apo lens for enlarging

[Willie Jan]

Hi,

I bought a leica M and was wondering if the quality could be improved by using a apo lens for enlarging.
I know that the apo stands for color optimalization, but was wondering if someone did a test with black/white enlarging.

I now use a 80 componon-s or a el-nikkor 80mm for 35mm film. (I Always use a higher lens which gives a better print than a 50mm)
For 6x6 I use a 105 el-nikkor.

Is there someone outthere who has done a test between a apo and a non apo lens for black/white?

Thanks.

 

[ic-racer]

Is there someone outthere who has done a test between a apo and a non apo lens for black/white?

Thanks.

Yes, just recently: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[resummerfield]

At one time I compared several 8x10 format enlarging lenses, including the APO Nikkor 300mm f9 and the El Nikkor 300mm f5.6. The El Nikkor was just as good, if not slightly better because the larger aperture made focusing easier.

A longer than normal lens for the format will generally give better performance. As ic-racer mentioned in his post, the increased image circle makes centering much easier. Probably the absolute best lens for enlarging 35mm is the APO-El-Nikkor 105mm f5.6, but $$$.

For the Leica M, I would try a regular El Nikkor 105mm lens. They are plentiful, and very cheap.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're only as good as your weakest link. If you have a precisely aligned enlarger and use a high-quality glass carrier, then yes, you will seea distinct difference in the prints with a premium enlarging lens. Apo Nikkors are not made in short focal lengths, and Apo El Nikkors are not only very expensive and rare, but are actually too heavy to be kept in alignment by the average amateur enlarger. What I would recommend is the 105 Apo Rodagon N, or as a second choice, the 90 version of the same. These can still be purchased new, or, if you're lucky, you mightfind a clean used one for around $500 US. There seem to be plenty of them in the EU. Besides very high detail rendition across the whole frame, you'll get better microtonality in the print, provided you've got a high quality paper itself. This is easier to see when printing MF rather than 35mm negs, because you've got more information in the neg to begin with. You can also obtain a 50mm Apo
Rodagon N; but the longer ones would be more versatile if you have enough headroom on the enlarger.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rummersfield - I have quite a collection of both Apo Nikkors and El Nikkors. In every case, the Apo's have higher contrast, better detail
rendition (esp toward the corners), and far better microtonality. I happen to use the conventional Apo Nikkor more often when printing 8x10 color negs, because composing thru that deep orange mask is something the wider aperture is certainly nice for; and it is a damn good lens in its own right. But when printing black and white negs, the 305 Apo and 360 Apo Nikkors really stand out. I have shorter focal lengths for 4x5 work, and also use these for very critical applications like color separation negatives, which a regular El Nikkor would not be ideal at. For the average printer, I wouldn't worry too much about this distinction. But if you don't mind a working at apertures around f/11 to f/16, and want really superb enlarging lenses at very reasonable current used pricing, Apo Nikkors are the way to go!

 

[DREW WILEY]

... I should have also added that Apo Nikkors are fairly compact, and will easily adapt to any typical large format enlarger. My 360/5.6
El Nikkor is an absolute beast, and required me to make a customized lens mount. Most vertical enlarger won't even hold that kind of weight
on the lensboard, let alone bore diameter. Of course, the original question was for 35mm enlarging lens applications, and none of the lenses
in question will be unduly bulky except the 105 Apo EL.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Willie, the answer is yes and no. If you already have a very good enlarging lens, then changing to an Apo enlarging lens will make an incremental difference in B&W, which in some ways isn’t worth it. But if you have acquired a Leica M and you are asking this question, it is obvious you are after that tiny bit more performance

What I consider to be the best enlarging lens I have ever had the pleasure of using, the 90mm Apo Rodogon, would possibly knock your socks off. That lens was so sharp, it could almost cut the negatives.

We used it mainly for enlarging colour, but whenever in that darkroom and doing B&W or colour that was the lens that went on the enlarger for anything 6x7 and under.

The 90mm Apo Rodogon was replaced with an 80mm Apo Rodogon, which in turn was replaced with the 80mm Apo Rodogon-N. At least that is how I remember the chronological order of that format size, which is 6x7. I have not used either of the 80mm lenses, but I have no doubt they would be as good as, and most likely, better than, the 90mm.

http://www.prograf.ru/rodenstock/enlarging_en.html#Apo-Rodagon-N

To get the best out of an Apo enlarging lens, I would suggest you should always use a glass carrier. For medium format I suppose you normally would use a glass carrier, but when using 35mm many people don’t use a glass carrier, instead they use a glassless carrier.

My personal experience with the 90mm Apo Rodogon enlarging 35mm with and without glass, was that there was a contrast difference one could see reasonably easily in colour, but not so easily in B&W. Effectively, the ever so slight curve or lack of flatness in the negative, negated the stunning contrast of this enlarging lens. Placing the negative in a glassed holder and the contrast once again popped.

Mick.

 

[Willie Jan]

Mick,

you are right about the flattness with glass which is often ignored. All steps involved infuence the eventual result.
The 35mm film is mostly curved when not stored for a longer period in a ordner that presses the neg.

The downside of today is the lack of tests you could do before buying a lens by borrowing it from a store...

Thanks for the replies guys.

 

[jose angel]

"I bought a leica M and was wondering if the quality could be improved by using a apo lens for enlarging.
I know that the apo stands for color optimalization, but was wondering if someone did a test with black/white enlarging."

I`m quite skeptical about it. And I also wonder if some APO lenses are really apochromatic... some experts say they are not.
Anyway, when printing at "normal" sizes and optimal apertures, there is very little difference between a 4 element lens and a 6-7 element lens. If you print really large, or at wide apertures (!?!?), the differences become obvious.
So if you plan to get the most of a Leica negative (why... are Leica negatives per se better than others? Oooops, nevermind...), and price is not an issue, just buy the most expensive lens, "Leica Alike". APO enlarging lenses (true APO or not) are actually the best.
---
"I now use a 80 componon-s or a el-nikkor 80mm for 35mm film. (I Always use a higher lens which gives a better print than a 50mm)
For 6x6 I use a 105 el-nikkor"
Hmmm, another myth? Is it regardless on the specific lens, or the enlargement factor...???
---
BTW, it`s been a long time that my 35mm negatives came out perfectly flat (if so, with a very very slight transverse curve), great to be printed on glassless carriers. And more; my main problem are low quality glassless carriers, even more than negative flatness. Low quality carriers (some of them renowned brand ones) doesn`t provide a good fit&tension, even worst into the carrier stages. So with current films (say, Ilford and Kodak ones), I`m not having any sharpness problem when using (quality) glassless carriers. (I have to mention that my negatives doesn`t get hot while printing).

 

[Xmas]

Hi,

I bought a leica M and was wondering if the quality could be improved by using a apo lens for enlarging.
I know that the apo stands for color optimalization, but was wondering if someone did a test with black/white enlarging.
...
Is there someone outthere who has done a test between a apo and a non apo lens for black/white?

Thanks.

Any detectable difference (between enlarger lenses) depends on your other technique, (e.g. Using PanF or Tx), rigidity/windage of tripod, etc. and the M lenses you use.
Try a microscope on a negative of a test chart shot at /5.6.

 

[RobC]

The downside of today is the lack of tests you could do before buying a lens by borrowing it from a store...

I heard one person say he always buys 3 of same lens from amazon. Tests them a soon as they arrive, keeps the best and returns the other two which as its mail order you can do without question.

 

[darkosaric]

I have been enlarging with the EL nikkor 50mm f2.8 lens for long time, and results were excellent. Then I got Focomat V35 with focotar, and results were ... different, with lower contrast and more details. At first I did not like it, but after short time I understood that this is the best enlarger for 35mm negatives.
What I want to say is that it is not only about the lens, but also about the enlarger and lightning of the enlarger. But this is really splitting hairs, difference is so minor that you need to split hairs to see it.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

For what it is worth, I have noticed differences, but I cannot say they were down to Apo or not Apo, or other aspects of lens design. My 150mm enlarging lens progression in terms of contrast, but also in terms of the resulting impression of sharpness was: older (knurled design) El Nikkor, then small improvement with Rodagon, then pretty big improvement with the newer design El Nikkor, then smaller improvement with my current lens, Apo Rodagon N. I use glass carriers. I have not tried the Componon HS yet. Once again, this is only related to 150 mm lenses, I have no idea if the other focal lengths would stack the same way.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...pretty big improvement with the newer design El Nikkor, then smaller improvement with my current lens, Apo Rodagon N...

At what print size(s) have you seen which specific difference(s)? I'm particularly interested in 8x10 prints from 4x5. That 2X magnification is what Nikon optimized the 170mm Apo-El-Nikkor for. I've neither won the lottery nor found any such 170mm lenses for sale, so wonder where the 150mm Apo Rodagon N falls on a spectrum between it and my 150mm 5.6A El-Nikkor at only 2X. Thanks in advance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sal - for making very high quality 8x10 dupes and internegs from 4x5 onto 8x10 film, along with precision matched color separations, I use a 240 Apo Nikkor. These are much more demanding application than printing. It's an absolutely superb lens. The 210 Apo Nikkor might be excellent too, but it's not as common and I don't own one. I don't think there's much cost benefit to the very expensive 210 Apo El, though it is effectively optimized just one stop faster than the regular Apo. This would seem to be non-issue in a 2X print magnification. And like I said, the plain 4-element air-spaced Apo Nikkors are optically superior to any official enlarging lens. They were quite expensive back when new, and their present bargain status is simply due to the shift of the printing trade away from big process cameras to scanners. The 150 Apo Rodagon N will have some illumination falloff like all 150's with 4x5, unless you grind a matching diffuser; but it will optimize around
f/5.6, if for some strange reason you need to print that fast. Sometimes I use it wide open to print 6x9, obviously with a very well aligned
system. Damn nice lens to own!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Please excuse my interrupted posts, Sal, but I'm sorting huge stacks of purchase orders today (in other words, spending a helluva lot of someone else's money), and post when I want to pause and clear my head. The reason I have so many nuances of enlarging lenses on hand
goes back to my Ciba printing days. Minor image tweaks could often be made simply by lens change. For example, using the 150 Rodagon N would give me more deliberate corner falloff (darker in Ciba) along with more overall contrast compared to a 180 Rodagon. But Ciba could print rather slow due to heavy masking, so having the extra speed of a 150/4 lens was nice. In black and white printing, the 150 Apo N will give you enhanced microtonality and grain sharpness compared to a regular Nikkor EL or regular Rodagon, but there are times that there can be too much of a good thing - too much microcontrast and MTF, which can make tiny blemishes like pressure marks on film or an AN pattern on glass mysteriously apparent in open skies etc on premium papers. So despite having some really high-performance lenses on
hand, it's also useful to have garden-variety ones too, esp now that "non-cult" enlarging lenses are so affordable. Most of my Apo Nikkors
I got downright free.

 

[EdSawyer]

170mm AEN is probably the rarest of them all, except maybe the 480. Would be cool to find one though!

I have both the 150 Apo Rodagon N and the 150 EL Nikkor A. I will try to compare them sometime. Offhand I am guessing the Apo Rodagon N will be better. A dark horse I also have and will try sometime is the Nikkor AM-ED 210mm 5.6 large format macro lens. It uses a very similar optical design to the apo el nikkor, and is optimized for 3:1 - 1:3 magnification ranges. Also much cheaper than any AEN of any length.

-Ed

At what print size(s) have you seen which specific difference(s)? I'm particularly interested in 8x10 prints from 4x5. That 2X magnification is what Nikon optimized the 170mm Apo-El-Nikkor for. I've neither won the lottery nor found any such 170mm lenses for sale, so wonder where the 150mm Apo Rodagon N falls on a spectrum between it and my 150mm 5.6A El-Nikkor at only 2X. Thanks in advance.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Enlarging a Leica lens with nikon is something arabian princes buys rolls royces , remove the engine and put a ford engine.
For leica , you need culture and respect to culture and you have to force yourself to discover the knowledge. Otherwise you get these responses , buy a leitz enlarger lens for your leitz lens.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nonsense. Look where Leica camera lenses are currently made. And anyone who knows anything about machine optics or medical optics knows who makes them, and at quality standards way beyond anything photographers need.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I dont care about New Leica lenses , I found some horrible shots on S2 and M9 , I have never seen from a Leica past 35 years.
For me Leitz Wetzlar is the Leica , before the Soviet collapse when the success againts soviets was the most important. Now there is no nuclear threat and so no need to pentagon support flow in the vains of art market.

I am searching and can not find any good music or picture or painting or classical conductor etc now. Even hollywood women are ugly and men are like a junkie or idiot. Films are blue monochrome.

 

[georg16nik]

In case you are enlarging ~20x and you want to push the limits, then Rodagon-G or APO-N are one of the first picks, followed by the older 1:5,6/50 “zebra” Rodagon.
The newer designs like Componon-S or the Rodagon 1:2,8's are mostly optimized for ~10x and 15x and beyond is a stretch for them - yes their contrast is higher but that's it, El nikkors and the rest are in the same group.

In larger formats the story is a bit different but you asked about Leica format and Leica negs.

Hi,

I bought a leica M and was wondering if the quality could be improved by using a apo lens for enlarging.
I know that the apo stands for color optimalization, but was wondering if someone did a test with black/white enlarging.

I now use a 80 componon-s or a el-nikkor 80mm for 35mm film. (I Always use a higher lens which gives a better print than a 50mm)
For 6x6 I use a 105 el-nikkor.

Is there someone outthere who has done a test between a apo and a non apo lens for black/white?

Thanks.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal - for making very high quality 8x10 dupes and internegs from 4x5 onto 8x10 film, along with precision matched color separations, I use a 240 Apo Nikkor. These are much more demanding application than printing. It's an absolutely superb lens. The 210 Apo Nikkor might be excellent too, but it's not as common and I don't own one...And like I said, the plain 4-element air-spaced Apo Nikkors are optically superior to any official enlarging lens...

You've sung these praises before, Drew, and that's why I recently determined to be the high bidder (and was) for a 180mm Apo Nikkor described as "180mm F9 MINT, BOXED-UN-FREAKING-USED!! Apo-Nikkor..A Delightful Dialyte!!" I'd be using it on an LPL 4500II, so even the 180 would have required an extended lensboard for 2X printing, but I was prepared for that. Unfortunately, although perhaps "unused," it was far from "mint." See attached photo of the rear element and numerous significant scratches that were immediately apparent in normal room light. Although the well-known seller refunded my purchase price plus shipping in both directions, it's disappointing that he's seen fit to re-list that lens with only the following small addition to his description taking a snide swipe at me:

...I failed to notice in my excitement of handling such a great lens that there are a few fine cleaning wisps on the rear element. They are invisible in room light and even in as close a view as the one you see above. The marks can only be seen with the use of a flashlight from the rear…if you plan to shoot flashlights then this isn't the lens for you. In actual use this lens will perform flawlessly."​

...The 150 Apo Rodagon N will have some illumination falloff like all 150's with 4x5, unless you grind a matching diffuser; but it will optimize around f/5.6, if for some strange reason you need to print that fast...

Since I'm interested in 2X, f/5.6 being the optimum aperture could be a negative. My timer's smallest increments are only 0.1 second.

...the 150 Apo N will give you enhanced microtonality and grain sharpness compared to a regular Nikkor EL or regular Rodagon, but there are times that there can be too much of a good thing...

That's a risk I'd be willing to take. There's sharpness/acutance visible on my negatives using a loupe (at magnification comparable to closeup inspection of a 2X print) that the 150mm El-Nikkor doesn't pass. Thus my question for Rafal in post #14.

...I have both the 150 Apo Rodagon N and the 150 EL Nikkor A. I will try to compare them sometime...

Thanks Ed. We've had this "conversation" in previous threads; I'm still patiently waiting for "sometime." Whenever you do get around to it, 2X magnification is my interest and determining any differences in Apo N performance at varying apertures would be valuable information.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

At what print size(s) have you seen which specific difference(s)? I'm particularly interested in 8x10 prints from 4x5. That 2X magnification is what Nikon optimized the 170mm Apo-El-Nikkor for. I've neither won the lottery nor found any such 170mm lenses for sale, so wonder where the 150mm Apo Rodagon N falls on a spectrum between it and my 150mm 5.6A El-Nikkor at only 2X. Thanks in advance.

Sal, I used all of those lenses printing 4x5, usually full frame, sometimes cropped to about 2x3, on papers from 10x10 to 12x16. Some lenses were used on 16x20, but my comparison is valid around 11x14 which is the size I use most often.

One nicer feature of my latest lens, Apo Rodagon N, is that it is pretty sharp fully open at f/4 and really down to f/16 diffraction doesn't encroach on grain shape much at these magnifications. Fall-off is negligible at f/5.6, while at f/4 it is about 1/3f at edges at these sizes, full frame. Geometry is excellent.

Previous lenses never had such good characteristic, not just contrast and perceived sharpness, but also in terms of fall-off, and really liked to be used at about 1-2 stops down, with wide open not really an option. Still, if I had to use the newer design (straight barrel, no knurled aperture ring) Nikkor, I'd be happy.

PS. I just saw you are specifically asking about acutance effects, edges I suppose. I'd need to pop a negative in and compare. If you have a test negative you fancy posting to me, I'd be happy to print it for you with the Nikkor and the Apo Rodagon N.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I just saw you are specifically asking about acutance effects, edges I suppose. I'd need to pop a negative in and compare. If you have a test negative you fancy posting to me, I'd be happy to print it for you with the Nikkor and the Apo Rodagon N.

Thanks Rafal, but no specific test image. I'm primarily interested in the appearance of sharpness at 2X from 4x5. Your assessment of whatever negative(s) you've got with lots of fine detail would be great. Also, as I implied in another post, prints will of necessity be made down around f/11 - f/16 at this small magnification to avoid unreasonably short exposure times, so comparison with the El-Nikkor A in that aperture range is of great interest. Thanks very much.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sal - my own assessment is based on film in precision vac holders, not just prints. Making 2X dupes intended for precise 30X40 Cibachromes was a far far more demanding application than making 2X prints. And the 240 Apo Nikkor was clearly superior to the 150 Rodagon N, which has too much falloff anyway, and really needs to be used at f/8 to optimize (though it can be used wide open for MF negs). The Apo Nikkors optimize between f/11 and f/16. But Apo Nikkors in this range are easy to find. If a 150 Rodagon N turns up reasonably, grab it, just to have
it. It's a gem in its own right.