Advice on enlarger lenses

[Jonnymm]

Hi all!

Hope everyone is keeping safe out there!

Planning to get back into the darkroom as soon as it's possible to print up some BW work I've been shooting and I was thinking of looking out for what would be good enlarger lenses to purchase?

Print wise I'd be using 35mm to print max 10"x12" or 12"x16" but more importantly 6x7 I'd want to be printing roughly the same size?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Any of the reputable enlarging lenses from Rodenstock (Rodagon), El-Nikkor or Schneider (Companon, Companon-S) will give excellent results.

Make sure you get the right focal length for the negative format; 50mm for 35mm negs, 90-100mm for the 6x7 negs (the El-Nikkor 80mm is the shorter exception here).

Most of these are available used for not much. Apo lenses are top-of-the-line and the best performers, but are usually much more expensive. The quality increase at the sizes you plan on printing would be negligible. Do avoid the cheapie three-element enlarging lenses.

Have fun,

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

Schneider (Companon, Companon-S)

I expect that Doremus meant to type Componon, Componon-S here instead.
Otherwise I agree.
There are some other good choices - Fujinon, Minolta, Beseler HD and Beseler Color-Pro come to mind - but some of them are actually re-branded versions of others.
If you see something specific offered, don't hesitate to ask here.
Good luck - you are in for some fun.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I used a 50mm 2.8 El-Nikkor (several versions) for years, but Nikon doesn't make a good focal length for 6x7. I have and do not like at all the 80mm El-Nikkor. In recent years I have switched over to the Fujnon EX series (the more modern mount and multi-coated versions of the older EP series). Just love the 50mm 2.8 for 35mm and the 90mm for 6x7. By comparison the "APO" labelled lenses from various German makers offer little or no performance benefit at a hugely higher price - sucker bait. (Note: None of the APO lenses you might run into are true apochromatic lenses. Apo enlarging lenses do exist; they all have El-Nikkor on them and cost in the thousands in the off chance you spot one.)

 

[logan2z]

I have and do not like at all the 80mm El-Nikkor.

What don't you like about the 80mm El-Nikkor? I have the older metal-body version but haven't used it much yet nor have I compared it to any of it's competition.

 

[voceumana]

Meopta made several excellent enlarging lenses, and the Meogon and Meogon-S are among the best of them. Often available at bargain prices. I've heard they are the same designs as the Schneider.
For 6x7 you might consider the Meopta Anaret 105mm. It's a 4 element lens, but the series has a good reputation, Probably the same design as the Schneider Comparon lenses (also good performers) but designed for a smaller magnification ration, so good for MF, but probably not for 35mm.

 

[ic-racer]

Brief Guide; the "Four 'C's":

1) Coverage (Correct focal length for format)
2) Correct diameter threads for your lensboard
3) Count six elements
4) Clean glass elements

If using e-bay make sure you know all 4 parameters before you bid or buy.

 

[Ian C]

I agree with the advice of post # 7. I think you should add a 5th C to the list—Coverage.

For example, Nikon rates its 80 mm EL Nikkor enlarging lenses up to 6 x 7 cm format. Rodenstock does so for its 80 mm Rodagons as well. In contrast, Schneider rates its 80 mm Componon-S lenses up to 6 x 6 cm, but not up to 6 x 7 cm.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Another vote for Minolta, as Matt King mentioned.
Steve

 

[ic-racer]

I agree with the advice of post # 7. I think you should add a 5th C to the list—Coverage.

For example, Nikon rates its 80 mm EL Nikkor enlarging lenses up to 6 x 7 cm format. Rodenstock does so for its 80 mm Rodagons as well. In contrast, Schneider rates its 80 mm Componon-S lenses up to 6 x 6 cm, but not up to 6 x 7 cm.

Yes, although focal length frequently is the same as useful diagonal of image circle, there are significant exceptions, so "Coverage" would be the better term.

 

[Martin Rickards]

Another vote for Minolta, as Matt King mentioned.
Steve

By accident rather than design, I've ended up with two Minolta CEs: the 50 mm f2.8 and the 80 mm f5.6, the latter covering 6x7. From reputation, both top class lenses

 

[David Brown]

... but Nikon doesn't make a good focal length for 6x7. I have and do not like at all the 80mm El-Nikkor.

Respectfully disagree. The 80mm EL Nikkor is fine. Perhaps you have a bad unit. There is also the 105mm, which I use for 6x7 most of the time.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I've heard good and bad things about the 80mm EL Nikkor, and I remember hearing about someone who had misaligned elements in theirs. They took it apart, re-seated the glass, put it back together and it went from a bad lens to a good one, though they still didn't think it was "great." There's an interesting page from Nikon about the design of the 80mm in particular: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0064/index.htm

I actually have one right now that I got with lots of fungus in it and cleaned up. Because of the reputation and ridiculous price that the apo-rodagon N's fetch, I'm weighing selling my Rodenstock Apo and keeping the Nikkor but I want to get back into the darkroom and test them on prints before I do something so drastic. And, because of the pandemic, I had to convert my darkroom to a home office so everything is out of place, so I don't know how soon I'll be getting in to do that.

 

[138S]

Planning to get back into the darkroom as soon as it's possible to print up some BW work I've been shooting and I was thinking of looking out for what would be good enlarger lenses to purchase?

to print max 10"x12" or 12"x16"

See here, from page 87 and later from 83. http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

In my opinion it will be really difficult you see a difference between lenses at the print size you say, most important factors will be focus, alignment and stopping some 2 stops to get the performance sweet point.


I measured the Nikkor EL-50 performance and it is more than 200 Line pairs per mm, it fairly outresolves by a fair extent what you may record on film in real photography.

Some enlarging lenses will make an slight difference in some particular conditions, this is true.

But I suggest you do next: buy an excellent enlarging Pro lens like the EL 2.8, now they are cheap, but also buy one of amateur grade, say a $25 Rogonar or Comparon or the EL f/4.


Then try to find a difference in the print... You know... you won't find it at 16" !!! But you will perfectly see every pitfall you make in the crafting.

https://www.ebay.es/itm/RODENSTOCK-...917310?hash=item217079483e:g:7CcAAOSwocteYMJL
https://www.ebay.es/itm/Schneider-K...635087?hash=item1a972fb20f:g:xHYAAOSwaJFeqdHd


Regarding flare, beyond your enlarger capability, what is important is masking well your frame and having a black wall area near the enlarger. Paper reflects 90% of the light and if the near wall is white then a lot of the light bounces back to the paper. This makes a difference way more than the coatings in the lens.

 

[logan2z]

Respectfully disagree. The 80mm EL Nikkor is fine. Perhaps you have a bad unit. There is also the 105mm, which I use for 6x7 most of the time.

I seem to be getting good results with my 80mm El Nikkor. I haven't used an APO Rodagon N or any of the other 'premium' enlarging lenses for 6x6 so maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I seem to be getting good results with my 80mm El Nikkor. I haven't used an APO Rodagon N or any of the other 'premium' enlarging lenses for 6x6 so maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.

I'm curious, if any of the old timers remember, how much was the price difference between El-Nikkor and Apo-Rodagon back in the day? I can't find any historical B&H catalogs but it would be interesting to know!

 

[ic-racer]

1974 ad shows (2020 dollars in parentheses)
105mm Componon-S = $140.25 ($729.38)
105mm El-Nikkor = $119.50 ($621.47)
105mm Rodenstock Rodagon = $122.95 ($639.41)

In 1974 "Apo" was not a marketing term in use. In terms of 35mm SLR camera lenses it looks like "Auto" was the most common advanced feature. If it wasn't "Auto" it was assumed to be "Preset." Of course "Preset" means that it is NOT PRE-SET, you have to set the aperture YOURSELF before each shot if you want to focus wide-open.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I expect that Doremus meant to type Componon, Componon-S here instead.
Otherwise I agree.
There are some other good choices - Fujinon, Minolta, Beseler HD and Beseler Color-Pro come to mind - but some of them are actually re-branded versions of others.
If you see something specific offered, don't hesitate to ask here.
Good luck - you are in for some fun.

Yep, Componon.... I guess I never looked closely enough at the designation. Sorry for any confusion.

And, I failed to include the great Fujinon enlarger lenses. Or the Minolta. The Beseler lenses are likely rebadged lenses from one of the other manufacturers and are fine as well as long as they are six-element high-end lenses. There were also some three-element cheapies out there...

Doremus

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've used a dizzying array of enlarger lenses in my life. All of them have their place. Most six element lenses are good enough if the elements are in alignment. I had a Componon-S once that wan't too good and was a little dusty inside. I took it apart to clean it and then I made sure the elements were seated correctly. Went from a dog to a gem. I don't think I've ever had an unusable six element lens. There are slight differences of course, but you'd have to put them side by side to really see them. No one could tell what was enlarged with what if the prints are hanging on the wall. And just because six element lenses are "technically" the best doesn't mean you won't like a simpler lens. I got an Elmar with my Focomat and never used it. One day I thought what the hay? and put it on. I just happened to be enlarging a portrait and it looked great. The grain wasn't that sharp, but overall the print was probably better than if I used a "technically" good lens since it fit the image. And the image looked really "old" like an old HCB print for example.

Years ago I put all the lenses I had to a test. The Orthoplanar won, but the Computar DL was right behind it, and so was the Minolta CE Rokkor. But I use the Rokkor the most these days because it works with my Focomat 1c. I'll change lenses on the Focomat though just for the heck of it. All the lenses I have are acceptable for what I do and I'd assume since I am picky they would be acceptable to anyone else too, aside from the "exceptionalists" that basically just make stuff up.

The list of lenses is pretty large. Rodagons, Componon-S, Computar DL, Minolta CE Rokkor, Fujinon EX, Leica Focotar 2, Durst Neonon, EL Nikkor, Meogon, Hoya/Yashica/Computar six element. Lots and lots of lenses to choose from and some can be had for peanuts.

 

[logan2z]

The general consensus seems to be that most 6-element lenses are virtually indistinguishable from each other for anything other than very large prints - and even then the differences can be subtle. So what accounts for the huge disparity in prices between them? For example, El Nikkors can be had very cheaply but some of the Rodagons are very expensive. What does one get for the extra $$$?

 

[Paul Howell]

Not knowing what is readily available in your local market it's hard to say. My thinking is that there are many 4 element lens that will perform quite well at the sizes your looking at, On the other hand a six element lens gives you the option of printing larger. One of the exercise I had my students endure when I taught at a local community college, was to print from 4 and 6 element lens, 35mm 6X9 and 4X5. Same negatives, same brand of paper same developer, untoned. We used the school's 6 element Schneider lens my 4 element Wollensak and Kodak lens, some times a student would bring in a Nikon or Minolta. We had passing students and facility do a blind viewing. In the 5X7 to 11X14 rage the 4 elements lens held their own, at 16 X 20 the 6 element lens are clearly shaper. I know that lens are designed for various enlargement factors, I dont recall what the Schneider's s were optimised for, but the old Wollensak and Kodak from the 40s and 50s were clearly optimised for smaller prints. I would pass on 3 element lens.

 

[Whir-Click]

Wollensak’s Enlarging Raptar f4.5 lenses are the four-element Tessar design, but the Enlarging Pro Raptar lenses are six-element Plasmats and can usually be found at a reasonable price.

 

[BobD]

See Ctein's free book:
http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

Starting on page 77 is the most comprehensive review of enlarging lenses ever done as far as I know.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here the source of confusion : There was a budget level 75mm f/4 El Nikkor. It's exhibits focus shift until a full stop down, and is a poor performer for 6x7 toward the corners, but might be OK for 6x6. I use one of these for 35mm, where just the center of the lens applies, so it works quite well for a cheap lens, provided you recognize its focus shift wide open. The 80mm El Nikkor is an f/5.6 lens and better corrected. For 6x7 or especially 6x9, I use a 105 Apo Rogagon N, but that's a pricey lens. In fact, I prefer a 150 Apo Rodagon N for 6x9, but I have plenty of column height for sake of that. The list in Post Exposure doesn't even cover 10% of the choices. The lens he coveted neither he nor I could realistically afford. But except for a few very high end options, enlarging lenses are so cheap and abundant on the used market these days that there's really no reason to go for a bargain model.

 

[AgX]

There's an interesting page from Nikon about the design of the 80mm in particular: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0064/index.htm

But any Gaussian lens is Gaussian lens... or am I overlooking something?