Consensus on best 50mm enlarging lenses?

[kobaltus]

My best 50 mm enlarging lens is an old rodagon 60 mm f 5,6 .

 

[Jim Jones]

I've used several 50mm f/2.8 EL-Nikkors over many years. Old and newer ones have been consistent fine performers. There is some vignetting at f/2.8, but it clears up by f/4. Perhaps f/5.6 is the sweet aperture. Diffraction limiting is visible at f/8 with very fine grain film. As Patrick says in post #14, enlarger alignment may limit performance more than optical sharpness. To get the most out of any enlarging lens, a good focusing aid is necessary.

 

[outwest]

The best lens test I believe is the one suggested by Ctein in his book Post Exposure. It requires acquiring a graphics fine dot sheet and using that for the negative. Flat field focus, contrast and off axis color problems show up easily.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Thank you all for the helpful comments. And Mr. Lambrecht, thank you for replying as well. We finally pulled the trigger on your book yesterday, and I'm looking forward to reading it - maybe if I am enough of a student, it will help me do a better job of helping Kat in the long run!

 

[georg16nik]

The "wow" factor is called Carl Zeiss S-Orthoplanar.

.....I want the best enlarging lens we can get, really - anything to help with that little "wow" factor for Kat when she pulls her own prints out of the soup - it's going to be an enjoyable project....

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's not 50mm focal length but I've read that the 63mm f/2.8 EL Nikkor is excellent for the money. I've also read the 50mm f/2.8 Fujinon-EX and 50mm f/2.8 Computar DL (and Beseler Color Pro) are excellent. I have no practical experience with these... just what I've read.

 

[Jim Jones]

The best lens test I believe is the one suggested by Ctein in his book Post Exposure. It requires acquiring a graphics fine dot sheet and using that for the negative. Flat field focus, contrast and off axis color problems show up easily.

Many halftone screens for graphics arts are about 133 dots per inch, or a little better than five per mm, really horrible detail when compared to the resolution we expect in 35mm equipment. Perhaps one can find up to 600 dots per inch screens, which is still less than the resolution of good 35mm work. Finer negatives or plates are available, but expensive. I've used the microfilm version of the entire Bible reproduced on a film in a 2" square slide mount. These have been available online in the past, but a quick search didn't reveal any sources now.

 

[Dr Croubie]

The "wow" factor is called Carl Zeiss S-Orthoplanar.

I've got an Aus Jena Apo Germinar W 210mm (with custom center filter and 8/8 elements, no less) that I'm sticking on my 8x10 enlarger when I build it.
I'm kinda hoping that that's going to give me the 'wow' factor (well, besides enlarging 8x10s that will be 'wow' enough as it is).
Don't go and ruin it and give me more GAS to buy an orthoplanar before I've even tried this one...

 

[Nige]

I've also read the 50mm f/2.8 Fujinon-EX...

Haven't used that one but I have a 90/5.6 Fujinon EX thats fine optically. I've seen other posts recommending them over the years. I generally use a 80/4 Componon-S for its physical attributes, mainly the stop-down aperture lever. In fact I would recommend a lens with this feature as it is an efficient and easy to use function. For 35mm, I usually use a Nikkor 50/2.8 (no stop down ability)

For anyone who hasn't used a lens with this feature, I'm guessing Componon's aren't the only ones, there's a lever on the lens that you flick to go from open aperture to the set working aperture. Great for setting/checking focus without worrying about resetting the aperture back to the correct one. You can still forget to move the lever and expose a print at full aperture.... done that more than once but you usually spot that straight away and don't bother to process the paper, unlike making a print with the lens 1/2 or 1 f-stop off what you thought you's set it at...

 

[outwest]

Jim, it's not he dot spacing that will be tested but the dots themselves. Here's what Ctein says: "To make a low-cost target that produces only qualitative information but that costs only a few dollars, go to your local art supply store and buy a sheet of the sticky-backed halftone material used to make "grays" in graphic artwotk. A well-known brand is Zip-A-Tone. Look for 100 line or better, 50% gray. Burnish a piece of the halftone onto a sheet of plate glass... Each dot on the screen has plenty of fine, contrasty detail. You will easily be able to see aberrations such as lateral and longitudinal color and astigmatism...". I was not able to find the exact material he mentioned at the art store but a similar one which I mounted in glass like a full size neg. Using it I was easily able to evaluate something like 15 lenses from which I selected the best for my suite. The contrast, edge sharpness, and off axis color differences were so easy to see. One lens that I kept but don't use for enlarging was a Computar that had amazing contrast and definition in the center but lacked a bit at the edges. I thought it might make a good macro lens. Anyway, you have to try a piece of that in your enlarger to really appreciate it.

 

[RobC]

I think that you can take half a dozen identical lenses straight from the production line and one of them will perform better than the other 5.

i.e. just keep buying lenses and test them until you find one which shines out above the others.

Optimal magnification factor comes into play as well. Most 50mm 6/7 element lens are optimised for around 8X-10X magnification. Upto that I doubt you will see much if any difference between them but once you go above optimal then performance will start to degrade and this is where the APO lenses will out perform the non APO versions to a point. Maybe an extra 2X-4X extra enalrgement before performance starts to drop off.

 

[MattKing]

I expect the OP has gained lots of useful information from this thread.

What makes me smile, however, is his request for consensus

 

[outwest]

Exactly, RobC. I tested several of the same lens and kept the best.

 

[RPC]

I think that you can take half a dozen identical lenses straight from the production line and one of them will perform better than the other 5.

Ctein has written that manufacturers have problems getting all elements in a lens centered properly, and it is quite common to find de-centered elements. For this reason alone, what you say has truth to it.

 

[EdSawyer]

Good tip about the halftone screen. will have to find some of that. One lens not mentioned here that should be is the Apo El Nikkor 105mm. Granted, longer than 50mm but still a good choice for 35mm negs. It's the One Lens to Rule Them All. ;-)

 

[tkamiya]

I think a key is to get a "good copy" of a quality lens. I've purchased several EL-Nikkor lenses. As these are at least 10 years old and some are much older, quality varied. Some looked good on first glance but careful examination showed they had light hazing. It's somewhat like buying a used car.

I think 6 element EL-Nikkor and in good condition is "good enough" for most of our uses. I certainly don't need any more than what these can provide.

 

[georg16nik]

Dr Croubie, the Topogons like on the Zeiss SEG rectifier is a decent alternative.

I've got an Aus Jena Apo Germinar W 210mm (with custom center filter and 8/8 elements, no less) that I'm sticking on my 8x10 enlarger when I build it.
I'm kinda hoping that that's going to give me the 'wow' factor (well, besides enlarging 8x10s that will be 'wow' enough as it is).
Don't go and ruin it and give me more GAS to buy an orthoplanar before I've even tried this one...

 

[Bob Carnie]

WOW - that is one solid looking enlarger.. talk about it a bit - what light source how powerful is the light, how do you level it , what is the negative stage like, where the hell did you find it.???

Dr Croubie, the Topogons like on the Zeiss SEG rectifier is a decent alternative.

View attachment 104493

 

[AgX]

That enlarger serves the second step in photogrammetry: eliminating distortions at the negative, producing what is called an orthophoto.

 

[georg16nik]

WOW - that is one solid looking enlarger.. talk about it a bit - what light source how powerful is the light, how do you level it , what is the negative stage like, where the hell did you find it.???

Bob, in the 1990's I've seen a few modified Zeiss SEG 5 and some prints, that's all.

Agx explained above the main purpose of this enlarger.

 

[AgX]

WOW - that is one solid looking enlarger.. talk about it a bit - what light source how powerful is the light, how do you level it , what is the negative stage like, where the hell did you find it.???

It had a 125W high pressure Hg lamp and a Fresnel (!) double-condenser. Lamp in another version upgraded to 4 kW.
Table was 1m².

But the ingenious thing was not the enlarger as such but the automated electronic rectifying system.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Just wanted to report the outcome of the thread and say thanks for the info once again. A local person on Craigslist was selling a Nikkor 50mm f2.8 for $20, and I couldn't beat that anywhere I looked. So that's what we ended up with. I may end up getting another Minolta lens in the future if I find one for a good deal, but I'm sure this is great for now!

 

[apophasis]

Just for fun, I ran an componon f4, a new componon 2.8, a nikon 4, a nikon 2.8, a rodenstock 2.8, and a fujinon ep 3.5. Same neg at 11x14. All almost indistinguishable at F8. One mm of focus mistake was much more of an issue than the lens.