Best Used Enlarger Lens for 35mm...

[p3200TMZ]

David A. Goldfarb:

While this thread started asking the question about selecting a used lens, I have made the decision the I would be willing to purchase a new enlarging lens. After all, I think nothing of spending an inordinate amount of money on a taking lens to ensure the high-quality negatives, so scrimping on an enlarging lens is self-defeating. So while I do not have to buy a new lens, I will if that is the best route.

phfitz:

You are really worrying me! Just when I have finally almost settled on my favorite lenses, film and developer, you suddenly introduce another whole set of variables. So I suppose, I have now have to learn which enlarging lens signature I prefer, not to mention which paper/developer... It is a hard life!!!

I actually prefer older shooting lenses, often using older Sonnar or Heliar type lenses for portraits and etc.

bowzart:

Thanks for the very detailed and illustrative reply. There is so much to learn.

So thinking about everything I have gleaned so far, I am seriously thinking of investing a serious chunk of change into the best 105mm lens I can afford. My thinking is that this will be a balance of focal length, enlarger height, light fall-off, and lens quality to give very good prints from both my 35mm negative and my 6X6 negatives. This will be a starting point, from there I can start experimenting with other lenses, both new and vintage.

Then there is the little detail of upgrading the enlarger...

 

[Larry Bullis]

With the 105, printing from 35mm, I'm guessing that you'll get something like 8x10 max. If, as you say, you ever get around to 20x30, it won't be with that lens! Unless, of course, you can project horizontally on a wall. I just took my 105 into the lab and put it in the only enlarger that wasn't being used, one of the old blue Beseler 23c's. That enlarger is fairly short, without the extra long beams. At full extension, the projection of the 35mm negative carrier was about 5.5 x 8 inches, or so. With the other ones which go up higher, I'm sure that they would come close to 8x10.

A 90mm would enable a larger print and still give you a bit of an advantage using 6x6. Normal for 6x6 would be either 75mm or 80mm. The 90 is considered normal for 6x7, the 105 for 6x9. I guess I'd consider buying the nominal normal lens for the largest size I plan to use (since you say you are using roll film sizes) and plan on adding additional lenses later as needed and as the budget will allow. I think that would give you the greatest flexibility. I remember when I got my D3 Omega in 1964, printing 35mm with the 135 lens was less than happy, since I couldn't exceed 5x7! Frustrating.

 

[phfitz]

P. Lynn,

"So I suppose, I have now have to learn which enlarging lens signature I prefer,"

Kodak Ektar 50/4.5, 75/4.5 and 100/3.5 are each heliar designs. Wollensak Raptars are each tessar designs. Both were popular top shelf designs in their time and you can actually still find NOS samples if you look. The Ektars will produce a different color rendition than the Raptars and both are different than modern plasmats. There is also a noticeable difference with B&W.


"not to mention which paper/developer..."

Now, was that 'minimum time to maximum black' or 80% of chemical fog time? Amidol, gylcin, pyro, HQ, PQ, split development?

Have fun with the hunt.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Great discussion.

I'll add a few points. I agree that over the years one of the very best enlarging lenses I've come across is the Rodenstock APO 50mm 2.8 N. Got my latest one brand new, and after 10 years is starting to get a bit cloudy, not bad but I'm thinking of either getting a used backup or another brand new one. My most used lens and I've never regretted the full price purchase, and I might just do it again. I'm dabbling with having it sent to Germany for cleaning.

Some of the crazy extreme used deals I've seen are the Componon-S 50mm 2.8. I've used and own a few and they are very good, but in side by side comparison I prefer the Rodenstock. Still, I've seen them for 25-35$, simply crazy money for the quality. The S's are the higher level lens compared to the regular Componon.

I just used a Nikkor 80mm 5.6 which I found in a local shop for very cheap. It had a bit of fungus in just the right spot to be cleaned easily, and many have stated that its a very good lens, and I agree. For 6x6 it beats my Componon 85 and Rodonstock 105 and the Nikon 75mm f4 (no surprise there). Nice and sharp, with a smooth even tonality, and very even in illumination. These can be found for crazy money as well.

I use some older lenses, sometimes a crusty Wollensak 135mm really adds to the look of a 4x5 shot with an 127mm Ektar. Especially for the larger formats the older lenses are completely adequate, it seems the smaller neg lenses gained the most with the more modern lens designs.

 

[Ole]

I've tried several, but keep coming back to the one lens that noone has mentioned yet: The Meopta Anaret-S.

There is no technical reason why it should be better than any APO Plasmat, but it is.

 

[jerry lebens]

I'd like to suggest a different tack.

I don't know what Sydney is like for second hand photographic shops but, if they are anything like the remaining shops in the UK, they will have a cupboard full of good glass gathering dust and selling slowly (if they're selling at all). Approach the shop with the best selection, explain what you're looking for and that you're willing to pay a fair price for the right lens. Ask if you can put some cash down and try out a few lenses. With so many, high quality, second hand lenses on the market I'd guess that most shops would be helpful - one sale is better than no sales at all.


I would then approach the problem by ignoring the manufacturer's name, looking at the results then settling for the qualities you like. For instance, the early Leitz Focotars had a quality that I find hard to replicate using the modern version. You may find that, in practice, you don't actually like a super sharp lens. Similarly, your camera lens and shooting technique may (or may not) combine to produce a negative with relatively underexposed corners - and using a longer/shorter lens may either complement this or end up vignetting the corners of your prints too much.

The final choice is subjective and the only way to discover what you like is by trying things out for yourself.

Regards
Jerry

 

[p3200TMZ]

Again thanks for the advice from everyone...

While I still do not have a 'best' lens for my enlarger, I spent a bit of pocket money and bought a few lenses since they are as cheap as chips.

So in the past few days I have landed the following lenses...

Rodenstock Rogonar-S 50mm f2.8
Fujimoto E-Lucky Anastigmat 50mm f3.5
Rodenstock Trinar 105mm f4.5
Schneider Componon 50mm f4.0
Kodak Ektar 2 inch f4.5
Beck Anastigmat 3¼" f4.5

Most I paid was $20 for the Rogonar-S and a couple for less than $10 each and some for free! So I will have some fun and see what I like and don't like.

But I am ultimately looking for a EL-Nikkor 63mm f2.8 and a Schneider Componon-S 105mm f4.0 as my benchmark lenses. But I reckon I will collect quite a few along the way just for fun...

 

[DanielOB]

Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 50 mm. If own Focomat V35 than Schneider Apo-Componon 40 mm.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[Larry Bullis]

.... Similarly, your camera lens and shooting technique may (or may not) combine to produce a negative with relatively underexposed corners - and using a longer/shorter lens may either complement this or end up vignetting the corners of your prints too much.

Jerry

There was, among the old timers (as if I weren't myself an old timer!), an occasionally stated opinion that one would get the best results by using the same lens that you shot the image with as the enlarging lens. I believe the theory was that the vignetting would be the same both in shooting and enlarging. This "double negative" would cancel the error, producing an even print.

Besides the optical design disadvantages that camera lenses have if using them for enlarging, I see a couple of problems. First, the lens extension in the enlarger would be longer, since we are working at close range, so the vignetting really wouldn't be the same at all since we'd be using more of the center of the field. Second, one might need to use the same f/stop, since due to cutoff, wide open vignettes more than stopped down.

It is sort of an interesting notion. The lore that was current 70 years ago often seems somewhat quaint today. Might be fun to try. It would be easy since contemporary enlargers have adapted to the leica thread. Maybe this rather cockamany idea could shed some light on why they did that.

 

[p3200TMZ]

bowzart:

Funny you should mention this... just for kicks, I put my Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f3.5 on the enlarger the other night. And it was cracking sharp, corner to corner. Sharper to my eye than my Rodenstock Rogonar-S 50mm f2.8. In fact, I am tempted to do a few prints with this lens just to see how the lens would hold up in practice.

Hmmm...

 

[Lee L]

There was, among the old timers (as if I weren't myself an old timer!), an occasionally stated opinion that one would get the best results by using the same lens that you shot the image with as the enlarging lens. I believe the theory was that the vignetting would be the same both in shooting and enlarging. This "double negative" would cancel the error, producing an even print.

Remember that one myself, but never tested it. I seem to recall some claims that it would cancel out or "undo" taking abberations, as opposed to doubling them. Seemed a bit specious to me. But it's worth a piece of paper or two to try it.

Wonder what size print I can make with a D5-XL and a C/V 15mm ...

Lee

 

[fschifano]

Might be none. You'd need to compress those bellows an awful lot to focus the thing. Might even need a recessed lens board.

 

[Simon E]

An inordinate amount of verbiage here. Think of the prints that could have been made in the time spent ;-)

I'd have thought a 50mm enlarging lens would be better corrected and more appropriate to typical enlarging work than a camera lens as that is what it is designed to do.

My suggestion is to buy one (a good El-Nikkor or CE Rokkor would be hard to beat) and if/when you really find it lacking then start saving.