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

[16:9]

To clarify a few points for anyone still interested in this in 2022 . . . there are four main dynasties of Vivitar-branded enlarger lenses, and some confusion generated by the fact that the same lenses are on the market with different names (ie, Spiratone, Cambridge, etc). First generation 4-element models are branded Anastigmat. Slightly latter there was a zebra-nose variant labeled P&B (Ponder & Best) Anastigmat. These were replaced around 1978 by third generation lenses with black bodies and silver mounts. All were made in Japan, and have five-digital serials, and are likely not all by the same (Japanese) maker. Although the LU-marked Vivitars (with silver bodies and black mounts) fit this scheme, there was a limited range of Vivitar-EL models of higher quality made by Kino. With the exception of this and the 6-element 50/2.8 none of these were great lenses. However, during the early 1980s, Vivitar brokered a deal with Schneider to buy the last production of the Generation 3 Componon (pre-S) lenses and sold them under the Vivitar VHE brand. These are all 6-element lenses and have typical Schneider 8-digit serials. Later the first two digits would specify the year of production but all Schneider-equipped VHEs in the wild have 13xxxxxx serials. They are uniformly good.
There are many excellent enlarger lenses with fewer than six elements, but it's a fair rule of thumb that six-element ELs are all high quality.
Some of this information is already on camera-wiki; the rest, and tests, are in the Delta archive.

 

[16:9]

With regard to Kodak Ektar: a good sample of a US-made alloy-body Ektar enlarger lens is thoroughly competitive, scoring a high Silver award of 88.5% from Delta for near-field average sharpness from f5.6-8 - similar to the Leitz Focotar II - like the Meogon 80/2.8, Agfa Colostar and late-model Magnolar, notable 5-element exceptions to the rule that only 6-element lenses are worth buying. Also note, however, that the British-made chrome-over-brass Ektars that have no CAMEROSITY serials tend to be markedly inferior - not because of large optical differences, but because the un-Lumenized versions haven't aged well and are commonly foggy.
Where Ctein does have it right (and I say this as someone who has tested hundreds of, and documented over 1000, enlarger lenses) is that there are very few top-notch four-element designs. You might charitably include the Fujinon ES, Ross Resolux, 1960s Omegarons, Taylor-Hobson Ental II, and perhaps a good sample of the 100mm Enlarging Ektar.
And if you're looking for top-flight triplet enlarger lens, you'll search a very long time.

 

[Paul Howell]

Really, when I taught photogprhaly in the the late 80s at Scottsdale Community College, as a class project I had the students make 5X7 to 20X24 enlargements the same same 35mm and 6X6 negatives with 4 element, 6 element and just APO for a blind viewing and scoring. Up to 11X14 the 4 element including Kodak and Wollensak scored as high the 6 element lens. At 16X20 the 6 element and APO lens clearly out performed the 4 element lens. The lens were 50mm, 75, and 80mm. This makes sense as both the Kodak and Wollensak lens were optimized for the typical sizes 5X7 to 11X14, printed by enthusiasts at home. Although I have a few 6 elements lens my usual lens for 35mm is a 50mm Wollensak, a 90mm for 6X6 and a 105 Rodenstock for 6X9 and a 162mm Wollensake for 4X5, my version is the 6 element version. When I was showing and selling I sold may prints printed with the Wollensak 50 and 75mm, no one, gallery owners or buyer every complain about sharpness.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

What film size? What magnification? Without that information a hypothesis cannot be constructed, let alone an argument.

 

[Randy Stewart]

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.

In his 2nd book, Thorton goes on at some length about his switch top Meopta enlarging lenses. He reported that he had used Schneider lenses for years, and had purchased a new set of 35mm and medium format S-Componons. In short order, one of the Componons literally split in half. It seems that they were using plastic lens barrels, and this one failed at the seam and split open. When he contacted Schneider to get a warranty replacement, they screwed him around over replacing the lens until he just gave up. He replaced both lenses with the newest Meopta alternatives, and was singing their praises thereafter, no longer being a Schneider fan.

 

[xkaes]

I have it on good authority that ..,...

I read somwhere .................. and I dont know why or remember the explanation.

I have no references but I do remember reading it from a credible source................

'Nuf said.

 

[outwest]

Buy a bunch of cheap (these days!) enlarging lenses of different brands and different focal lengths and test them yourself using the method Ctein suggested. You may be surprised at what you find and be sure to test some specimens of the same lens for more surprises.

 

[whojammyflip]

However, during the early 1980s, Vivitar brokered a deal with Schneider to buy the last production of the Generation 3 Componon (pre-S) lenses and sold them under the Vivitar VHE brand. These are all 6-element lenses and have typical Schneider 8-digit serials.

This is not so. Here is a photo from the side of the box for the VHE 50/2.8.

 

[albada]

With regard to Kodak Ektar: a good sample of a US-made alloy-body Ektar enlarger lens is thoroughly competitive, scoring a high Silver award of 88.5% from Delta for near-field average sharpness from f5.6-8 - similar to the Leitz Focotar II - like the Meogon 80/2.8, Agfa Colostar and late-model Magnolar, notable 5-element exceptions to the rule that only 6-element lenses are worth buying. Also note, however, that the British-made chrome-over-brass Ektars that have no CAMEROSITY serials tend to be markedly inferior - not because of large optical differences, but because the un-Lumenized versions haven't aged well and are commonly foggy.
Where Ctein does have it right (and I say this as someone who has tested hundreds of, and documented over 1000, enlarger lenses) is that there are very few top-notch four-element designs. You might charitably include the Fujinon ES, Ross Resolux, 1960s Omegarons, Taylor-Hobson Ental II, and perhaps a good sample of the 100mm Enlarging Ektar.
And if you're looking for top-flight triplet enlarger lens, you'll search a very long time.

16:9, if you are still reading this thread:
Have you tested Vivitar VHE lenses? hoojammyflip above shows us that the VHE 50/2.8 has 5 elements, not 6. But by the 1970's and 1980's, lenses were designed by computer, so later-model 5-element designs might be worthwhile. Do you know from your testing?

Mark Overton

 

[Ian Grant]

This is not so. Here is a photo from the side of the box for the VHE 50/2.8.
View attachment 310991

The composite lens barrels were made by Meopta who supplied composite barrels to Schneider and sold the Anaret S which was essentially identical to the Componon S except for the barrels.

Ian

 

[whojammyflip]

The VHE 50/2.8 is the same lens design as the Focotar 2. This would make sense if they were both made by Schneider. To me it looks like a Xenotar. Anyway, its not 6 lens elements, its 5. The internet is full of misleading anecdotes which then get repeated, until the source is forgotten. Hopefully, the image of the VHE box above is sufficient evidence that this is a 5 element lens. In testing, the Nikon 50/2.8N looks just as sharp to me, so there is no need to go lusting after one, in my opinion.

 

[16:9]

Thanks for that 'hoojammyflip'. In June, we did a slightly deeper dive into Schneider 50mm enlarger lenses of the late C.20th than I'm aware of anyone having published. My statement from February was wrong, as you point out - and thanks for showing that pack shot. My comment was a lazy relaying of the scuttlebutt that 'all Componons are six element'.

Serial numbers confirm that the Vivitar VHE 50/2.8 was a repackaged Schneider 50/2.8 [10146] in production between 1975-1981. It wasn't the only five-element Componon-S: ditto the 1981-1990 version [14849]. Componons prior to 1975 and Componon-S after 1990 [16828] were six-element. The later versions were always better.

The Vivitar VHE 50/2.8 (AKA Schneider 50/2.8 [10146]) scored 89.8% for sharpness at close distance (framewide average from f5.6-8) and 87.8% at distance. Very good; just missing a Gold award. The [14849] performs identically close-up, but is slightly better at distance (88.5%).

For perspective, the six-element Componon-S 50/2.8 [16828] scored 90.4% close-up and 88.5% at distance – also better than any version of Rodenstock's Apo Rodagon 50/2.8.

For further perspective, the EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 scored 91.6% close-up – better than both. However, please note this figure is – specifically – a framewide average across f5.6-f8 for perceived sharpness (combining resolution, contrast and freedom from aberration). You can't quantify overall lens performance with a single metric.

 

[Paul Howell]

Enlarging lens were designed for optimum sharpness at a given enlargement. Kodak and Wollensak 50mm were 4 element in 2 groups designed of course for 35mm negative in the 50s and 60s when a enlargement from a 35mm was thought best to go no higher than an a 8X10. Wallensak pro line from 50 to 162 were 6 elements lens designed for enlargements greater than 8X10. While the Rodenstock Radagon Gs were designed for very large enlargements.

I find that my Wallensak and Kodak Ektars are just as good as my 6 elements lens up to 11X14. What I do like about my 6 element 50mm 2.8 is brighter focusing which comes in handy when working with some my very old negatives from the 60s were can be a bit dense.

Photo Cornucopia

​

 

[gone]

The apo rodagon N series is fantastic and has never been cheaper than it is now

A quick ck on eBay shows those N APO lenses showing "sold" for $300-$600. That's expensive to me, especially by Nikkor, Beseler, Kodak prices. My guess is that an 8x10 print from the N APO lens would look fundamentally similar to a less costly but still highly rated enlarging lens. It would probably come down to which print was focused and exposed better.

The Wallensak and Ektars are good indeed. So was my 50mm 2.8 HD Beseler lens, it was very sharp.