Are Beseler Color Pro lenses good for black and white? Better than Componon?

[GaryFlorida]

Im trying to set up my black and white darkroom and I want to get the right equipment. I will be printing 35mm, 6x6 and 6x9. I have a 50mm Beseler Color Pro, a 50mm Componon, a 80mm Componon, and a 105 Componon. The last two do not have lensboards because they do not fit in the 39mm beseler lens board I have and they are less than perfect glass. I would like to replace them but not sure what is best for big b+w enlargements.

 

[MattKing]

My 90mm Beseler Color Pro is excellent.

 

[GaryFlorida]

My 90mm Beseler Color Pro is excellent.

Matt do you have much to compare it to and would it be big enough for 6x9? Thanks.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's a bit skimpy on 6x9, but would probably be OK, simply OK. The "normal" for 6x9 is 105, and slightly longer than normal is generally
preferable. But it sounds like you have old-style Componons (chrome?), nothing relatively modern. Just depends how fussy you want to be;
but a top-end apo enlarging lens will have somewhat better detail and contrast in terms of microtonality - and also a conspicuously higher price. Beseler lenses were more entry level items.

 

[MattKing]

That's a bit skimpy on 6x9, but would probably be OK, simply OK. The "normal" for 6x9 is 105, and slightly longer than normal is generally
preferable. But it sounds like you have old-style Componons (chrome?), nothing relatively modern. Just depends how fussy you want to be;
but a top-end apo enlarging lens will have somewhat better detail and contrast in terms of microtonality - and also a conspicuously higher price. Beseler lenses were more entry level items.

The Color Pro lenses were Beseler's "premium" line when they were current. Most likely, they are re-badged versions of lenses manufactured by Schneider, or Rodenstock.

Many of the results of a google search on the subject will include the reports of fans. I like mine - but I wouldn't expect it to handle 6x9 well.

Here is what appears to be Beseler's promotional materials, courtesy of KHB: http://www.khbphotografix.com/Used/ColorPro.htm

EDIT: From time to time I use mine to make enlargements that are also within the recommended range for my late model 80mm Rodagon lens. The two lenses give me similar, high quality results.

 

[GaryFlorida]

The Color Pro lenses were Beseler's "premium" line when they were current. Most likely, they are re-badged versions of lenses manufactured by Schneider, or Rodenstock.

Many of the results of a google search on the subject will include the reports of fans. I like mine - but I wouldn't expect it to handle 6x9 well.

Here is what appears to be Beseler's promotional materials, courtesy of KHB: http://www.khbphotografix.com/Used/ColorPro.htm

EDIT: From time to time I use mine to make enlargements that are also within the recommended range for my late model 80mm Rodagon lens. The two lenses give me similar, high quality results.

Matt, thanks for posting that. I was wondering if Color Pro , Im assuming it is color corrected or made for color printing would be less than optimal for black and white printing. Does that matter at all?

 

[John Koehrer]

Color Pro is only a product name & had nothing to do with color/bw abilities.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The Color Pros I believe were Computars, which are a little better than your average Componon assuming it hasn't separated which they are apt to do. I think the Beseler HD lenses were the Rodenstocks. I have a couple of Computars and can tell you they are highly underrated. They are designed a little differently from other enlarging lenses. There is a lot more glass. They look like they should be a stop faster than they are. In my experience they are better wide open than other lenses (other than APOs). Somewhere in one of these forums the designer explained the difference in the design, but I don't remember the specifics.

 

[GaryFlorida]

do you know how many elements the Color Pro lenses are ?

 

[RPC]

do you know how many elements the Color Pro lenses are ?

According to old Beseler literature I have on them, they all have six elements in four groups. They were available in 50, 75, 90, 105 and 135mm. I have the 135 but never use it much before I bought my Rodenstock Rodagon 150mm.

 

[wiltw]

The Color Pro lenses were Beseler's "premium" line when they were current. Most likely, they are re-badged versions of lenses manufactured by Schneider, or Rodenstock.

Taken from the web...
"Beseler Pro Komuranon-E 75mm f5.6 Enlarging Lens
39mm thread mount
Excellent Condition, No fungus or haze, very clean.
Boxed with dome case and 39mm jam ring
This series was also marketed as the Beseler Professional Series"

..but take that statement with a big grain of salt and an example of 'truth' in internet 'info' (urban legends), as the Beseler enlarger lens sheet (published c. 1979) does NOT mention 75mm f/5.6, they list 75mm f/4.5 http://www.khbphotografix.com/Used/ColorPro.htm

There is a posting of a Komuranon 75mm f/5.6 enlarging lens and lots of photos of it. http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Komura-Komuranon-e-f-75mm-1-5-6-enlarging-lens-boxed-m2342-/390658112697

And supposedly the Beseler HD lenses were sourced from Rodenstock.

Ctein tested the 50mm f/2.8 Beseler Pro and says that for 5x-8x enlargements its optimum aperture is f/4, and performance fell off a bit at 11x-16x (Komura only has a 50mm f/3.5 in their own brand, so not likely the Beseler is sourced from them.)

Top performer at 50mm was Schneider Componon-S. The Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N was second. The Beseler Pro pretty much tied with Computar, and the El Nikkor trailed.

 

[M Carter]

For 6x7, the Nikkor 80mm 5.6 covers - seems small but it was designed for 6x7. Great value in an enlarging lens.

 

[MattKing]

Color Pro is only a product name & had nothing to do with color/bw abilities.

I'm not sure this is correct.

One of the reasons that the more expensive lenses were more expensive is/was that they were designed to perform well with color materials. In some cases, that is why the more expensive lenses have more elements - they are corrected for the aberrations (e.g. colour fringing) that affect colour materials more than black and white.

In addition, a "colour corrected" lens probably has been designed to minimize chromatic aberrations.

 

[DREW WILEY]

80 is pretty short for 6x7. The 5.6 El Nikkor does an acceptable job, the cheaper faster version will have some definition problems toward the corners. More of a 6x6 length. For all my MF negs I use 105 Apo Rodagon N, which is unquestionably the finest enlarging lens in this focal length unless you can afford the ridiculously expensive rare Apo El Nikkor (not to be confused with El Nikkor). Componon S doesn't even come close, though it is a better performer than the old chrome Componons. But sometimes I prefer to use the 150 Apo Rodagon N. With longer than normal focal lengths you get more even illumination, important in situations when burning in edge and corner density is clumsy. I'm not guessing about any of this.

 

[GaryFlorida]

....
Top performer at 50mm was Schneider Componon-S. The Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N was second. The Beseler Pro pretty much tied with Computar, and the El Nikkor trailed.

I thought he said that the Nikkor was the perfect lens ever made. They are in no particular order are they? How do you think the Componon would compare to the componon s?

 

[wiltw]

I thought he said that the Nikkor was the perfect lens ever made. They are in no particular order are they? How do you think the Componon would compare to the componon s?

I have the book with CTein's assessment. He does not officially rank lenses. But he makes comments that make it apparent which one comes out on top.

• Schneider Componon-S is 'best central contrast' and it has 0% distortion, and 'exceptionally flat field'. Slight lateral color and longitudinal color.
• Rodenstock APO has least amount of edge to edge falloff (at 0.15% vs. all others at 0.3%), and only .25% distortion (#2 spot) and he says 'good edge contrast, but worse than average red-gree longitudinal colr.
• Beselar has slight smearing, some longitudinal color/ Same image quality at 5x (as 8x) slightly poorer at 11x and 18x
• Computer is 'very similar' in appearance to Color Pro
• Nikon has essentially same description as Beseler, but with slight lateral color in addition to some longitudinal color. Slightly lower contrast at 11x and 16x.

 

[jjphoto]

The Color Pros I believe were Computars, which are a little better than your average Componon assuming it hasn't separated which they are apt to do...

I suspect Beseler sourced a range of lenses from a range of suppliers. Some may certainly have been Computars, and the later 'HD' lenses where certainly Rodenstocks, but no doubt other suppliers have been involved and we may never know all the details.

The Color Pro's in the previously posted link (http://www.khbphotografix.com/Used/ColorPro.htm) don't marry up with Computar lenses that were available at the time. For example, Computar never made a 4.5/75, 5.6/90 or 5.6/105. Computar lenses in these focal lengths are 3.5/65, 4.5/80, 4.5/90 and 4.5/105. Of course lenses can simply be labelled differently and/or baffles inserted to provide a point of difference.

 

[GaryFlorida]

I suspect Beseler sourced a range of lenses from a range of suppliers. Some may certainly have been Computars, and the later 'HD' lenses where certainly Rodenstocks, but no doubt other suppliers have been involved and we may never know all the details.

The Color Pro's in the previously posted link (http://www.khbphotografix.com/Used/ColorPro.htm) don't marry up with Computar lenses that were available at the time. For example, Computar never made a 4.5/75, 5.6/90 or 5.6/105. Computar lenses in these focal lengths are 3.5/65, 4.5/80, 4.5/90 and 4.5/105. Of course lenses can simply be labelled differently and/or baffles inserted to provide a point of difference.

How does the performance of Color Pros compare to Computars?

 

[jjphoto]

How does the performance of Color Pros compare to Computars?

Well, it's possible some are the same so in those cases the performance would be identical! Otherwise, I don't have any idea as I don't have any ColorPro's.

Re. your search for quality lenses. Maybe you should simply replace your older Componon lenses with the later Componon-s versions which are quite inexpensive and which in my experience have consistently performed about as well as the best enlarging lenses, with a few exotic and expensive exceptions.

Once you start to compare the 'better' lenses like Rodagon, Componon-s etc then you are potentially just splitting hairs and the differences may only be relevant in certain circumstances, eg. at small enlargements there may be no benefit at all. Go make pictures rather than waste too much time on finding the 'right' lens, there are plenty of them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh for heaven sake! Everyone who has actually used these various lenses knows the facts. Forget you "Consumer Reports" mentality. Why
do you think Schneider came out with their "HM Apo" series of enlarger lenses - to compete with the Apo Rodagon N's. These kinds of things have higher contrast, better resolution, and better microtonality than Ford/Chevy lenses like Rodagons, Componon-S, and El Nikkor. Is this important? Sometimes. Sometimes not. There are times too high a contrast or MTF can be distracting, esp in color reproduction. That's why I personally own a selection of these things, including very high res Apo Nikkor lenses. I can fine-tune the print very precisely by lens choice. And there are numerous technical lab applications where one might have a distinct edge over another, even in the same focal length. But quality-wise, you got what you paid for (at least when these kinds of things still sold new at full price). High end apo lenses simply cost more to make, and people were willing to pay for the best.

 

[M Carter]

80 is pretty short for 6x7. The 5.6 El Nikkor does an acceptable job, the cheaper faster version will have some definition problems toward the corners. More of a 6x6 length. For all my MF negs I use 105 Apo Rodagon N, which is unquestionably the finest enlarging lens in this focal length unless you can afford the ridiculously expensive rare Apo El Nikkor (not to be confused with El Nikkor). Componon S doesn't even come close, though it is a better performer than the old chrome Componons. But sometimes I prefer to use the 150 Apo Rodagon N. With longer than normal focal lengths you get more even illumination, important in situations when burning in edge and corner density is clumsy. I'm not guessing about any of this.

The 80mm 5.6 El Nikkor "sounds" short, but it was designed for 6x7 coverage, probably the only lens that short that will work. Sharp corner to corner for me with 6x7, but my meter shows a bit of falloff - nothing I've actually had trouble with though. Just another option if one is shopping around. I tend to leave it on for 35mm, my column goes pretty high.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, that's about the limit of that lens. The 5.6 is the better version, better corrected into the corners than the f/4 cheaper El Nikkor.

 

[jjphoto]

Oh for heaven sake! Everyone who has actually used these various lenses knows the facts. Forget you "Consumer Reports" mentality. Why
do you think Schneider came out with their "HM Apo" series of enlarger lenses - to compete with the Apo Rodagon N's. ...

Actually, I have and use the 90 HM APO and 80 APO-Rodagon-N, and several Computars, amongst other EL's. My point is not to disparage the more exotic and expensive lenses, they have a place, just to point out that for normal purposes it's easy to get distracted by them when cheaper and extremely effective options abound.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I used to have a bunch of enlarging lenses that I gathered when everyone was stupidly dumping their darkrooms but sold most of them a few years ago because I saw no point to having them all. Before I sold the lenses, I tested all of them just for the heck of it. I raised my enlarger all the way and printed a comparison. There were differences in the lenses (I was only looking at the center) but the differences weren't that great.

I kept an Orthoplanar, a Minolta, a 65mm Computar and a Fujinon EX. Those four do everything I need in a lens. If I were printing color I would probably get an APO lens, but I don't do that. Frankly, I don't need four since any one of them will do the job, but variety is the spice of life.

My basic point to this is if you get a good lens it will almost certainly be good enough.

 

[DREW WILEY]

For "normal" purposes, most of the lenses by all the major manufacturers will do an excellent job. But for certain special things, one might
need to get nitpicky, which doesn't necessarily mean spending a ton of money. Barrel graphics lenses which were originally quite expensive
can often provide superior optical qualities to ordinary enlarging lenses, but typically at the loss of one of two stops of speed. I use Apo Nikkors for certain critical large format applications; and these often sell for next to nothing these days.