It's not about the technically shortest lens you can get away with using, it's about using a lens that is longer than that so that you aren't so close to the edges of the optic. But of course, with your situation, you'll not get the magnification you need with that lens so it's academic. I imagine that you might also be running close to the edge of your enlarger condensor/diffusor so might also be getting some fall-off there as well.
Time for another enlarger, and maybe time to cut a hole in the ceiling for the rails! :-) ppro > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Best f stop for enlarging?? > > > > nope, a 105mm lens for 6X7 is actually 18.7% longer > than the diagonal (88.4 mm). Using a 50mm for 35mm > is only 15.5% longer than the diagonal ( 43.3mm). > > Besides just to make an 8X10 my enlarger head > is already about 90% up to the maximun height. > I cant even do 11X14 in the normal setup. > JCO > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul M. Provencher > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:01 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Best f stop for enlarging?? > > > > > > Don't you need a longer lens for 6x7 negs? I would have thought > > 105mm a bit short. You might have better luck with a 135mm - using > > more of the center of the lens and all... > > > > ppro > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
