105mm enlarger lens

[wyofilm]

I am looking to buy either an EL-Nikkor 105mm f/5.6 N or something equivalent to it or a Fujinon-EX 105mm lens (I can't find one, though). I mention the Fujinon because I have other Fujinon-EX enlarging lenses and am happy with them. Other suggestions in the $100-$150 price range?

Thanks!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am looking to buy either an EL-Nikkor 105mm f/5.6 N or something equivalent to it or a Fujinon-EX 105mm lens (I can't find one, though). I mention the Fujinon because I have other Fujinon-EX enlarging lenses and am happy with them. Other suggestions in the $100-$150 price range?

Thanks!

You can't go wrong with an EL Nikkorp;they are all great performers.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Schneider, Minolta, Computar, Rodenstock... Lots of them. Just depends what you want. If you like the Fuji then stick with Japanese lenses which will be pretty close to it. A Schneider for example will have a little less contrast than the equivalent Japanese lens. Rodenstocks are kind of in between.

I have a Nikon, last version if you are interested.

 

[tessar]

I have a 30+ year-old Rodenstock 105mm I use for 6x9 negatives, have always been pleased with the results.

 

[NB23]

I love my focotar. Such a sexy thing.

 

[wyofilm]

Thanks all for your insight. I have 105mm nikkor N on its way.

 

[16:9]

Me too, if anyone has one! I have and like the 80mm but the extra length would be useful. Has anyone compared them, do you know?

 

[bdial]

Ctein did tests of several lenses in his book Post Exposure. A pdf of the book is available on his website; https://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

 

[DREW WILEY]

Either the Fujinon EX or El Nikkor should be equally good. I now use an Apo Rodagon N 105, but those are in a completely different price bracket.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am looking to buy either an EL-Nikkor 105mm f/5.6 N or something equivalent to it or a Fujinon-EX 105mm lens (I can't find one, though). I mention the Fujinon because I have other Fujinon-EX enlarging lenses and am happy with them. Other suggestions in the $100-$150 price range?

Thanks!

the ELNikkor is an excellent choice!

 

[16:9]

I have the Fujinon but will probably sell it. I've been collecting them as taking lenses and the Fujinon, despite being optically top-notch has an aperture quirk that's problematic for me. It's really an f4 lens, but its 'maximum aperture' of f5.6 is actually stopped down. It's optimised for this aperture, but as a taking lens, its bokeh isn't as sweet as a lens with a circular (open aperture). However, in every other respect it's at least as good as the Nikkor, and Focotar and highly comparable to the Apo Componon and Rodagons.

 

[16:9]

Every picture I've seen of a Fujinon EX seems to be partially stopped down - I can't see how it would be otherwise given the design - but can anyone confirm whether theirs is the same?

 

[DREW WILEY]

!6:9 - how does anything you are describing about Fuji taking lenses apply to this thread about enlarging applications, with its own kind of lenses? Of course, nearly all lenses are optimal somewhat stopped down, including enlarging lenses. What does "bokeh" have in common with actual enlarging applications? - nothing. If one wants to borrow an enlarging lens and stick it on a camera, that's fine; but few do.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

!6:9 - how does anything you are describing about Fuji taking lenses apply to this thread about enlarging applications, with its own kind of lenses? Of course, nearly all lenses are optimal somewhat stopped down, including enlarging lenses. What does "bokeh" have in common with actual enlarging applications? - nothing. If one wants to borrow an enlarging lens and stick it on a camera, that's fine; but few do.

Enlarging lenses have a reputation of being exceptionally good at taking lenses in macro photography.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sometimes. I don't think pure macro, but at least closeup work. For example, At least one focal length of Componon was available standard in shutter too, or sake of tabletop photography. But if you reverse applications, and take a really excellent tabletop lens like a plastmat G-Claron and use it for enlarging, it's decent for sure, but not as ideal as the best enlarging lenses per se. Once you get to sheet film formats, and can realistically apply focal length lenses from 180mm onward, then symmetrical process lenses often prove distinctly superior to either of the already mentioned categories of lenses when it comes to close-up applications. I personally have a set of Apo Nikkors all the way from 240 to 760mm, and apples to apples, focal-length wise, these exceed all regular enlarging lenses in that application, and are also superior not only in close-up work, but even at infinity, than general taking lenses, even the best of them. But that doesn't mean I ordinarily use them for all such purposes because there are practical and logistical issues involved too. I do use them for critical darkroom applications like making master dupes and internegs, and for critical enlarging when the smaller max focussing aperture of f/9 is adequate.

 

[gone]

I had one of the old chrome, Kodak Ektar 100 4.5 enlarging lens once. Great lens, very sharp, very cheap. Kodak reserved the name Ektar for their best lenses. Once owned a Retina Ia w/ an Ektar lens (the real chrome nose one, not the fake ones w/ black ring that are not a Kodak lens at all). The Retina Ektar was too sharp, I mean like a razor, so I sold it and bought one w/ a Xenar. Loved that little camera.

Also had a 203 Ektar on a 4x5 camera and it was a wonderful lens, just as good or better that anything modern.

Note: The 100 4.5 Ektar is "only" a 4 element lens, but that's irrelevant. It's a great lens. I sold mine and regret it, and just saw one on eBait for $30, so life is good. I'll get it.

 

[JensH]

For example, At least one focal length of Componon was available standard in shutter too,

Yes, all Componon-S lenses from 100 to 360mm were offered in shutter.

 

[16:9]

!6:9 - how does anything you are describing about Fuji taking lenses apply to this thread about enlarging applications, with its own kind of lenses? Of course, nearly all lenses are optimal somewhat stopped down, including enlarging lenses. What does "bokeh" have in common with actual enlarging applications? - nothing. If one wants to borrow an enlarging lens and stick it on a camera, that's fine; but few do.

You're quite right. For me, it's been eye-opening how design choices made for enlarger application pan out when using the same lens for capture. Nikon in particular really over-engineered their ELs with a view to optimising transmission and minimising aberrations, and perhaps had an eye on the application of those six-element designs to large format photography - whereas Leica, for instance, built the Focotar to do one job only. It does that job well, but the Nikkors still (arguably) take better pictures. I've spent some time comparing Fuji EX and Nikon EL lenses in the last few months - less 'pushing', more 'ripping up' their performance envelope. Such stress-testing has revealed properties that would be less obvious (and are less relevant) in their target application, but if I failed to offer a worthwhile perspective on the topic at hand, I'm sorry for butting in.
If it helps, at 'working' distances of 1m and above, the Nikon resolves better in the outer frame, but the Fuji is slightly sharper in the centre.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You're quite right. For me, it's been eye-opening how design choices made for enlarger application pan out when using the same lens for capture. Nikon in particular really over-engineered their ELs with a view to optimising transmission and minimising aberrations, and perhaps had an eye on the application of those six-element designs to large format photography - whereas Leica, for instance, built the Focotar to do one job only. It does that job well, but the Nikkors still (arguably) take better pictures. I've spent some time comparing Fuji EX and Nikon EL lenses in the last few months - less 'pushing', more 'ripping up' their performance envelope. Such stress-testing has revealed properties that would be less obvious (and are less relevant) in their target application, but if I failed to offer a worthwhile perspective on the topic at hand, I'm sorry for butting in.
If it helps, at 'working' distances of 1m and above, the Nikon resolves better in the outer frame, but the Fuji is slightly sharper in the centre.

I'm just speaking for me of course, but don't apologize. Like I said, just me, but I like to hear and read about all types of uses for our personnel photographic equipment. Besides, your post was still on the topic of enlarging lenses mentioned in the thread. If somebody doesn't like your post that's OK too, but then they should just ignore it or all your post attached to this or any other thread. As for me.............I'm interested. I have both Fuji and Nikkor enlarging lenses and the are both excellent for their said jobs. Years ago I bought a Nikon 45V-XL enlarger/ with Ilford 500 head from a gentleman and it came with a complete line (50mm to 135mm) Fujinon EP lenses. I used all of them until I sold the outfit years later. I had absolutely no complaints due to the Fuji lenses. The EP series I think came before the EX, but were basically the same design. The only Nikkor I still have is the 50mm f2.8 and no complaints with that one either and the build quality is actually better than my APO Rodagon. The nice thing about buy used enlarging lenses is the fact that they are pretty much dirt cheap. If I were in the OP shoes I'd just buy a Nikkor and the Fuji then keep which one I liked best and unload the other or keep it for a srare. Like I said at the beginning of my post.........just my opinion. JohnW

 

[jtk]

!6:9 - how does anything you are describing about Fuji taking lenses apply to this thread about enlarging applications, with its own kind of lenses? Of course, nearly all lenses are optimal somewhat stopped down, including enlarging lenses. What does "bokeh" have in common with actual enlarging applications? - nothing. If one wants to borrow an enlarging lens and stick it on a camera, that's fine; but few do.

If one does point-source work (in pursuit of ultimate detail resolution) one must enlarge wide open. Everybody knows that

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think a LOT of people better informed on optics would argue against your wide-open postulate, jtk, unless of course you are being sarcastic and joking, which seems to be the case. "Bokeh" or "Blur-keh", or just plain "Hokey, Eh" ?