Are Ektar 100mm enlarging lenses 4 element or 5? How do they compare to 6 element?

[GaryFlorida]

I have been reading a free pdf by expert Cstine and he says nothing less than 6 elements for EL lenses. That would mean that the Ektar 100 enlarging lens is not going to be as sharp as a Componon or Nikkor. Can anyone cofirm this? Especially for black and white. I recently passed on one for this reason, at first I regretted it but now I think I made the right choice.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

While what a lot of what Ctein says is true, he is often splitting the finest hairs.

If I am not mistaken, the Leitz Focotar is a 5 element design and a lot of people swear by it. Some rather obscure lenses are 8 elements and they do ok too. Some 4 element lenses are great for smaller prints, which is what they were optimized for. I remember Barry Thornton swearing by a Czech lens that I have forgotten the name of, but I am pretty sure it was a four element lens.

I believe Kodak Ektar lenses were a 5 element Heliar design. Kodak Ektonon lenses were a 4 element Tessar design. I could be wrong as I am not a lens expert, Just shooting off the top of my head since no one has answered yet.

 

[Arvee]

If using an enlarging lens to produce enlargements 11x14 and up, the six element lenses will have better resolution at the edges and their wider apertures will help in keeping exposure times shorter for the big enlargements and are optimized for the 8x to 20x enlargement.

For enlargements smaller than 11x14, the slower 4 element tessar designs are optimized for this range and it is difficult to tell if an enlargement was done with a six or a four element lens at this magnification range.

I collect enlarging lenses and have about 40 four and six element lenses from most mfrs. I have exposed reams of photo paper searching for meaningful differences and have concluded that for big (>11x) enlargements, go for the six element lenses. If you do 8x10 most of the time (for 35mm), you aren't going to be able to tell the difference. Choose a name brand 4 element tessar design and you'll be just fine.

As an aside, I find there are sample to sample differences among identical lenses. Some are much better than others in the same model line. Manufacturing tolerance stack ups are responsible. Also, I have old 50mm chrome f/4 Componons that outperform the current f/2.8 Componon-S, but not all of them! Go figure!

 

[Zathras]

I have been reading a free pdf by expert Cstine and he says nothing less than 6 elements for EL lenses. That would mean that the Ektar 100 enlarging lens is not going to be as sharp as a Componon or Nikkor. Can anyone cofirm this? Especially for black and white. I recently passed on one for this reason, at first I regretted it but now I think I made the right choice.

I have this lens and like it very much. The 100mm Enlarging Ektar is a four element lens. The 50mm and 75mm Ektars were 5 element lenses based on the Heliar formula. There was also a 90mm Enlarging Ektar that was offered in the 60's. I don't know how many elements it has, since I've never found any technical specifications for them. At one time Kodak made some of the world's finest lenses and used the name "Ektar" on their top tier lenses. I know that I'll NEVER let any of my Ektars go.

 

[jimjm]

I have been using a 75mm Ektar lens (circa 1954), also 5-element, for much of my medium format printing lately. I really haven't noticed much of a difference from my modern 80mm Componon-S, at least no undesirable characteristics. My example was previously owned by a serious landscape and portrait photographer, and the samples I've seen of his MF prints are excellent.

Everything I had read online about Ektar enlarging lenses seemed to indicate they are highly regarded. Plus, it's kind of cool using a 60-year old enlarging lens in a modern LPL enlarger!

 

[GaryFlorida]

If using an enlarging lens to produce enlargements 11x14 and up, the six element lenses will have better resolution at the edges and their wider apertures will help in keeping exposure times shorter for the big enlargements and are optimized for the 8x to 20x enlargement.

For enlargements smaller than 11x14, the slower 4 element tessar designs are optimized for this range and it is difficult to tell if an enlargement was done with a six or a four element lens at this magnification range.

I collect enlarging lenses and have about 40 four and six element lenses from most mfrs. I have exposed reams of photo paper searching for meaningful differences and have concluded that for big (>11x) enlargements, go for the six element lenses. If you do 8x10 most of the time (for 35mm), you aren't going to be able to tell the difference. Choose a name brand 4 element tessar design and you'll be just fine.

As an aside, I find there are sample to sample differences among identical lenses. Some are much better than others in the same model line. Manufacturing tolerance stack ups are responsible. Also, I have old 50mm chrome f/4 Componons that outperform the current f/2.8 Componon-S, but not all of them! Go figure!

so do you think that the 4 element 100mm Ektar would be better for 8x10 from 6x9 negatives than a 6 element 105 Componon?

 

[ac12]

Gary,

The magnification for 6x9 to print an 8x10 is approximately 5x +/-
This is well under the 11x that Fred specified as his transition point to a 6 element lens.

I do not have the specs available, but if the 6 element lens is designed for 10x and larger, and a 4 element lens designed for 2-10x, the 4 element lens might actually be better than the 6 element lens when printing at 5x. It is all about working withing the design specs of the lens.

Then again, I used an el-Nikkor 50/2.8 (a 6 element lens) for almost all my 35mm printing, from small (wallet size) to 16x20 this is approx 2x to 16x magnification range. But 35mm film is where you have the issue with larger magnification range. The issue gets smaller as you go up in film format size, with a corresponding reduction in magnification for a specific print size. On my upper end, to print an 8x10 from a 4x5 negative is only about a 2x magnification, vs. 35mm which would be an 8x magnification.

To have the latest and greatest, I would get the latest Componon-S or Rodagon. But again, for a 5x enlargement, do you really need that extra optical quality, at a higher $$$ cost? Some of those large lenses also need special lens board with a larger hole for the lens, more $$.

But let us step back a bit. To take maximum advantage of the lens, you will need to use a glass carrier, to hold the negative FLAT. If the negative has a curve in any way, while in the usual glassless carrier, you have already lost some of the quality you are squeezing for. And from my limited experience, using a glass carrier was a PiA, because of the issue of keeping the 2 glass plates absolutely clean. And most darkrooms are not dust free like computer clean-rooms. I could see dust particles floating in the light from the lens to the easel.

On the other hand, with prices as they are now, you might just get both the Kodak Ektar and a modern 6 element lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

While what a lot of what Ctein says is true, he is often splitting the finest hairs.

If I am not mistaken, the Leitz Focotar is a 5 element design and a lot of people swear by it. Some rather obscure lenses are 8 elements and they do ok too. Some 4 element lenses are great for smaller prints, which is what they were optimized for. I remember Barry Thornton swearing by a Czech lens that I have forgotten the name of, but I am pretty sure it was a four element lens.

I believe Kodak Ektar lenses were a 5 element Heliar design. Kodak Ektonon lenses were a 4 element Tessar design. I could be wrong as I am not a lens expert, Just shooting off the top of my head since no one has answered yet.

The enlarger lens Barry Thornton raved about was in fact only assembled and sold by Meopta the optics came from Schneider and were identical to the Comonon S, they were also sold for a time as Vivitar VHE lenses.

Ian

 

[GaryFlorida]

are all vivitar VHE lenses the same as Componon S? and arent Componon S 6 element lenses not 4?

 

[GaryFlorida]

Gary,

....
I do not have the specs available, but if the 6 element lens is designed for 10x and larger, and a 4 element lens designed for 2-10x, the 4 element lens might actually be better than the 6 element lens when printing at 5x. It is all about working withing the design specs of the lens.....

Thats exactly what I was wondering. I recently let an Ektar 100mm get away from me and I am looking for some rationale not to weep bitterly. Im finding some solace in that it is only a 4 element lens and why fool with that when 6 element Componons are so readily available.

With your reasoning, which is also my deep brooding fear, the 4 element Ektar may be better anyway for normal 8x10 prints and the Componon inferior for that size. I was almost over this until you started being rational and making sense based on facts and truth.

 

[Ian Grant]

are all vivitar VHE lenses the same as Componon S? and arent Componon S 6 element lenses not 4?

I think Vivitar changed he source of VHElenses so I don't think they all were. My 150mm f5.6 VHE says made in Germany on the lens cells,

The Componon & later Componon S is a 6 elementlens.

Ian

 

[GaryFlorida]

...

As an aside, I find there are sample to sample differences among identical lenses.

is this true for the lenses when they were new or only used lenses after people have taken them apart to clean them and then put them back together to sell without mention on ebay as mint.

 

[GaryFlorida]

I think Vivitar changed he source of VHElenses so I don't think they all were. My 150mm f5.6 VHE says made in Germany on the lens cells,

The Componon & later Componon S is a 6 elementlens.

Ian

so the "Made in Germany" is the tell tale marking. Good to know.

 

[RPC]

I see no reason to think a 4 element lens would be better at any degree of enlargement than a 6 element. Even if a given 4 element is optimised for smaller prints and a given 6 element is optimised for larger prints, I don't think that necessarily means the 4 element would better than the 6 element at the smaller sizes. I have never read that in any literature on enlarging lenses and Ctein's writings seem to indicate the opposite.

 

[jjphoto]

The enlarger lens Barry Thornton raved about was in fact only assembled and sold by Meopta the optics came from Schneider and were identical to the Comonon S, they were also sold for a time as Vivitar VHE lenses.

Ian

That's interesting but do you have any evidence to support the link between Meopta and Schneider? It seems to me that the lens constructions of Schneider and Meogons are too dissimilar to support your assertion.

 

[fotch]

I have & used Kodak Ektanon 105mm, 161mm, and a Ektar 90mm lens and like them all. I also have Nikon Nikor and Rodenstock Rodagon lens. I use all for B&W and mostly the newer lens for color work. I like them all.

 

[jjphoto]

I have & used Kodak Ektanon 105mm, 161mm, and a Ektar 90mm lens and like them all. I also have Nikon Nikor and Rodenstock Rodagon lens. I use all for B&W and mostly the newer lens for color work. I like them all.

The Ektar 90 does not get mentioned often. I have one (as well as the 75 and 100 Ektars) and am very impressed with the 90 however I use it for close-up photography rather than to print. Like many older US lenses it uses an odd mount size which makes it awkward to mount.

 

[kobaltus]

I do not have any Ektars, but I have abut 25 enlarging lenses. Like Fred Aspen I have find sample to sample differences among identical lenses. Also, the old chrome
componon 50mm f4 is the sharpest 50mm lens I have. I also found, that when I print small prints -about postcard size, my old chrome triplet componar 50mm f 3,5 outperform my both six element rodagons 50mm f2,8.
In 105 mm department, my six element rodagon and el nikkor are always better than 4 element anarets.
My conclusion is that more elements in lens does not always mean better optical quality. My sharpest normal lens is not 6 element nikkor 50mm f2, nor seven element 50mm f 1,4, but 5 element micro nikkor 55mm f3,5. At all distances.

 

[GaryFlorida]

...... when I print small prints -about postcard size, my old chrome triplet componar 50mm f 3,5 outperform my both six element rodagons 50mm f2,8....

....My conclusion is that more elements in lens does not always mean better optical quality. My sharpest normal lens is not 6 element nikkor 50mm f2, nor seven element 50mm f 1,4, but 5 element micro nikkor 55mm f3,5. At all distances.

Thats interesting and inline with what was mentioned above regarding the 4 element Ektar 100mm which may be better for 8x10 than 6 element schneiders because thats what it was designed for. Allthough it may not be as was also mentioned. And I have it on good authority that indeed it is not possible for it to beat a 6 element.

Regarding the taking lenses. I read somwhere the the enlarging lens does not obey that rule and I dont know why or remember the explanation. Although it is true for the taking lens that more elements does not always mean sharper. I have no references but I do remember reading it from a credible source.

 

[MattKing]

Thats interesting and inline with what was mentioned above regarding the 4 element Ektar 100mm which may be better for 8x10 than 6 element schneiders because thats what it was designed for. Allthough it may not be as was also mentioned. And I have it on good authority that indeed it is not possible for it to beat a 6 element.

Regarding the taking lenses. I read somwhere the the enlarging lens does not obey that rule and I dont know why or remember the explanation. Although it is true for the taking lens that more elements does not always mean sharper. I have no references but I do remember reading it from a credible source.

With the greatest of respect ...

There are no hard and fast rules.

I'd be willing to bet that if you used the right criteria, you could design an enlarging lens with just about any number of elements to give optimum performance for that criteria.

For example, the lenses used in fixed format, fixed enlargement machine printers might very well have been 3 elements, or maybe 8 elements, or ...?

The number of elements that end up in general purpose enlarging lenses most likely reflect the real life manufacturing and marketing compromises that the manufactures have to deal with, rather than the optical science realities that the designers dream about.

For instance, a 50mm lens that has its "sweet" spot at an 8x magnification is much more likely to be preferred by the hobbyist photographer printing primarily 8x10s than a custom printer who typically prints 11x14 and larger.

But that same lens may very well give as much quality to that hobbyist's 8x10s as the much more expensive 50mm lens used by the custom printer when he/she does 8x10s.

If you have a 5 element Meogon (I think that there is one) that is in good shape, well aligned and used appropriately, you may get prints from it that will satisfy everyone.

And you might be able to get the same very high quality from 3 and 4 element lenses as well, if used in the right circumstances.

If you plan to do production printing of 20x24 and larger prints, both black and white and colour, and you need to do that in a production environment, than you need the special purpose APO lenses. Just don't expect those APO lenses to assist you when printing your 5x7 prints.

 

[RPC]

I have been reading a free pdf by expert Cstine and he says nothing less than 6 elements for EL lenses. That would mean that the Ektar 100 enlarging lens is not going to be as sharp as a Componon or Nikkor. Can anyone cofirm this? Especially for black and white. I recently passed on one for this reason, at first I regretted it but now I think I made the right choice.

I would listen to Ctein, as he probably has done more testing of enlarging lenses than anyone here on APUG or anywhere. What he says in Post Exposure should be heeded:

"Buy a six-element lens if you can afford it. Four-element lenses are only modest performers. They may be acceptable for moderate enlargements from large formats, but they are unacceptable for 35mm work. Regardless of format, if you put a print made with a four-element lens next to a print made with a six, you will see the superiority of the print made with the better lens. Never buy triplets; don't even take one for free."

I would advise against buying any lens that has less than six elements unless you have compared it with one with six for your intended purpose if you are after highest quality.

In the case of the Ektars, I think it is unlikely their older design would be as sophisticated as the modern day Componon-s or Rodagons.

 

[fotch]

There has always been two hobbies in photography, one is collecting equipment, always wanting the best (or what is perceived as best) and the other taking pictures. While I do both to some degree, the taking of pictures is my first priority, and having the best equipment is not needed to do this. I never found that the best of ......does a better job, when it comes to producing a better picture. JMHO

 

[GaryFlorida]

There has always been two hobbies in photography, one is collecting equipment, always wanting the best (or what is perceived as best) and the other taking pictures. While I do both to some degree, the taking of pictures is my first priority, and having the best equipment is not needed to do this. I never found that the best of ......does a better job, when it comes to producing a better picture. JMHO

Its true. The human condition really, whether its sports teams, cars, guitars, cameras, computers, vacuum cleaners, you name it. Oh there is also #3 hobby, talking about whats best, sharpest, fastest, etc. If it wasnt for that competitive spirit, great stuff would never even be made though right?

 

[EdSawyer]

The thing is, most of the best enlarging lenses can be had for rather cheap money, so why fool around? Go for the best and don't look back. The apo rodagon N series is fantastic and has never been cheaper than it is now. Likewise for apo componon HM. apo el nikkors still command fairly large prices, but even those are a fair deal in absolute terms.

 

[fotch]

Its true. The human condition really, whether its sports teams, cars, guitars, cameras, computers, vacuum cleaners, you name it. Oh there is also #3 hobby, talking about whats best, sharpest, fastest, etc. If it wasnt for that competitive spirit, great stuff would never even be made though right?

Right. One may not be the rich but may own one of the best ________ (camera golf clubs guns etc)