# Lens questions



## snark (Feb 2, 2013)

I bought a box full of darkroom stuff today from a guy who was advertising a 90mm enlarging lens and "other darkroom items".  I was looking for a 90mm enlarging lens and I had driven 45 miles to see it, so I bought the whole grab bag for $35.  The 90mm lens out to be a Wollensak 90mm Graphic Raptar.   Can it be used for enlarging?  

There was also a Wollensak 127mm Enlarging Raptar.  Forgive my newbieness, but what size film would that correspond to - 4x5 perhaps?


----------



## ann (Feb 2, 2013)

The 90 mm will cover 6x6 and maybe 5x7

the 127 will cover 6x9 and a bit bigger, but it is going to be pushing it to cover a 4x5 negative.


----------



## snark (Feb 2, 2013)

OK, so the graphic lens can be used for enlarging?  Or should I keep looking for a 90mm enlarging lens for my 6x7 negatives?


----------



## BrianV (Feb 2, 2013)

What size negative are you working with?


----------



## snark (Feb 2, 2013)

I was looking for a 90mm lens for 6x7 negatives, which I understand to be the standard; I recently bought an RB-67.  The question is whether the graphic lens will be worth the trouble to use as an enlarging lens.  I've read about differences between taking and enlarging lenses, and opinions are less than unanimous on how well a taking lens works for enlarging.  I don't want to waste a lot of time with substandard equipment, so what's the recommendation - write these lenses off and find a Schneider or Rodenstock 90mm enlarging lens on Ebay, or use the Graphic Raptar 90mm I just bought?  (The reason I am asking on this forum is to try to learn from others' experience, rather than wasting time and resource re-inventing the wheel in the darkroom.)


----------



## ann (Feb 3, 2013)

Since you mention less than , I would find a Schneider, or Nikkor, or Rodenstock , they aren't that expensive these days.

WIth the Schneider find a Componon, as it is their best. They have several versions and the easiest way to remember which level is the one with no 'a" in the title


----------



## snark (Feb 3, 2013)

That's what I thought, just wanted validation before I spent more $.  Thanks,


----------

