Did Canon ever make a 50mm enlarging lens?

[chip j]

I'd pay top dollar for one if they did. They made a really nice 4x loupe, which I have.

 

[Chan Tran]

You said you would pay top dollar if they did only because you know that they didn't.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You could use one of their RF lenses as an enlarging lens. Although I suspect this is a troll thread in response to the other thread.

 

[chip j]

Good Grief!! What a suspicious forum.

 

[darkroommike]

My post disappeared but I put a link to a Canon Enlarger lens here.

 

[Dali]

Thanks for the link!

 

[Ian Grant]

Hansa Canon made an enlarger before WWIIso I guess they sold an enlarger lens with it most likely a Nikkor lens at that time. I have the adverts in BJP Almanacs.

Later Canon E 50MM f3.5 Enlarger Lenes do surface very occasionally in the UK, they don't sell for much. One sold in Canada on ebay last month for $3.25 (US). They aren't desirable, buy one if you want you won't need to spend much and just don't expect a lens up to modern standards..

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

My post disappeared but I put a link to a Canon Enlarger lens here.

Was it this one

Ian

 

[chip j]

Thanks. I was hoping for a modern one (also a modern Zeiss one & even a modern Contax enlarger!!--stuff of dreams).

 

[darkroommike]

Thanks. I was hoping for a modern one (also a modern Zeiss one & even a modern Contax enlarger!!--stuff of dreams).

Contax is a Zeiss brand so no difference, are you looking for a good enlarger lens or a good looking enlarger lens with snob appeal? Enlarger lenses are simple beasts, no new designs since there are no new needs. The latest designs I am aware of were zoom designs for one hour photo printers and those designs would be 20-30 years old (and proably not as good as enlarging "primes".. Nikon, Minolta, Fuji, Schneider, Leitx/Leica, Rodenstock, etc. all made fine units and baring fungus invasions old lenses will do the job.

 

[darkroommike]

Was it this one

Ian

Yup, though I did find a couple of others on Google.

 

[chip j]

Contax is a Zeiss brand so no difference, are you looking for a good enlarger lens or a good looking enlarger lens with snob appeal? Enlarger lenses are simple beasts, no new designs since there are no new needs. The latest designs I am aware of were zoom designs for one hour photo printers and those designs would be 20-30 years old (and proably not as good as enlarging "primes".. Nikon, Minolta, Fuji, Schneider, Leitx/Leica, Rodenstock, etc. all made fine units and baring fungus invasions old lenses will do the job.

Yes, I have them all--but Zeiss has a different look than Leica or anyone else.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Zeiss made the Orthoplanar if you are looking for a true Zeiss enlarging lens. I often wonder how well my Zeiss 35mm ZM Biogon would do with my 4550 racked all the way up. That would be a pretty big print. With a 50 it is 18x27". It would most likely be soft in the corners though. I bet it would be awesome for Minox.

I have gradually found over the years that the proclaimed difference among enlarging lenses is mostly wishful thinking even though I am sure I have passed on some of that wishful thinking myself. My current 50/60s include a Fujinon EX, Leitz Focotar II and Elmar, Computar DL, Minolta Rokkor-X, Zeiss Orthoplanar, Durst Neonon (Pentax). I think that is all of them. In the past I had all the other usual suspects. Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock.... One Schneider lens I had was a dog until I cleaned it. Putting it back together correctly made it a hell of a lens.

 

[chip j]

Zeiss made the Orthoplanar if you are looking for a true Zeiss enlarging lens. I often wonder how well my Zeiss 35mm ZM Biogon would do with my 4550 racked all the way up. That would be a pretty big print. With a 50 it is 18x27". It would most likely be soft in the corners though. I bet it would be awesome for Minox.

I have gradually found over the years that the proclaimed difference among enlarging lenses is mostly wishful thinking even though I am sure I have passed on some of that wishful thinking myself. My current 50/60s include a Fujinon EX, Leitz Focotar II and Elmar, Computar DL, Minolta Rokkor-X, Zeiss Orthoplanar, Durst Neonon (Pentax). I think that is all of them. In the past I had all the other usual suspects. Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock.... One Schneider lens I had was a dog until I cleaned it. Putting it back together correctly made it a hell of a lens.

A Zeiss Orthoplanar! I have the Focotar-2 and Computar 55mm 1.9, but that Zeiss is something I long for but will probaly never see. Is it low in contrast, as I've read?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

A Zeiss Orthoplanar! I have the Focotar-2 and Computar 55mm 1.9, but that Zeiss is something I long for but will probaly never see. Is it low in contrast, as I've read?

Who told you it is low in contrast? That gave me a bit of a chuckle. It is pretty much like Zeiss lenses in that the micro contrast is really good. Otherwise, it isn't much different from other enlarging lenses. In the center, the Minolta pretty much matches it maxed out on my enlarger, a Saunders 4550, at 18x27ish. Surprise, surprise. I suspect that in large prints it might be better, but I really have never done large prints from 35mm. It is rated to do huge enlargements from 35mm, but who is going to do a 60" print from 35? I plan to show a comparison of all the lenses I have if I get around to scanning them. Probably going to destroy a lot of theories about enlarging lenses....

What is the Computar 1.9 like? Just curious. And don't blow any smoke up my skirt, 'cause I will know.... I am only interested because of the variable optimization that it has.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's general agreement that the finest enlarging lens for 35mm film was the 105 Apo El Nikkor, though some people used them for MF negs too.
They still turn up for sale from time to time, though rarely below $2000. But if you are planning to make a 60 inch print from 35mm, you'd want a
Rodagon G. Makes little difference - at that kind of magnification everything will be mush anyway. Just hire a billboard company to do it.

 

[chip j]

Who told you it is low in contrast? That gave me a bit of a chuckle. It is pretty much like Zeiss lenses in that the micro contrast is really good. Otherwise, it isn't much different from other enlarging lenses. In the center, the Minolta pretty much matches it maxed out on my enlarger, a Saunders 4550, at 18x27ish. Surprise, surprise. I suspect that in large prints it might be better, but I really have never done large prints from 35mm. It is rated to do huge enlargements from 35mm, but who is going to do a 60" print from 35? I plan to show a comparison of all the lenses I have if I get around to scanning them. Probably going to destroy a lot of theories about enlarging lenses....

What is the Computar 1.9 like? Just curious. And don't blow any smoke up my skirt, 'cause I will know.... I am only interested because of the variable optimization that it has.

I read that the Orthoplanar was a "process lens", whatever that is. The Computar is the only lens I have (and I have them all, except for APOs, but I only do 6" X 9" prints) that is as sharp (and quite possibly sharper) than the Focotar-2. I also have the Schneider Focotar, which is said to be the sharpest of ALL the Focotars, but I haven't used it yet. The Computar 55mm 1.9 has the "look" of an El-Nikkor, which lens I'm not crazy about, but it's also has a lot ritzier quality than the El-Nikkor. I haven't used it much because I don't really care for it, but the variable optimization does make a real difference in sharpness. It's also a very huge and heavy lens, built like part of a satellite!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

What is the difference between the Schneider and Leitz lenses?

 

[chip j]

The "big element" Focotar 4.5 was made by Schneider for Leitz. It has an extremely flat field, even wide-open (the Focotar-2 has to stop down to f8 to get this), and is reportedly sharper, according to what I've read on the Leica Forum. It says "Leitz" & "Made in Germany" but has a Schneider serial #. The F-2 is supposed to be a little snappier, from what I've read.

 

[BMbikerider]

What is the difference between the Schneider and Leitz lenses?

If you went to testing them on an optical bench there would be virtually nothing between (assuming it was a Schneider Componon) them except possible better build quality with the Leitz lens. The main difference being Schneider lenses are still made new.

My personal choice is Rodestock Rodagon. For 35mm the 50/2.8 APO version and for medium format the 80mm F4. Both sharp corner to corner even when wide open but stopped down to 5.6/8 they are astounding. Over Schneider lenses, again there is not a lot between them, optically, but I find Rodenstock to be better constructed and not so 'flimsy' as Schneider.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Process lenses generally weren't made in the shorter focal lengths typical of 35mm and med format usage. They also tend to have smaller apertures
(f/9 maximum) than enlarging lenses because of the higher degree of optical correction they required. I have a set of Apo Nikkor 4-element lenses which I use for printing large-format film (4x5 and 8x10), and they're more precise, sharpness-wise, and better color corrected than any of my "official" enlarging lenses. But I need those too, both for the smaller formats, and sometimes for faster printing speeds with the bigger film sizes.
These shouldn't be confused with either the EL Nikkor regular enlarging lenses, or the extremely expensive Apo EL Nikkors. Otherwise, it's a good era
in general for finding bargains on all kinds of used enlarging lenses, so its hard to go wrong. Yet there are a handful of types more expensive than
ever due to scarcity and coveting by those that know what these special lenses can do.

 

[darkroommike]

What is the difference between the Schneider and Leitz lenses?

About double the money.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe if you're talking about a Leitz enlarging lens versus an old Schneider Componon there might be some justifiable ethos to the Leitz name.
A modern HM Componon would more than level the playing field.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's general agreement that the finest enlarging lens for 35mm film was the 105 Apo El Nikkor, though some people used them for MF negs too.

As it's a MF lens it's rather impractical for 35mm negatives unless you only make very small prints. You could make the same claim of any good 105mm because you're only using the central part of the image circle.

In 50+ years of darkroom work 've never seen or heard (read) of anyone using a 105mm for 35mm negatives. You need to provide some evidence.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nonsense. Using longer lenses than "normal" is good practice in general if you have sufficient height for it. I routinely do it. More even illumination, better coverage. And just because you're unfamiliar with this particular lens does not define its qualities, or erase those who do know about them. Quite a few of them got snatched up by people using expensive scanning back cameras to make high quality reproductions of museum artwork, forensic studies of paintings, etc, because there is simply nothing better. They're a bit heavy for the typical amateur enlarger to hold, even if they fell into the necessary price niche. But in certain focal lengths, I've known of people paying up to $12,000 for one. The series is still in manufacture at fixed aperture for machine optics where only the best will do, but no longer with adjustable aperture. My own enlargers are bright enough to substitute the superb process-type Apo Nikkors, functionally a stop slower, which are abundant sell for about a tenth the price or even less of the
luxury Apo El Nikkor, though they were once fairly expensive new.