EL-Nikkor 68mm f3.5

[Marco Buonocore]

I picked up an EL-Nikkor 68mm f3.5 enlarging lens when a custom lab closed their darkroom. I'm wondering what size film it was intended for? I use it for 16x20 and smaller prints from 35mm negs, and it is quite sharp. It's a bit small for 6x6 which is a shame.

Does anyone know anything about this lens? It seems to be a bit of an odd duck. I know the 63mm is sought after.

 

[Marco Buonocore]

Should have googled a bit more!

http://www.savazzi.net/photography/el-nikkor_68mm.htm

 

[ic-racer]

Should have googled a bit more!

http://www.savazzi.net/photography/el-nikkor_68mm.htm

And found basically nothing about its performance in the darkroom. Why don't you try it out and post some information about the lens performance.

 

[adelorenzo]

And found basically nothing about its performance in the darkroom. Why don't you try it out and post some information about the lens performance.

Re-read the original post the OP is using it to make prints.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It has a better reputation with 35mm film than their 50mm lenses, so might be a nice keeper. But that's what it's intended for. MF format negs
need something distinctly longer in focal length.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'll bet it would work well for 6x4.5cm (56x43mm).

 

[DREW WILEY]

No it wouldn't. Not even close. In fact the El Nikkor 75/4 does a hokey job with 645, esp toward the corners, though it makes a decent
bargain 35mm lens. If you want something good for 645 or 6x6, use the 80/5.6. For 6x7 or 6x7, something still longer. But for that kind of use I personally have an Apo Rodagon N 105, which is certainly the cat's meow.

 

[pentaxuser]

I always thought that the minimum correct lens had to be the diagonal of the neg. On that basis the 75 has a little to spare with 645 but not enough it appears.

On that basis a 68 should cover the old square 127 which was roughly 40x40mm, shouldn't it

pentaxuser

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The diagonal of 6x4.5cm (56x43mm) is 70.6mm or smaller and 68mm is pretty close. At full frame print magnifications of around 6x or less I'd think it should cover 6x4.5 but, depending on lens design, it may not. Nothing wrong with giving it a try.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Go ahead. Find out the hard way what plenty of people already know (or once did). It's a 35mm lens. Period. Angle of coverage based upon some generic formula does not tell you about engineered performance beyond the center at typical working apertures. For example, a properly designed 75 could indeed yield satisfactory performance with 645 or 6X6, but the El Nikkor 75/4 does not because it is a bargain lens with significant deterioration between center and edges. It's a student-grade lens. It will work, but so-so. Since I use this lens only for enlarging high-speed 35mm film, using only the center of the field, it does a fine job, even better than my 50 Componon-S, for example.
But for serious 6x6 and possibly 6x7 work, Nikon offers the much better corrected, but not quite as bright, 80/5.6. I personally prefer to
work with longer than "normal" lenses whenever possible, so go straight to a 105 or even 150 Apo Rodagon N for med format work.

 

[Marco Buonocore]

I've used it for 35mm over the last year. It's sharper than any of the EL Nikkor, Componon or Rodagon 50mm lenses I have access to. I don't have the most exacting of tests; I have a 35mm Rowi test negative that I use to compare lenses and apertures. You can really notice the differences in the "chevron" and "grit" (for lack of better terms) areas of the print. I use a glass carrier and the Versalab alignment tool to keep things in line as best as I can.



It's not a great lens at f3.5, but at f4.0 and f5.6 it's quite amazing. Besides the test negative, I'll make comparison prints with different lenses, and it came out on top every time when I did blind tests. I trust my eyes with this sort of thing. As you'd expect, there's very little vignetting because of the focal length. On my Durst 138s I have to use a very recessed lens board (Latub) to use a 50mm lens, and I suspect that contributes to the vignetting I get when using a 50mm lens. So it's a nice tool in the shed for sure.

As far as coverage goes, I think you could get away with it at 6x6, but only just. Not full frame. My method for checking is two fold. I use an attachment for my Durst 138s called a Larka:



It fits where the neg carrier would go; it was meant for turning the enlarger into a copy stand. You can see exactly where the vignetting becomes an issue when doing this, and use the markings on the scale as a reference. I also use my Darkroom Automations enlarging meter to give me a quantifiable figure. Falloff is a bit more than half a stop on the edges with 6x6 and the 68mm lens - more than you'd like, for sure. As it stands, I have an older Apo Rodagon 90mm for 6x6 and 6x7 which is wonderful.

I think pentaxuser is correct; 40x40mm seems right where this lens lands. But when did they stop making that format? Must have been ages ago. This lens seems more modern.

I've found a use for it, no doubt, but I always wondered what it was intended for in the first place - and why there's relatively little information about it online.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One problem with alleged "just covers" is that very few people know how to precisely center an enlarger lens relative to the film or even have one amenable to that. With recessed boards, there can be a risk of bellows compression or less than ideal board fit that slightly skews the angle of the lens itself. The Durst 138 system had corrections built in for such headaches, but many of these units were not maintained well over the years and might need a tuneup in this respect, while most other enlargers never were designed for precise work. The Nikon lens in question was intended for 35mm all along. I was simply easier to design a superior performing lens in this focal length at reasonable cost than to force the foot into the smaller customary shoe size of 50mm. As fancier glass types came along, new options became available, but at higher price, as in Schneider HM lenses and Apo Rodagons.

 

[M Carter]

...Angle of coverage based upon some generic formula does not tell you about engineered performance beyond the center at typical working apertures.

Case in point: the EL Nikkor 80. Shouldn't work with 6x7 very well, but was specifically engineered to. Nice lens, too.

 

[MattKing]

It was probably designed to be used in machine printers that were employed by school photographers who shot on bulk load 46mm colour film.

46mm is of course the same width as 127, but I believe that the 46mm bulk film remained in the current catalogue until much more recently.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

And found basically nothing about its performance in the darkroom. Why don't you try it out and post some information about the lens performance.

I have this lens in the darkroom and find it to be a great performer for35mm;have not tried if it covers MF:confused:

 

[Johnkpap]

I also am a owner of one of these nice lenses, mine also came from a Custom Lab that closed down.

With any lens made by Nikon it is a extremely sharp lens, with good contrast, it covers 35mm with no issues at f8 performes good as any other lens out there.

It is very useful for making part enlargements of Medium format negs. it is also well regarded as a macro lens due to the fact that it is extremely sharp.

This lens is a keeper, they are reasonably rare and don't come up for sale very often


Johnkpap

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I also am a owner of one of these nice lenses, mine also came from a Custom Lab that closed down.

With any lens made by Nikon it is a extremely sharp lens, with good contrast, it covers 35mm with no issues at f8 performes good as any other lens out there.

It is very useful for making part enlargements of Medium format negs. it is also well regarded as a macro lens due to the fact that it is extremely sharp.

This lens is a keeper, they are reasonably rare and don't come up for sale very often


Johnkpap

Well, mine is for sale for $100 right now