Summar f-2 50mm as enlarging lens?

[remrf]

I have a col. Summar f-2 50mm for my Leica IIIa. I read somewhere that these could be used with an enlarger because they are flat field lenses. Has anyone tried this?
I would assume that it would have to be locked at infinity in this application.

 

[RJBender]

That was the original idea behind the Valoy enlarger. I have a booklet from 1938 which says:

... it is naturally advantageous to reserve the normal "Elmar" f:3.5, 50mm lens for this double service on the Leica and the enlarger....The lens is set at "infinity" ∞ and the focusing of the image is carried out by means of... the enlarger. When using the Summar f:2, 50mm lens, one should stop down to at least f:6.3...

R.J.

 

[doubs43]

A good idea in it's time, no doubt, but even an inexpensive 50mm enlarging lens of the past 35 or 40 years would probably do better. There's a reason they said to stop down to at least f/6.3.

Walker

 

[remrf]

Thanks. I knew I had read somewhere of it being done. I didn't know Leica recommended the practice. I have an Omega D2-V and I just got three more blank lens boards for it. I guess I'll save one for the Summar.

I have an EL Nikor 50 mm, a Schneider 50mm and a Kalart 50mm ( I know nothing about this last lens. It was a give away when I bought the D-2.) . It will be interesting to run some tests using the various lenses to see what's what.

I've only used a Leica enlarger and lens once and that was years ago in Germany. I got what I considered to be very soft though pleasing results but I was also using an 8x10 glass faced paper holder with it which might have a lot to do with the softening effect. The enlarger was one of several that were available to those of us stationed in Kaiserslauter ,Germany through the EM club. I normally used an Omega D series but that particular night the only one available was the Leica which actually belonged to the woman who ran the darkroom. I was shooting with a Nikormat and trying to composite two negs into the same frame. It was for a local theater group that was putting on a play about a lover's triangle. I tried to get two exposures on the same frame using the "where was the rewind lever when you started technique" but never got the framing exactly right. I ended up just shooting two different negs of the same scene with the characters rearanged to make the visual point and compositing them in the darkroom. What irritated me at the time was that I had a brand new Mamiya C-220 at home in Tucson which could have done this so much easier. But I had left it in Tucson not thinking I would have much use for it. I sent for it soon after that experience.

 

[Poptart]

Any camera lens could be used as an elarging lens but they're generally not corrected for the kind of distances used in enlarging. There was once a school of thought that the correct lens for enlarging was the lens used to take the picture . . . .

 

[OldNick]

Many years ago I used my 50mm/3.5 Elmar on my enlarger and it worked just fine as far as the optics were concerned. However, I had to get my head under the enlarger to see where I was setting the aperture when I stopped down after focusing. Leitz made an attachment for the lens that allowed one to see the aperture settings from the side, but I never had one of these.

 

[Tin]

Your El Nikkor and Schneider (if it is a Componon) should out-perform your f2 Leica lens. Flatness of field is only one factor for consideration. Although a f3.5 or slower camera lens should have a flatter field than an f2, its performance will still not be as good as a high quality enlarging lens. It is because the camera lens is designed for taking pictures for longer distance, and is usually optimized at around 10 ft. It's close range performance will not be as good as an enlarging lens, which is usually optimized for 1:8 or 1:10 magnification (for a 50 mm lens). Of course a macro lens will give you that level of performance, these are however more expensive than an enlarging lens on the used market.

I use a 50mm/f5.6 Rodagon that gives me good results. I am not even interested in even experimenting with camera lenses even though I do own a macro lens.

 

[phototone]

The Summar, as everyone here that has one knows, is a lens that has a "signature" look, which is soft and sharp and lower contrast. Very nice for some types of photography.

What is wanted in an enlarger lens is a lens that is as perfect as possible, without a signature look...so as to not add its look to the look of the taking lens. An enlarger lens should ideally transmit "exactly" what is on the negative without changes.

In the early years of 35mm photography, (1930's) it was a selling point to Leica to indicate that the 50mm Elmar could also be used as an enlarger lens. The Elmar comes closer to being a suitable enlarger lens, as it is close to a tessar design. However, even it will not give as good a result as a purpose built enlarger lens. The reason is that camera lenses are optimized for maximum sharpness at distances close to infinity. Enlarger lenses are maximized in sharpness for distances close up, such as the distance from the lens to the easel.

The Summar would be my LAST choice to use as an enlarger lens, due to its undercorrected distortions.

 

[RJBender]

Any camera lens could be used as an elarging lens but they're generally not corrected for the kind of distances used in enlarging. There was once a school of thought that the correct lens for enlarging was the lens used to take the picture . . . .

Was that the same school of thought that said air bubbles in Leica glass were a sign of a good lens?

R.J.

 

[Poptart]

Dunno; never heard that tidbit. But a related factoid is that a good enlarging lens, mounted on a rail bellows, makes a superb macro lens. Is this ironic? No, It's just coincidental, maybe.