8 x 10 enlarger lens

[mitch brown]

I have a new 8 x10 beseler conversion setup on the way and now need a enlarger lens . what lens for 8 x 10 will fit the beseler lens boards . I know that a 240 lens is what's recommended also what lens would I need to cover whole plate negatives? if anyone might have something that would work please contact me .
Mitch
thanks

 

[Ginette]

The beseler conversion kit was designed to use the 240mm HD Beseler, it is in fact a 240mm Gerogon f/9.
You have also the option of the SK Grimes adapter https://skgrimes.com/whats-new/2005-2/beseler-enlarger-lens-board-adapters for a Rodagon 240mm or an El-Nikkor 210mm that can cover 8x10 format and certaintly your whole plate size nicely.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you want a far better compact 240 at a reasonable price, get a 240/f9 Apo Nikkor. These were originally quite expensive process lenses used on commercial copy cameras, but now are common at very tempting prices. Don't confuse them with EL Nikkor enlarging lenses, which are good but will be bulkier and not as well corrected. Beseler/Gerogons were classified as budget student lenses.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

Also a 240mm Apo Rodagon. This is an upgraded Apo Ronor process lens with an optimum aperture of f16. It was designed for 3:1 1:3 enlargements. Being a 240MM lens, it doesn't require the headroom of longer lenses.

But, the 210mm El Nikko that Drew has suggested sounds like a pretty nice option.

 

[Luis-F-S]

So will these great suggestions fit a Beseler 8x10 conversion enlarger? The apo lenses have a much larger mounting flange than the non-apo lenses.

 

[btaylor]

The Beseler 240 HD lens certainly will, it was made for the 8x10 conversion and will mount on a standard Beseler lens board. I don’t know about the “budget” aspect, from what I have read it was a good lens. What would be the point of a low quality lens on an expensive conversion to 8x10?

 

[Luis-F-S]

It's not a budget lens, regardless what anyone else might think!!!!!!The Beseler system was specifically designed to use this lens, let those who say it's a budget lens contact Beseler and tell them they made and sold a budget system!!!! Ginette already noted the lens options in post #2 above.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

So will these great suggestions fit a Beseler 8x10 conversion enlarger? The apo lenses have a much larger mounting flange than the non-apo lenses.

The only accommodation required when mounting my 240mm f/9 Apo Nikkor on the Beseler 8x10 conversion was replacing those two lensboard thumbscrews with Allen screws and using an Allen key to secure the board tight. Heads on Beseler's thumbscrews interfered with the Apo Nikkor flange. Otherwise all was good.

 

[Luis-F-S]

Good to hear. Did you have a special board made by SKG? Don't have those issues with my DeVeres or Durst! L

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The only accommodation required when mounting my 240mm f/9 Apo Nikkor on the Beseler 8x10 conversion was replacing those two lensboard thumbscrews with Allen screws and using an Allen key to secure the board tight. Heads on Beseler's thumbscrews interfered with the Apo Nikkor flange. Otherwise all was good.

Good to hear. Did you have a special board made by SKG?...

No, just a standard, blank Beseler board that I had Grimes bore out and tap small holes in to secure the Apo Nikkor's flange.

...Don't have those issues with my DeVeres or Durst! L

I barely have room to store the Beseler 8x10 conversion for occasional use in a temporary darkroom, much less space for either of those "real" 8x10 enlargers.

 

[ruilourosa]

beseler is, for sure, a budget option to durst and devere... in every aspect...

durst 1840 costed the price of a house...

lenses... any enlarger lens that cover the format for the desired magification will do... repro lenses will work well inside their correction range... gerogon, repromaster, g claron... usually 5:1 to 1:5 or less

i think any enlarger lens will suit you better

Rodagon is a very good lens... i have a few from 40 to 300...

apo is no better, usually... and usually apo is a vague label... good camera technique and good enlarger technique are much better... look for focusing issues in enlarging...

cheers

 

[Luis-F-S]

durst 1840 cost the price of a house...

Not necessarily. I paid a lot less for my DeVere 5108 than what I see 8x10 Beselers go for at Auction! My second 5108 was even less, free for the cost of hauling it home! I tried to give 4 free-standing DeVeres away last year and it was hard finding takers!

lenses... any enlarger lens that cover the format for the desired magification will do... repro lenses will work well inside their correction range... gerogon, repromaster, g claron... usually 5:1 to 1:5 or less
i think any enlarger lens will suit you better
Rodagon is a very good lens... i have a few from 40 to 300...

apo is no better, usually... and usually apo is a vague label... good camera technique and good enlarger technique are much better... look for focusing issues in enlarging...
cheers

I have a 240 Rodagon, a 240 Apo-R, a 240 Componon-S in shutter a 240 G-Claron in barrel and a 300 G-Claron in both shutter and barrel, so I'm pretty much set! Haven't found the 240 Apo to be any better than then 240 Rodagon at the small enlargements I make. Usually use the 210 Rodagon for 1:1 or close to that. The 210 Rodagon will cover 8x10 at 1:2 so it will work with an 16x20 or smaller!

 

[DREW WILEY]

No ruilourosa, real apo lenses are conspicuously better. It can be seen in prints as well as under a grain magnifier. There is nothing vague about the labeling. Apo Process lenses were made to much higher repro standards. Lenses like Apo Nikkors were originally quite expensive, but now are bargain priced simply because the printing industry doesn't use big copy cameras much anymore. Beseler lenses cost about a tenth as much back then as these. And Luis, the Apo Nikkors are distinctly better at close range too. I use them for enlarged dupes and internegs onto 8x10 film. An ordinary Rodagon enlarging lens or a G-Claron is not equal, though I wouldn't worry about that fact too much in ordinary darkroom printing. I have some of those too, and they're quite good for many things, as are the more ordinary El Nikkor enlarging lenses.

 

[Luis-F-S]

And Luis, the Apo Nikkors are distinctly better at close range too. I use them for enlarged dupes and internegs onto 8x10 film.

Well, that's your opinion, and opinions are like a lot of body parts, everybody has one! Not that I have any experience with Apo-Nikkors, I use Artars, but for enlarging, I use Rodagons!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I appreciate you admit that you have no experience with certain lenses, and I can honestly state I have a great deal of experience with them - a whole set of them - so apparently not all "opinions" are equal ! Rodagons are very good enlarging lenses. Apo Rodagon N's are a lot better. Apo Nikkors are even better still, but have an f/9 max aperture and are not available in short focal lengths. I use em all, depending on what I'm doing. The original conversation revolves around a Beseler 8x10 conversion. Lets say they wanted to use a 360 lens for ideal illumination. Do you know just how big and heavy a 360/5.6 El Nikkor is? It not only wouldn't even begin to fit a Beseler board, but its sheer weight would deflect the whole support system. But if you took a 360/9 Apo Nikkor, it would easily fit; lightweight too. I happen to own and use both. Sometimes brighter initial focus is the priority. Or sometimes, especially in color printing, I might want a little less contrast than a multicoated Apo lens.

 

[ruilourosa]

just for the sake of it i will purchase one or two apo nikkors... and check it out... even if i am just going in the boat of a knowitall doitall havitall...

i always doubted of expressions like: a lot better... i have a 50mm apo rodagon, a 40mm apo componon hm, some focotars in 50´s some nikkors some regular rodagons some anarets and a meogon....

all work well in their magnification ratio... apo is no better....

i tend to look at my prints with just my eyes... i want to see images...

same experience in MF and LF


the apo labeling is vague... the only apo enlarging lens is the 105mm apo nikkor... as told by ctein...

repro lenses work well in their range... outside that no they wont... it´s that way with most lens designs...

also, outside the recommended magnification the apo labelling is off...

 

[Lachlan Young]

The only accommodation required when mounting my 240mm f/9 Apo Nikkor on the Beseler 8x10 conversion was replacing those two lensboard thumbscrews with Allen screws and using an Allen key to secure the board tight. Heads on Beseler's thumbscrews interfered with the Apo Nikkor flange. Otherwise all was good.

Do you find that the Apo-Nikkor 240/9 offers adequate coverage of 8x10 negs up to a 2-2.5x enlargement?

 

[ruilourosa]

i know g claron goes more... and repromaster too... both in 240...

 

[Lachlan Young]

i know g claron goes more... and repromaster too... both in 240...

I know that the 6/4 wide field repro lenses will do fine within those limits - however what I want to know is how well the 4/4 apo lenses cover at about 2x enlargement.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Do you find that the Apo-Nikkor 240/9 offers adequate coverage of 8x10 negs up to a 2-2.5x enlargement?

Sorry, I have nothing to offer in that regard. I've only used the Beseler 810 / 240mm Apo Nikkor combination to enlarge 5x7 and whole plate negatives, and even then only to slightly larger than 8x10.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ther 240/9 4-element Apo Nikkor easily covers 8x10. But being shorter than "normal" focal length, you will have some illumination falloff. You can obviously burn in the corners or perhaps use a special ground diffuser thicker at the center than the edges. But the falloff is minimized by stopping the lens down to f/16 or so, at which point the corner shapness is also optimized for 8x10 (a stop further down than for 4x5 film). But at only 2 to 3X enlargement, even f/11 should give excellent results if you don't mind some corner and edge burning. It's a sharper and more contrasty lens for enlargement than a 240 G-Claron, which will cover as well, but ideally needs to be stopped down even more. The notion that true apo lenses like Apo Nikkors are not significantly better than ordinary enlarging lenses is an uninformed statement. They were marketed for more stringent optical standards to begin with. There never was a 105 Apo Nikkor. The shortest focal length was 180/9. What did exist in 105 was an Apo EL Nikkor. Ctein never owned one, though he would have like to. The last of these got snatched up for high-end scanning back art reproduction cameras. They were most commonly made in 105/5.6 and 210/5.6, but clear up to 360mm, the last sale of which was around $11,000 US. Way, way more expensive than ordinary El Nikkor enlarging lenses. But for just a stop less max aperture, the Apo Nikkor design delivers very similar performance to the Apo EL at less bulk and weight.