Best Used Enlarger Lens for 35mm...

[p3200TMZ]

Good day,

I need to buy a new lens for my enlarger and am looking for recommendations. My budget will not accommodate the cost of a new lens, so the recommended lens need to be available in the used market.

I shoot mostly Efke KB 25 with Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer lenses so I am looking to continue the chain of high-quality optics.

Thank you,

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, P. Lynn,

Top quality used enlarging lenses are extraordinarily cheap these days, especially in the size, 50mm, commonly used with 35mm negatives. El-Nikkor, Schneider Componon, Rodenstock Rodagon are names to seek out, although not necessarily the only ones. You should be able to get one that's like new for under $50 U. S. With luck, you might even find one almost being given away as part of a deal with other darkroom equipment.

Konical

 

[Anscojohn]

What Konical sez is correct. And you may come across a Minolta Rokkor enlarging lens, which is a real sleeper. Ditto for the Vivitar VHE (made by Schneider).

 

[p3200TMZ]

Thanks, I have already been looking at the El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 lens that crop up from time to time on eBay, but there seems to be a lot of different variants with the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, so I was just trying to get details on the particular brand/model's that are outstanding. Plus then you hear rumours and legends about the Rokkor, Leica and Fujinon lenses, so I thought I would ask the experts.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Most manufacturers made a range of lenses to suit peoples budgets

For 35mm the most common premium ones to look out for are :-

El-Nikor 50mm f2.8 (not f4)

Schneider Componon & Conponon-S 50mm f2.8

Rodenstock Rodagon & Rodagon-N 50mm f2.8

Happy hunting

Martin

 

[Thierry]

Don't forget the excellent Minolta Rokor CE

 

[Mark Fisher]

Surprised no one mentioned the APO version of the Schnieder (40 or 50mm) or the Leitz 40mm Focotar. I have the Focotar on a Leitz enlarger and it is noticablely better than the Nikkor on my D2 (both well aligned enlargers). I've heard that the APO Schnieder in its various forms outperforms the Focotar. I have an APO Schneider for medium format and it is a pretty amazing lens. Given how cheap enlarging lenses and how much you have invested in taking lenses, it would be worth considering.

 

[df cardwell]

If you are making prints up to 16x20,
than there is no practical difference between
any plasmat type lens made in the past 30 years.

It is all up to your technique.

Above 16x20, then you are in rare air,
and the newer the better. Again, the caveat about technique.

If you see a difference in the MTF charts of new lenses,
and think there is something to be gained by one over another,
realise that any theoretical differences in pure lens performance
are absorbed by the imaging chain: (camera & lens) (film & development) ( enlarger + lens).

If each link in the chain can deliver 100 lp/mm, you can only put 33 lp/mm on the paper.
And no way are you making negatives (outside of a lab setting) with 100 lp/mm. Small differences in any link has no real effect.

Buying a used enlarger lens, you need to have the right of return for two reasons:

1. There is more performance difference, lens-to-lens, within any maker's production run,
than in congenital differences between makers.

2. It is easy to kill am enlarging lens. Smoking in the darkroom ? Dropped ? And so on.

Don't fret over the name on the lens, but be concerned about the actual lens. Try it out, return it if you don't like it.

 

[mikebarger]

Try an 80mm for your 35mm negs.

Mike

 

[p3200TMZ]

For 35mm the most common premium ones to look out for are :-

El-Nikor 50mm f2.8 (not f4)

Schneider Componon & Conponon-S 50mm f2.8

Rodenstock Rodagon & Rodagon-N 50mm f2.8

Thanks, Martin, this is the information I was looking for. I sort of figured that just like there are different levels in shooting optics there would be different levels in enlarging optics.

Don't forget the excellent Minolta Rokor CE

I have my eye on one!

Surprised no one mentioned the APO version of the Schnieder (40 or 50mm) or the Leitz 40mm Focotar. I have the Focotar on a Leitz enlarger and it is noticablely better than the Nikkor on my D2 (both well aligned enlargers). I've heard that the APO Schnieder in its various forms outperforms the Focotar. I have an APO Schneider for medium format and it is a pretty amazing lens. Given how cheap enlarging lenses and how much you have invested in taking lenses, it would be worth considering.

Thanks, Mark, I have heard the legends that Leitz enlarging lenses, but had not heard anything specific about the 40mm.

If you are making prints up to 16x20,
than there is no practical difference between
any plasmat type lens made in the past 30 years.

If each link in the chain can deliver 100 lp/mm, you can only put 33 lp/mm on the paper.

Buying a used enlarger lens, you need to have the right of return for two reasons:

1. There is more performance difference, lens-to-lens, within any maker's production run,
than in congenital differences between makers.

2. It is easy to kill am enlarging lens. Smoking in the darkroom ? Dropped ? And so on.

Don't fret over the name on the lens, but be concerned about the actual lens. Try it out, return it if you don't like it.

dfcardwell:

Thanks for your advice.

First, at this point I will not be making prints about 16X20. So we are not in rare air yet. But I would ultimately like to be able to print 20X30, so understand that technique will be vital to producing acceptable results.

Secondly, since I do not shoot MTF charts, I have no idea if I am making 100 lp/mm, but I am trying to use best practice in each 'link of the chain'. I use very high quality glass from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer on a tripod with a cable release. My preferred film is Efke KB25 stand developed in Rodinal 1:100. I am using Agfa Varioscop enlarger that is very solidly mounted. So the next link is a best quality enlarging lens. Ultimately, I will be replacing the enlarger and want a lens that I can move onto the new enlarger.

I do know that the negatives I am producing are astounding in detail and resolution and I would like to translate this to a traditional print.

I appreciate your advice and input.

Try an 80mm for your 35mm negs.

Mike

Can you elaborate further? 50mm seems to be the standard for 35mm, with the Leitz 40mm at one end and a few 60mm lenses at the other. Interested in hearing the reason for your recommendation.

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

I'm in the market for a 50mm Componon-S, myself. I also need a 100mm Componon-S, but may end up with a 105mm Rodagon. Best of luck.

 

[joncapozzi]

I have an El Nikkor 50 2.8 and it is excellent. I have two, one was free, the other was $15. They're a great lens to use, and 2.8 is great where as I was used to focusing at f/4.

 

[phenix]

The Schneider Componon 50mm comes as a f/4, but it is a really f/2.8 artificially stopped down to a minimum of f/4. How so? At f/4 there is a fix metal ring not allowing the aperture to open up to f/2.8. Why? I suppose to make the lens smaller: the aperture leafs are smaller, so there is the lens body.
But the Schneider Componon-S 50mm comes as a full f/2.8.
There's also another difference: the (older) Componon is recommended for enlargements beyond 6x, while the (newer) Componon-S is recommended for enlargements up to 6x (or 8x?). There’s a contrast difference too: the S is more contrasty.
Pay attention to older Schneider lenses as they come in a less usual mount size: M=25mm (instead of the current M=39mm). But adapters are available.

However, essentially is to chose a 6 elements lens over the cheaper 4 or 3 elements ones. Even if in small enlargements (like 5x7’’) some 4 el. lenses outperform the 6 el. ones, especially due to the increased contrast (while the resolution doesn’t fully shows up at this size).
Names are tricky with Schneider: Componon is a 6 el. lens, while Componar is a 4 el. one, and Comparon is a triplet. Same is with Rodenstock: stick with the 6 el. Rodagon.
Schneiders, Nikkors, Rodenstocks, even their 6 el. models, you also can find under different names, like: Durst, Vivitar, Beseler, etc.

PS: If you find a dirty cheap triplet, it worth to buy it, as these enlargement lenses are the best and the cheapest magnifiers! I use a 75mm for prints and a 50mm for negatives.

 

[p3200TMZ]

joncapozzi:

I agree the Nikkor 50/2.8 lenses do appear to be a real option as they are plentiful and relatively inexpensive while enjoying a good reputation.

phenix:

Thanks for the detailed explanation. All 'non's, 'gon's, 'gar's, 'nar's, 'ron's and etc. are very confusing to the inexperienced! Like you advice about using a 'triplet' for a loupe... any idea how 'X' a 50mm is?

Just some thoughts...

Considering what Mark Fisher wrote, 'Given how cheap enlarging lenses and how much you have invested in taking lenses, it would be worth considering.', I am considering spending the money on a new enlarging lens. I have $1,000's of dollars invested in shooting glass, so it only makes sense that it will be money well spent to buy the best enlarging lens I can afford.

So I am thinking along the lines of the Schneider Apo-Componon HM or Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N. The most obvious 35mm choices would be a 40mm, 45mm or 50mm, but what would be the recommendation of the experienced darkroom operators here?

And there was the recommendation of using an 80mm... would love to hear the reason for this.

Thanks,

 

[craigclu]

I've had a number of good lenses go through my hands in the last few years (some lucky bundle finds along with dedicated shopping). I've had multiple samples of Componon S, Rodagon, Nikkor, Scneider APO and Rodagon-N APO. In the fear of letting a once-in-a-lifetime piece of glass slip through my fingers, I've spent some time testing, culling and mulling..... I had a hard time measuring any differences in the APO's from each other but the Schneider 45mm f4 APO has a look that somehow is more pleasing with my materials and I find that I reach for that when doing 35mm. In truth, for my general work, I could be quite pleased with any of them and I was surprised at how similar they all seemed to be. I had ranked them after testing on an aligned (Versalab laser) enlarger (film stage to lens to baseboard). These were hair-splitting differences from a reference negative and I am quite certain that a similar group of the same optics could end up scrambled from my findings. From lowest to best sharpness in my tests.....

50 Nikkor 2.8 (3 samples, different generations)
50 Comp-S (3 samples)
50 Rodagon (4 samples)
50 Fujinon EX (1 sample)
50 Rodagon-APO (2 samples)
45 Schneider APO (1 sample)

The top 3 were so similar in resolution that I hesitate to differentiate but I feel more pleased with the general look with the APO's on 8X10's. I also kept a 63mm Nikkor as I liked the look of that lens, too but find that I'm not using it too much. Most of what I do is medium format, so I actually use the glass that I kept somewhat seldom but it's nice to know that I'm squeezing what I can from my 35mm forays. I use a dichro head and even though these lenses all tested sharp, I notice that the grain is slightly crisper in my prints with the APO's and there is a slight "edgieness" that shows but it doesn't seem very easy to measure.

 

[richard ide]

P. Lynn
The reason for using a longer focal length lens is that you are using only the center of the image circle and have no issues with fall off near the corners which you can get with some lenses (ie. 50mm with 35mm film). I fortunately have lots of room in my darkroom and enlarge everything from MF and larger with a 360mm Componon S.

 

[Anscojohn]

Lynne,
The olde lab rats who taught me darkroom always insisted that a longer-than-necessary- focal length was the best way to go. As others here have said, they tend to give less light fall off because they are using the center of the image circle.
They also insisted that, given the same number of elements, the slower lens tended to be sharper.
With that in mind, my lens for printing 35mm negs is a 60mm 5.6 Rodenstock Rodagon. For 6x6 and 6x7 I use a 105 5.6 El-Nikkor.
There are new and probably better lenses around

 

[jeroldharter]

I have the 45 mm Schneider Apo Componon (as well as the 90 and 150). All are very good lenses but they still fetch a premium used. For the money, buy a used Nikkor, Componon s, and Rodagon. You should be able to do that for under $100. Buy three lens boards while you are at it. Those might cost more than some lenses. Test them yourself with a detailed negative (e.g. tree branches) that is sharp edge to edge and has good depth of field. I suspect you might see minor differences but if you can't find an excellent lens among those 3, then spring for the new Apo Componon.

 

[mikebarger]

As said a couple times above, your just using the sweet spot with a 80mm for 35mm
I use a 105 for 2 1/4 and a 150 for 4x5.

I read that advice in one of Fred Picker's newsletters and sure enough, the 80mm nikon I had been using for 2 1/4 was produced better prints than the 50mm when used for 35mm negs. Maybe luck of the draw.

Mike

 

[fschifano]

Try an 80mm for your 35mm negs.

Mike

That's fine if you don't plan big enlargements. I use one regularly (Schneider Componon-S f/5.6) for making small prints from 35 mm negatives with my Omega D4. With a 50 mm lens, I can't get the head close enough to the baseboard for smaller than 5x7. But if you want to do anything bigger than 8x10 with an 80 mm enlarging lens, your enlarger had better have an awfully tall column, because you'll need to get the head up very high to do it.

 

[df cardwell]

As said a couple times above, your just using the sweet spot with a 80mm for 35mm
I use a 105 for 2 1/4 and a 150 for 4x5.

I read that advice in one of Fred Picker's newsletters and sure enough, the 80mm nikon I had been using for 2 1/4 was produced better prints than the 50mm when used for 35mm negs. Maybe luck of the draw.

Mike

Fred got better results with a long lens because the focusing of his 4x5 enlarger was too coarse to accurately focus and hold a 50mm. The assumption you get better optical performance isn't really the case.

 

[p3200TMZ]

A very hearty 'Thank You' to everyone for your contributions and advice. It is much appreciated.

So to put all this in a summary...

It may be better to buy several used samples of the same lens then to put all my money in one new lens, since from all that I have read, sample variation is quite high...
Also that just as shooting lenses can have a signature, so can enlarging lenses. And while older lenses can be within a hairs breadth of the resolution of the latest designs, the newer lens can be harsher and more contrasty...
To Anscojohn, this interesting as the Agfa Varioscop enlarger that I use was designed to use a 60mm for 35mm and 105mm for medium format...
Within reason, longer is better since you are not pushing the image through the edge of the lens... common sense.
So about how much height do I need to get a 16x24 from 35mm through a 105mm...
Why 105mm... I shoot 35mm and 6X 6 about equally, so why not...

Again many thanks...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you don't have to keep the price under $50, it's hard to go wrong with an Apo-Componon HM or Apo-Rodagon-N (not D--these are designed mainly as digital repro lenses with a different optimum magnification ratio), and today, they can be had for a fraction of their original price--often around $100-200 for 45-90mm lenses, somewhat more for a 150mm. I upgraded all my enlarging lenses to Apo versions a few years ago, and I could see a difference even in small prints.

The only enlarging lenses that are still particularly expensive on the used market are Apo-EL-Nikkors, which are rare and very highly regarded.

 

[phfitz]

P. Lynn,

"It may be better to buy several used samples of the same lens then to put all my money in one new lens, since from all that I have read, sample variation is quite high..."

sample variation is quite high with USED lenses, the brand new ones are usually stellar, but always get the return privilege.

"Within reason, longer is better since you are not pushing the image through the edge of the lens... "

yes and no, with modern plasmats it's not a coverage issue, with older tessars it was. the extra rise will induce more of a vibration problem than the extra coverage will help 'using the sweet spot'.

Don't be put-off of older tessar, heliar or dagor style lenses, they do have a different look and contrast scale than 6 element plasmats. it's nice to have the choice, an older one might just be the perfect choice for certain prints.

Have fun with it.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Why use a longer lens?

1. Any lensmount is a tube. Do you remember when you were a kid, and your mother gave you two toilet paper tubes to make binoculars? You were disappointed that they didn't make things bigger. So, thinking that a longer tube, like the ones used in paper towels, might work better as a telescope you tried one of those. Didn't work. Now, I was a visually inquisitive kid, and I thought, well, I ought to be able to use this thing for something. Maybe I could look around corners with it. What did I find?

The tube, as I turned it, cut the image off entirely. I could only see through it looking directly down the center.

An enlarging lens, wide open, will present a circle only to the center of the field. From the sides, any side, it will be clipped. Therefore, the center is brighter than the edges. This difference is exaggerated the larger the print being made because the bellows extension is shorter. Figure it out, Euclid. With wide aperture lenses, say f/2.8 instead of 4 or 5.6, this difference is increased. If you don't believe me, just project a field of light with no negative on your baseboard. Stop it down quickly. You will see the center dim markedly until you stop down to f/8 or so. This means that to get the most even possible field, f/8 is where you want to start. Want to use a wider lens? Get serious about edge burning. The lens may be optically as good or better, but you can't win arguing with the geometry.

Another way to see this, just lay your head on the easel and look from the center, the edges and the corners. Or use a dental mirror.

2. Even stopped down. Take some super glue and stick a plumb bob's string to the exact center of your lens, and set the length of the string so that the tip of the plumb bob just touches the easel. Now, swing the plum bob so that it is pointing at the edges, then the corners. Notice that it describes an arc. At the center, it touches, but it is above the easel at the edges and even more at the corners. The amount that it is above represents LOST LIGHT. Again, Euclid had this one down cold. Well, Pythagorus. Pythagorean theorem. With a longer lens, the length of the hypotenuse differs markedly less from the length to the center of the easel than it does with a shorter lens.

3. Looking at the lens directly from the center of the easel, on axis, the aperture, if round, will appear to be round. If looking at it from any other place, it is not circular, but a more squashed elipse. The difference between the area of that circle and the elipse again represents LOST LIGHT. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater this difference will be.

----

These three issues suggest that one might benefit from using longer lenses rather than shorter whenever possible. I could give examples from my own experience where, had I really understood this, I could have saved myself HOURS of standing in front of a hot Chromega Saltzman in total dark with a card, my arms aching from fatigue, giving long burns when I could have just fallen asleep and not burned at all. I won my boss a gold medal, but I learned a really hard lesson in the doing. Had I just stopped it down, not trying to use the widest aperture, or had I simply used the 150 mm instead of the 80. Either way.

Another observation. I have used hundreds of enlarging lenses in many commercial labs as well as my own. I'd have been hard pressed to tell you which lens made which print. I can't think of a single exception. Maybe I'm just blind.