Beseler

[Graham.b]

Hello all, are there any body out there using one of the above please, what are they like. There dose not seem to much on the net about them, not a good sign. Besler 23 c11......

Graham

 

[ann]

the only one you mention is the 23c, these are very good enlargers and have been used for years . unless you want to move up to 4x5 negatives it should do what ever you need.

just because you can't find something about them doesn't mean it is a bad sign.

we have quite a few at the lab with no issues.

 

[srs5694]

I'm not trying to be snarky or nit-picky, but your Web search results might improve if you spell the company name correctly: Beseler, not Besler. I believe it's the 23C II, not the 23 c11, too. I've never used this model enlarger, so I can't help you much, but it's fairly popular.

 

[reellis67]

They are very easy to use, can project negatives up to 6x9, and you can find replacement parts for them if needed. I have one that I bought new some time ago which I have used for many years without issue, and they are the standard enlarger for many school darkrooms, at least here in the States. You should have little difficulty using one even if you have never used an enlarger before.

- Randy

 

[Graham.b]

Thank you Ann, Randy, and srs5694, by your rec.. Ann and Randy and will go and look into getting one. Ann as you say you have them in the labs, great news that, and randy you have one that you have used for years another positive answer.
srs5694, that is all right to nit pic, but i did go and have another look at the spelling and it is the way i typed it. Did a web search and it came up the same. Yes the 23 c II is correct, i plead guilty.

Graham

 

[Graham.b]

I'm not trying to be snarky or nit-picky, but your Web search results might improve if you spell the company name correctly: Beseler, not Besler. I believe it's the 23C II, not the 23 c11, too. I've never used this model enlarger, so I can't help you much, but it's fairly popular.

I have just had a close look at the head and you are right it is Beseler..

Stand corrected.

 

[srs5694]

Concerning the spelling:

1. Although I don't have a Beseler enlarger, I do have a Beseler easel, and it's definitely spelled the way I spelled it (with three "e"s) on that easel, not the way you spelled it (with two "e"s).
2. An eBay search on "Beseler" turns up quite a few hits, including auctions for enlargers (like this one) with photos that clearly show the spelling as "Beseler," not "Besler." A search on "Besler" turns up many fewer hits, at least one of which has a photo that shows the seller mistyped the name.

So I stand by my statement that the correct spelling is "Beseler." Your misspelling is a common one, so it doesn't surprise me that you'd find at least some hits on the Web if you type in "Besler," but not as many as you'll get if you spell it correctly. A Google search on "Beseler enlarger" gets 39,000 hits, whereas "Besler enlarger" gets 1,790 hits. "Besler" alone gets a whopping 1,530,000 hits, but most of these are unrelated to the darkroom products brand -- for instance, there's a manufacturer of agricultural equipment, a financial consulting company, and a steam-powered biplane.

Edit: I started writing my reply before your latest one came in.

 

[MattKing]

On spelling - one source of confusion is the Beslar lenses that were often included with Beseler enlargers.

On the enlargers themselves - they are still being manufactured in the U.S.A., and used ones are easily found in North America. As I understand it though, they are not nearly as common in the UK or Europe.

Perhaps some of the UK APUG members can give more information about local availability of service and accessories.

I have owned and used a Beseler 67C since I bought it new in the late 1970s. I recommend it (at least for those who are in North America).

Matt

 

[Chan Tran]

I happened to use several Beseler enlargers. I have owned (not at the same time) 2 23CII. I had a 67s, a 45MCRX and a CB7. Not using any other brand of enlarger so I can't not make a fair comparision. All of them a good enough for their intended task. The 23CII is not the best but I think it's the best bang for the buck of the whole bunch and I think it's also the most popular among the Beseler enlargers.

 

[TheDreadPirateRobins]

Part of the problem is that it is a 23CII, with the last two characters being the Roman numeral "II" not the Arabic numeral "11."

These seem to be fairly ubiquitous. I was thinking about buying one and then I got a Beseler 45MCRX for free with all sorts of lenses and negative holders.

 

[mikebarger]

I got one of the 23C II XL's getting ready to go to the curb.

No market in southern MO for them

I bought a 300 timer and had to take the enlarger, paper safe, clear 120 negative storage sheets, and something else to get the timer for $20.

Guy wanted it out of his garage.

Mike

 

[winger]

I have a 23cIII that I really like. A class darkroom I used to use had 23cIIs and they held up pretty well to the abuse they got. I also have a 45MX that I'm just starting to use because I've added 4x5. As I have room for both on my bench, I'm still going to use the 23cIII for the smaller negs.

 

[mikebarger]

I use a two enlarger set up also, beseler 45MX for 4x5 and a Omega DII for 120.

My new darkroom isn't as big as the old one, I may move to using the beseler for everything.

Mike

 

[ricksplace]

I use a 23C for 35 to 6X9 with a dichro colour head, for all my colour printing. I use a 45MX for all black and white from 35 to 4X5. Both are excellent enlargers. Built like a tank. Parts are easy to get too. Would you believe a 2X3 sheet film holder for the 45MX for $10 off fleabay? Lensboards are interchangeable between the two enlargers too. You can make your own 4"X4" lensboards out of 1/8" hardboard.

 

[Graham.b]

From what i have read, it dose appear to be a US lead user's on this model. But all with happy results. At the moment i only have 35 and 645, but i am looking at the 6x7 or 6x9, not to sure which one, thinking about it might as well get both. Not to sure about 4x5 yet.

Thank you all.
Regards
Graham