Consensus on best 50mm enlarging lenses?

[Jedidiah Smith]

We just purchased a Philips PCS 130 enlarger for that project with my daughter, and it looks in great condition. It comes with a Bessler 50mm f3.5 lens, but I can't see myself using that too long - unless any of you think it's any good?

I remember about 7 years ago when I setup my last darkroom in Alaska, the consensus was Schneider Componen-S and maybe Rodenstock were the high-end. So one of the members on here sold me a Componen-S for a great deal, (used it on a Durst M605) and it was a very sweet lens. I gave that setup to a teenage girl in Alaska who was learning photography when we moved down to California.
I ended up using a Minolta 50mm f2.8 C.E. Rokkor-X after that, when I had the Minolta enlarger just so I had an all Minolta setup from start to finish. It was a nice lens as well, and if I'm completely honest, not sure I saw much of a difference on my prints. (I'm probably just not that good of a printer yet, right?)

So...has anything changed since then, or is it still look for a Componen-S, and if I don't see a good price, just grab a Minolta 50mm C.E. again? Or does anyone have some tips for me to consider at this stage in the game? This will be the 4th or 5th darkroom I've setup in the last 14 years, but unfortunately I'm still not very "good" - just a hobbyist - and we've moved so many times that I've been out of it for a few years now.

Looking forward to jumping back in and 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. By the way, thanks to everyone on the other threads - the cameras have arrived, and the Neopan Acros 100, Xtol and Dektol are on the way already. Just have to decide on a paper now.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I use Apo Rodenstock 50 mm for 35 mm work and I like them.

 

[ic-racer]

I recently got a PCS 150 I set it up as my 35mm enlarger. I made a glass carrier and experimented with a few different lenses: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Damn. Four or five darkrooms in 14 years? You are my hero.

 

[chip j]

True Billion-dollar MAGIC for $50---Komuranon-S 50mm 3.5. I have them all, including Componon S & CE Rokkor, but I have 6 of the Komuras!

 

[RPC]

I have a Componon-S and love it. For high quality, get a six-element lens. Any of these in 50mm by Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Beseler or Computar are known to be good.

 

[gone]

I haven't seen any real world difference between the Comp S lenses and the inexpensive Nikkor 50 2.8. MAYBE if you're holding the print up to your nose. Assuming the enlarger is set up correctly (which is more important than your lens), assuming your neg carrier holds the negative flat, your developing and printing technique is good, etc, any good 50mm lens is going to give essentially the same prints. And you're right, the Rokkor lenses are of excellent quality. The wow factor could come from many things, and not necessarily the enlarging lens. If I take a shot w/ Arista EDU Ultra 100 and develop it in D76, then take the same shot and develop it in Microdol-X, you will see a huge difference in grain and negative sharpness.

Enlarging lenses are no different than camera lenses, and I have a 3 element lens on my $20 Argoflex TLR that makes images you would not be able to tell from a Roleiflex Xenar (I have owned both). Actually, to my eyes, the negs from the Argoflex are actually superior. Same for my inexpensive Canon FD 135 2.5. I can't tell whether most prints that come from it are from the Canon or from the Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit, unless the focal length in the shot gives it away.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a 6 element 60 mm 4.0 Rodenstock Rogonar that I use for 50mm for 11X14s, but for 5X7 and 8X10 I use my Wollenshack 50 mm 4.5 Raptar which I believe is 4 element in 3 groups, it was designed for smaller enlargement. I don't know how many years it has been that I have made any 16X20s, but I have a Schneider 6 element 50mm 2.8. If I could just have one it be the Schneider 50mm 2.8, then again maybe invest in a 7 element APO design.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you want to print bigger than 16x20 from 35mm you will probably want to invest in an APO lens.

I wish I could afford one. But I also don't print bigger than 16x20 at the moment. With my tiny darkroom it becomes a majestic pain in the 'you know what' to print bigger.

 

[AgX]

I have a 6 element 60 mm 4.0 Rodenstock Rogonar...

You mean Rodagon.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have used just about everything at one point or another. The best enlarging lenses you won't be able to find or maybe afford, and they aren't really worth it unless you are doing it for a living.

My advice to you is to stick with the Minolta. In my tests, the Minolta is one of the best when it is stopped down to 5.6 or 8. It suffers from chromatic aberration wide open. If you want the best wide open lens (don't know why you would) then the Computar is probably the best, at least in the less expensive lenses.

If you want to spend the money on a Schneider or Rodenstock APO lens then go that route. Those are the best of the easily available lenses although they will cost you a few hundred used.

Frankly though, use the Minolta. I print with mine. I also make prints with a Fujinon EX and a Computar. In the end, they all are good enough for most anything.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Thank you all for the fast replies! So if I get this right, there is not much separating the Schneider Componon-S and the Minolta C.E. Rokkor. Makes sense, I might just get another Minolta again, or if I find a Componon-S for similar price...

Last question - these APO lenses you guys bring up - obviously I've never had one. What are the model numbers I would look for (just in case one comes up for a good deal in the future) and do they only make a difference on very large prints? I guess what I'm getting at, is what exactly does an APO lens do better than the Schneider Componon-S for example?
Thanks! Always a great education on here for me.
Jed

 

[RPC]

My understanding is that a standard "color corrected" lens focuses two of the primary colors in the plane of focus but an APO focuses all three giving greater sharpness. They generally are much higher in price than a standard lens.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Sorry Jedidiah. I thought you already had a Minolta lens, but upon rereading your original post, I realized I errrrd.

You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between any of the good lenses on smaller prints. It is much more important to have your enlarger aligned.

The APO lenses that are considered the best are the Schneider APO Componon HM and the Rodenstock APO Rodagon-N.

 

[outwest]

Componon-S is a good lens but back in the day in a camera magazine test the 50mm EL Nikkor blew all the others out of the water. They are cheap enough these days that you should get 1 of each and see which you like - if you are even able to see any difference. Of course, unless your enlarger is properly aligned and you use glass carriers it won't make much difference what lens you use.

 

[jjphoto]

Jedidiah, keep in mind there are two 50mm Minolta lenses, the C.E. Rokkor-X and the C.E. which preceded it. Not sure how they differ optically but I would certainly opt for the later (C.E. Rokkor-X) if you choose to buy a Minolta again. Incidentally the Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X is an unusual optical design in that it is 6 elements in 5 groups instead of the typical 6/4 construction.

 

[ac12]

As was mentioned, for most of us in the non-pro level, once you get into the upper tier of lenses, it probably makes little difference. I just can't see that good, and I don't make 16x20 prints from 35mm film. Most of the time I made 8x10 and smaller, and the enlarged image on the baseboard was very rarely even up to 11x14. So magnification was a "non-issue" for me.

Today with the prices you can find on used lenses, I would just go with any of the 6 element lenses from a major brand, which for me would be a 50/2.8 lens (Componon, Componon-S, el Nikkor, Rodagon, Minolta, Fuji, etc.). In fact you could get 2 lenses if you could not decide between them, I did.
The APO lenses while GOOD, are not worth the cost "to me," as I just can't make use of the quality of those lenses.

Tip, consider also getting a good 75 or 80mm lens for your 35mm printing. I found it much easier to use a longer lens when making small prints than trying to get the enlarger head down close to the easel, or putting the easel on a box to raise it closer to the enlarger head. For me, it was a pain to work with the easel very close to the enlarger head because of the small vertical space to work in. In fact the local community college uses 75 or 80mm as the standard lens for the students, to give the students more working room under the enlarger.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

...Incidentally the Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X is an unusual optical design in that it is 6 elements in 5 groups instead of the typical 6/4 construction.

So would that be a good thing, the 6/5 construction vs the more normal 6/4? Just curious because I don't know anything about that sort of thing.

 

[jjphoto]

So would that be a good thing, the 6/5 construction vs the more normal 6/4? Just curious because I don't know anything about that sort of thing.

I'm curious too, that's why I bought one a few weeks ago. It just arrived a few days ago and I haven't had a chance to use it yet.

 

[chip j]

Jedidiah, keep in mind there are two 50mm Minolta lenses, the C.E. Rokkor-X and the C.E. which preceded it. Not sure how they differ optically but I would certainly opt for the later (C.E. Rokkor-X) if you choose to buy a Minolta again. Incidentally the Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X is an unusual optical design in that it is 6 elements in 5 groups instead of the typical 6/4 construction.

I have both the CE & CE Rokkor-X---the CE is the later one. No difference between them optically--they look the same physically, too.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

I just looked it up. The E. Rokkor was the old one. The C.E. Rokkor-X would be the new optical formula, and the C.E. would have come later, but I'm sure Minolta didn't change anything optically when they dropped the Rokkor-X designation. They did this with all their lenses. Rokkor-X meant USA designation and no "X" meant other parts of the world. Eventually they dropped the Rokkor-X and just went to "MD" on their lenses, and I guess that holds true for the enlarger lens because they went to plain "C.E.".

 

[jjphoto]

chip j and Jedidiah, thanks for the clarification/correction.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Thank you all for the direction! All the pieces are starting to fit together nicely.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

We just purchased a Philips PCS 130 enlarger for that project with my daughter, and it looks in great condition. It comes with a Bessler 50mm f3.5 lens, but I can't see myself using that too long - unless any of you think it's any good?

I remember about 7 years ago when I setup my last darkroom in Alaska, the consensus was Schneider Componen-S and maybe Rodenstock were the high-end. So one of the members on here sold me a Componen-S for a great deal, (used it on a Durst M605) and it was a very sweet lens. I gave that setup to a teenage girl in Alaska who was learning photography when we moved down to California.
I ended up using a Minolta 50mm f2.8 C.E. Rokkor-X after that, when I had the Minolta enlarger just so I had an all Minolta setup from start to finish. It was a nice lens as well, and if I'm completely honest, not sure I saw much of a difference on my prints. (I'm probably just not that good of a printer yet, right?)

So...has anything changed since then, or is it still look for a Componen-S, and if I don't see a good price, just grab a Minolta 50mm C.E. again? Or does anyone have some tips for me to consider at this stage in the game? This will be the 4th or 5th darkroom I've setup in the last 14 years, but unfortunately I'm still not very "good" - just a hobbyist - and we've moved so many times that I've been out of it for a few years now.

Looking forward to jumping back in and 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. By the way, thanks to everyone on the other threads - the cameras have arrived, and the Neopan Acros 100, Xtol and Dektol are on the way already. Just have to decide on a paper now.

the Schneider elarging lenses are excellent but after testing a bunch of lenses,I never found that big of a difference between brands. I use the Nikkor EL series and they are great too; so are Rodenstock and Durst.Get any name-brand 6-element lens and you'll be appy with it!These days, they all can be had for a great price.

 

[BetterSense]

When I got my 50/2.8 Nikkor, I tested it against the "Beslar" generic lens I had got with the enlarger., by making a 11x14 print from 35mm. I was glad that I didn't pay much for the Nikkor, because there was no visible difference except a small contrast difference which was easy to compensate for. Maybe distortion was better; I didn't measure it.