checked the camera's focus w/ a ground glass? Not that hard to do on a TLR. If it is sharp on the ground glass and on the top ground glass you're set, but if it isn't sharp up top you have a problem w/ the camera's focus screen in all likelihood. Next, is the camera's lens in great shape? No haze/fogging?
I had an Autocord w/ your lens and it was very, very good. A good MF lens will blow away a DSLR image, especially in detail which digital either doesn't register or smooths over. Now the Xenotar 2.8 I had on a Rolleiflex was a better lens than the Rokkor (to my eyes) in terms of resolution, but it wasn't by that much, and the Rokkor had a more pleasing 3-D effect that I preferred. So I suggest that something is wrong somewhere if you aren't getting great prints.
Or possibly the lens itself has issues. Not all lenses are created equal, and who knows? Someone could have been in there before and not reassembled it correctly. There are a ton of variables, but if everything is right you should be getting excellent images w/ that lens. Here's a few from the Autocord I had (and should NEVER have sold, but I'm looking for another one). The film is Tri-X and the scans are from an ancient Epson 2450, so there's a lot more detail to be found than what you see on the monitor. On a light box the negs just pop.
I had an Autocord w/ your lens and it was very, very good. A good MF lens will blow away a DSLR image, especially in detail which digital either doesn't register or smooths over. Now the Xenotar 2.8 I had on a Rolleiflex was a better lens than the Rokkor (to my eyes) in terms of resolution, but it wasn't by that much, and the Rokkor had a more pleasing 3-D effect that I preferred. So I suggest that something is wrong somewhere if you aren't getting great prints.
Or possibly the lens itself has issues. Not all lenses are created equal, and who knows? Someone could have been in there before and not reassembled it correctly. There are a ton of variables, but if everything is right you should be getting excellent images w/ that lens. Here's a few from the Autocord I had (and should NEVER have sold, but I'm looking for another one). The film is Tri-X and the scans are from an ancient Epson 2450, so there's a lot more detail to be found than what you see on the monitor. On a light box the negs just pop.
Last edited: