Did Canon ever make a 50mm enlarging lens?

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, sorry if I forgot that this is a web forum, and the only applicable scientific laws in the universe are those posted somewhere on the web. So just
Google "Apo EL Nikkor specifications", and you've got your "evidence" in about five seconds.

 

[Ian Grant]

That's a very lame answer.

Ian

 

[Eric Rose]

The lenses I find the most disappointing are the 50mm's. Some are just "fine" but it seems at least to me that enlarging lenses start to sparkle at 80mm and up.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's been years since I even picked up a 50mm enlarging lens. I think I have a Componon S still buried somewhere. I only print 35mm a couple times
a year, but now generally reach for the 105. If I want big prints I use big negs or chromes anyway. But Ian, what is it you consider a "lame" answer,
mine or Nikon's? I don't mind you disrespecting my ideas, but maybe Nikon might just have a teeny bit of experience with lenses.

 

[chip j]

My mighty Durst was designed for a 50, and my 1c will take anything from a 40mm to a 60mm, w/autofocus.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is autofocus? A lens atop a car, where you focus by driving the car forwards or backwards? That's the Durst I didn't take. Too many bells n'
whistles, n' other odd features dissimilar from my other Dursts.

 

[chip j]

My Durst was set up @ the factory w/an autofocus cam designed for only ONE lens in the world--the 50mm 2.8 El-Nikkor that came w/it. The lens serial # was engraved on the enlarger. Auotofocus is not possible (and I don't need it) w/any other lens, not even another El-Nikkor. My 1c will auto-focus w/most any lens--it has an adjustable cam.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have never printed with the APO EL Nikkor, but I know of a story of someone who payed a freakin' fortune for one (for printing 8x10). He is probably the best printer alive for what he does. Drew probably drools over his prints. (Just kidding Drew). By the way, if my memory serves me correctly, the 105 does not cover, nor was it meant to, medium format. I never chased down the Nikon A-E-N only because I have the Orthoplanar. What would be the point?

And I have to agree with Drew. Using a longer lens might be a bit impractical for many with small enlargers, but if you use multiple formats, the longest lens is really all you need. When I first started photography 24 years ago I had both a 35mm and a Rollei within a few months. I couldn't afford a lens for both formats, so I bought a Schneider 100mm Componon used at Helix and printed everything with that. To this day, the prints I made with that lens, even with 35mm, still stand up. In fact, I marvel at them even after all the knowledge and skill I have accumulated. Still impressive. I often print with it even day when I am using the Saunders 4x5 and don't want to bother with the Focomat. It makes perfect sense to use a longer lens on an enlarger that can accommodate it. Illumination is probably going to be perfectly even and alignment isn't as critical.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

My Durst was set up @ the factory w/an autofocus cam designed for only ONE lens in the world--the 50mm 2.8 El-Nikkor that came w/it. The lens serial # was engraved on the enlarger. Auotofocus is not possible (and I don't need it) w/any other lens, not even another El-Nikkor. My 1c will auto-focus w/most any lens--it has an adjustable cam.

What Durst are you writing about Chip?

 

[chip j]

Durst M35 Micromat. Just about the most expensive 35mm enlarger ever bact in 1959 ($325).

 

[mshchem]

It's been years since I even picked up a 50mm enlarging lens. I think I have a Componon S still buried somewhere. I only print 35mm a couple times
a year, but now generally reach for the 105. If I want big prints I use big negs or chromes anyway. But Ian, what is it you consider a "lame" answer,
mine or Nikon's? I don't mind you disrespecting my ideas, but maybe Nikon might just have a teeny bit of experience with lenses.

I very rarely print 35 anymore since the demise of Cibachrome. But I always used either a 63 or 80mm EL Nikkor. If I'm making small prints I use longer still so I have room to open the easel. I print a lot of 6x9 negs with a 150mm Rodagon. With a 4x5 Beseler it gives me more room to work.
Best Regards Mike

 

[BMbikerider]

You could use one of their RF lenses as an enlarging lens.

You could use a Canon Range finderF lens as an enlarging optic but the best way to use them this way is to reverse them so the front element faces the negative. This corrects most optical aberrations (much the same as reversing a camera lens to take damn good macro images). I have seen some very good results with Leitz lenses ( 50mm 3.5 coated Elmar). One thing you have to be careful of is heat from the enlarger can cause balsam to separate, so the simpler the lens the better. Using a Summicron I would think be asking for trouble

 

[Dan Fromm]

Perhaps we should return to reality.

See http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm Really a book on printing, but it reports on tests of a number of enlarging lenses.

I don't recall that Ctein said anything about the 40/5.6 S-Biogon, am surprised no one has mentioned it here yet.

 

[Dan Fromm]

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, are you sure there's a connection between the pre-1937 (or is it pre-1945?) Hansa Canon camera and Hansa enlargers and enlarging lenses? I ask because it seems that the Hansa line was owned by Omiya, not Canon and predecessors, and that Omiya marketed the first Canons.

The Canon Camera Museum lists only one lens that might be an enlarging lens. See http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/sp1.html It seems to be a tessar type, can't be an outstanding enlarging lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, are you sure there's a connection between the pre-1937 (or is it pre-1945?) Hansa Canon camera and Hansa enlargers and enlarging lenses? I ask because it seems that the Hansa line was owned by Omiya, not Canon and predecessors, and that Omiya marketed the first Canons.

Dan, I'd have to check the adverts, however I did say that any enlarger lens on the Hansa enlarger might be Nikon as Canon camers used Nikon lenses at that time. The cameras were marked Hansa Canon and advertised alongside the Hansa enlarger, they were made by the same company. The Hansa brand name belonged to Omiya but after the Hansa name was drppped the ties between the two companies continued (according to the Canon website) and there was joint stock company, Precision Optical Industry Co., Ltd, at which point only the Canon name was used. That seems to imply a more formal tie up between two companies - but doesn't say who the second company was, one assumption is Omiya taking a stake in the company, particulatly as they continue to handle sales.

The Canon Camera Museum lists only one lens that might be an enlarging lens. See http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/sp1.html It seems to be a tessar type, can't be an outstanding enlarging lens.

That's the same version Canon E 50mm lens, although I posted a link to a completed Ebay sale last month. I do't think there was any other version

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, according to Canon Omiya was only a marketing agent. If Canon propaganda is to be believed, the relationship with Omiya was simple. Canon made cameras, Omiya marketed them. Omiya made Hansa brand enlargers and other photographic equipment before Canon's founding and continued to do so until fairly recently.

I've seen Hansa enlarger lenses. Cheapies.

As for names, there were several. Precision Optical Instruments Laboratory was the first name of the firm we now know as Canon. Then Japan Precision Optical Instruments Laboratory. Then Precision Optical Industry Co. Ltd. And then Canon Camera Co. Inc.

See http://global.canon/en/c-museum/history/story01.html for Canon's view of their history.

 

[Ian Grant]

Dan, I think the issue are shrouded in the past. The Omiya company and the company making Canon cameras had a very close relationship, and then the joint stock company indicating Precision Optical Industry Co was owned by shareholders from two (or more) companies).

My father worked for a large International manufacturer who had joint ventures with competitors to create new niche product ranges, and one to utilise their waste. OK that was the carpet industry, the niche products weren't a global brands. The wast wool from all manufactures was made into felt.

My point is companies inter trade, ownership isn't simple, in the case of the company my father worked for historically it was very complex. It's not always a case of companies merging instead they form a joint stock company, and that was the case of a well known sgag-pile carpet manufacturer in the UK.

So we see Canon emerge from the renaming a of the joint stock company "Precision Optical Industry Co" at the time Omiya are marketing their products (which continues), it's more like a major cash investment in the company in return for sharesand coincides with their (Canob's) introduction of ne products and the subsequent sharp growth in production. It also coincides with Canon making far better cameras and that needed investment hence the joint stock company.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Patrick. I think I know who you're referring to. Yes, I'd like to chat with that fellow some day since we have distinctly different protocols to Ciba masking. He works with a huge Durst horizontal enlarger with matching pin-registered carriers, while I work mostly with big customized additive
enlargers. But every time I've been in his neighborhood in recent years it has been for some family emergency without the luxury of much spare time. It's all merely academic now, since I've moved on to Fuji Supergloss RA-4 as a replacement for Ciba and chrome film. But he did drop over ten
grand for a rare 360 Apo El Nikkor. I just can't contemplate it, since it's really hard to see the difference on a 30x40 Ciba from 8x10 from an ordinary
360 El Nikkor, and probably impossible from a 360 Apo Nikkor (I own both). A really good grain magnifier capable of seeing the corners of the print tells the truth. But with something like a matte C print, the general public could probably never detect the difference. Where the sexy Apo lenses really come into their own is for truly fussy work like making precision dupes, internegs, and color separations, and for superior microtonality in ordinary darkroom black and white printing.

 

[chip j]

Yahsir! That's what I like--microtonality. My Durst gives me a good dose of that!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Durst got nuthin to do with it. Maybe metric-tonality, or just stayin toned-up, like an expensive Italian automobile. Microtonality is about the lens, film, paper, thing. Durst just makes it all more fun. Sometimes a hearing aid also helps with microtonality. The center column of my Dursts have a
nice ring to them if you hit them with a rubber mallet.

 

[Svenedin]

There is one of those Canon E 50mm enlarging lenses for sale at Second Hand Darkroom in the UK. Doesn't look anything special.

 

[flavio81]

I have an EL Nikkor 50/2.8N and so far it is a fine lens. I can bet that if Canon made a similar lens it would be equally good.

 

[chip j]

I think I would like the Canon better--El-Nikkors are SO boring!

 

[flavio81]

I think I would like the Canon better--El-Nikkors are SO boring!

An enlarger lens only reproduces a flat negative image onto a flat surface and should add nothing else. Excitement is brought by the photographer.

 

[chip j]

I have many, many top enlarging lenses, and I've made at least a few prints w/most of them and they're all different. You're thinking like an abstarct technician rather than living in the real world.