EL Nikkor, EL Omegar, & Wollensak

Noble · May 11, 2013

ChristopherCoy said:
This seems to be a topic you are fairly passionate about, so just to put your curiosity to rest... I have an El Nikkor 2.8 coming with a 67S Dichro enlarger that I'm purchasing. I'll plan on testing the f/4 against the f/2.8, and advise my findings.

I'm not really "passionate" about this topic. It's simply a matter of logic. Your camera lens and your enlarger lens are your two most important pieces of equipment. They will leave their mark on every image you take and print. Having said that on the 35mm end the no nonsense new mint leave-no-doubt-in-my-mind lens costs $40 typically... and can be had for $5 rarely. So the question is why even think about it? If you want to see "passionate" start a thread asking whether APO lenses are "worth it." Bring an asbestos suit though!

The lens I was referring to is the El Nikkor 50mm 2.8 N. That is the latest model I'm aware of... I stopped looking after I got mine. There is an older non "N" version.

In addition to lens design other things such as fungus, dust, and haze (from dark room vapor etching) can degrade lenses with time. That's another reason I went for a late model lens. Although even the N version has been around for quite some time.

jjphoto · May 11, 2013

jnanian said:
...personally, i couldn't care less about "internet opinion" ...
it seems that all websites like this (and others) that are always linked to, or books or whatever ...
all they do is give opinion and for every opinion there is always a contradictory one ...

As they say, opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

There's a difference between an 'opinion' and an actual test comparison in controlled conditions. Such comparisons are very useful and are really all we've got aside from our own personal experience. If find comparisons, rather than objective tests (even with their graphs, facts and figures), to be far more useful however there will always be an element of sample variation to factor into any findings.

Ian C said:
Although the discussion in the following link concerned a 90/4.5 Enlarging Pro Raptar, the thread size is likely the same as the Enlaging Raptar cited in posts (measured thread diameter of approximately 41mm in both cases).

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks, I started that thread. And yesterday, after posting here and then turning off the computer, I finally 'bodgied' up a way to 'test' (as a taking lens, not as an enlarging lens) the PRO Raptar that I mentioned. I'm very happy with it. Yes, that's just an opinion.

removed account4 · May 11, 2013

jjphoto said:
As they say, opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

There's a difference between an 'opinion' and an actual test comparison in controlled conditions. Such comparisons are very useful and are really all we've got aside from our own personal experience. If find comparisons, rather than objective tests (even with their graphs, facts and figures), to be far more useful however there will always be an element of sample variation to factor into any findings.

someone else's comparisons, their studies in controlled conditions &c &c don't really matter because in the end
it is the person who makes the photograph and who uses the lens that makes the decisions what lens to use.
just like it is their decision to use a vintage uncoated lens or lo-fi camera when so much "better" equipment is out there.

it is just like iso/asa ...
in controlled lab conditions with a specific developer &c iso is determined ..
one never has those exact conditions in "real life" that is why one should do his/her own tests
to determine what iso/asa sHe needs to expose his/her film ...

all the lab experiments and controlled tests in the world won't tell me much, other than in xyz conditions this is what abc lens ( or film or paper &c ) will perform like ...

Jim Noel · May 12, 2013

I use a 165mm Wolly Enlarging Raptar on my 5x7 enlarger. If I enlarge a portion of a negative with it to the same size as with my 150m Apo Nikkor, I have found no one who can see a difference.

Terrence Brennan · May 13, 2013

Wollensak 90mm

eddie said:
Chris- I once had a Wollensak enlarging lens. It was probably close to 40 years ago, so my memory of it may be a bit hazy. If memory serves, however, I found it to be a little less contrasty than my "good" lenses. I gave it away, but wish I hadn't. Since rediscovering my plastic cameras, a few years ago, I'd like to see how it would work with those negatives.

I have a 90mm f/4.5 Wollensak, complete with fine scratches on the front element. I did a side-by-side comparison test, the Wollensak versus an 80mm f/5.6 Componon. I printed the same negative, in a glass carrier, with lith film used to mask the rebate, and I adjusted the enlarger height to get the same size image for both prints.

AFAIR, the Wollensak had slightly lower contrast, and seemed to be about the same as the Componon in terms of resolution. The degree of enlargement was low, a 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 negative enlarged to about 7-1/2 x 7-1/2 inches, so it may not have been a fair test. I'll try and remember to have a look at the test prints tonight.

Noble · May 13, 2013

eddie said:
While they may give you a measured standard of sharpness (or any other lens attribute), it's entirely possible that a "lesser" lens will give you a better print.

You... can't... be... serious.

jjphoto said:
As they say, opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

There's a difference between an 'opinion' and an actual test comparison in controlled conditions. Such comparisons are very useful and are really all we've got aside from our own personal experience. If find comparisons, rather than objective tests (even with their graphs, facts and figures), to be far more useful however there will always be an element of sample variation to factor into any findings.

I couldn't have said it more succinctly. Photography is just physics and chemistry. You manipulate the physics and chemistry to make art. You start from a commonly agreed upon baseline and then tweak to get what you want. That doesn't mean the baseline is useless. I really wonder how some people buy cars. I as well as everyone I know looks at the MPG sticker on the car window. Now I know depending on whether I drive in the city or on highways my mileage will vary. It will also vary with how aggressively I accelerate. Passenger and cargo load will make mileage vary. Heck using the A/C will change mileage as well. Does that mean we don't look at the manufacturer's mileage data? Does that mean we ignore what Consumer Reports and Motor Trend say about mileage? I think not. Why on earth would that all of a sudden change when talking about a simple $40 lens? There is nothing special about photography. The same common sense we use in the rest of our lives is not suspended when we pick up a camera or turn on an enlarger.

removed account4 · May 13, 2013

there IS more to photography than physics and chemistry

Dali · May 13, 2013

jnanian said:
there IS more to photography than physics and chemistry

A lot more. If photography were only a physics and chemistry matter, it would be utterly boring. Fortunately, the most important is creativity which can't be put in equation (or MTF tested).

Take care.

Noble · May 13, 2013

jnanian said:
there IS more to photography than physics and chemistry

For some types of photography you layer more on top of the basic physics and chemistry. But most of the "photographers" I've dealt with professionally (xray crystallographers, electron microscopers, radiologists, crime science investigators, etc) it's all physics and chemistry. Without wandering too far off into philosophy what I was getting at with that statement is there are certain objective noncontroversial things we can all agree upon.

eddie · May 13, 2013

Noble said:
You... can't... be... serious..

I'm completely serious. There's a reason people work with Holgas, Petzvals, etc. A well conceived photograph is more than accomplishing the utmost in sharpness and resolution.

removed account4 · May 13, 2013

Noble said:
For some types of photography you layer more on top of the basic physics and chemistry. But most of the "photographers" I've dealt with professionally (xray crystallographers, electron microscopers, radiologists, crime science investigators, etc) it's all physics and chemistry. Without wandering too far off into philosophy what I was getting at with that statement is there are certain objective noncontroversial things we can all agree upon.

what's the point ?

is it because there are so many great, contrasty,highly acclaimed by experts like ctein, perfect
color corrected ... ( that used to cost hundreds of $$ ) but are cheap enlarger lenses readily available
there is no point in wasting one's time or effort with anything else.

to each their own ...

ChristopherCoy · May 13, 2013

Noble said:
You... can't... be... serious.
.

I loved my Holga, and I cherish my Certo Phot, and I'd seriously hurt anyone who tried to take my Brownie Hawkeyes - especially the one with the flipped lens.

I know you, because I was you. You spout off information that you've gained from listening to someone else, and you're so focused on the technical aspects that you can't appreciate the art for what it is. And if anyone challenges your methods or equipment, you feel insulted and feel the need to defend it to the inth degree - which then leads to highly toxic threads and conversations, and that's not productive for anyone.

I've given up my need for technically perfect gear and images, and what I've found is that my creativity has begun to flow freely again. When talking about instant photography, a friend once told me that "embracing the imperfections is part of the fun of instant photography." That resonated with me greatly, and today I always try to remember that no matter what I'm shooting.

You prefer your $50 El Nikkor 2.8N - we get it. Can you please move on to something more productive?

Bill Burk · May 15, 2013

OK, I wasn't going to say a high quality lens is important, but I can see where it might come in handy.

I use a 135mm Xenar 4x5 enlarging lens you might say has a certain amount of "character" and I've been fine with it. I know it isn't APO type N or anything like that.

But lately I have been unhappy that my enlargements don't match my contact prints. I can't stand it and my solution to the problem is that I'm not going to make any more contact prints.

jjphoto · May 15, 2013

Bill Burk said:
OK, I wasn't going to say a high quality lens is important, but I can see where it might come in handy.

I use a 135mm Xenar 4x5 enlarging lens you might say has a certain amount of "character" and I've been fine with it. I know it isn't APO type N or anything like that.

But lately I have been unhappy that my enlargements don't match my contact prints. I can't stand it and my solution to the problem is that I'm not going to make any more contact prints.

I think the xenar is not an enlarging lens in the first place so that won't help.

Bill Burk · May 16, 2013

jjphoto said:
I think the xenar is not an enlarging lens in the first place so that won't help.

This one is, but don't tell Armond at Freestyle who sold it to me in 1982, he'll want it back. I got it for a good price because it sat on the shelf for years, the aperture blades were out of their slots and my buddy Jim applied his employee discount.

My point is that a great enlarging lens, will have less flare than the lens I use. I figure one of the main differences in appearance between my contact prints and enlargements might be from the flare I get from the enlarging lens -- reducing contrast. Nevermind the circle of confusion and viewing distance issues that mean I "get" less depth of field in an enlargement -- because an APO lens won't solve that difference.

But an APO lens on the enlarger might help you match your contact prints more easily.

kobaltus · May 16, 2013

Contact print can not be beat by any enlarger. Not only lens, lighting source have also great impact on final print. If you print on condenser enlarger, you lose highlights, if you print with diffused light, you lose sharpness
I found that Leitz enlargers with high quality condensers are the best compromise between the emphasis on sharpness and the emphasis on tonality.
Focomat 1 , Valoy or Focomat 2. Focomat 2 is the winner: little less sharp prints than Focomat 1, but great tonality ,very close to contact print.
And about lenses: now I print with 6 element lenses, but in past I started with 3 element chrome Durst Componar 50mm 3,5 . Ctein do not even take triplet for free, but I have made many photos for published books and catalogs for local museum with this sharp and excellent lens.

jjphoto · May 16, 2013

Bill Burk said:
This one is, ...

Do you mean your lens is an enlarging lens? Can you please explain, ie what makes your lens an enlarging lens instead of a taking lens?

The Xenar (and similar taking lenses such as Xenotars) where available as a barrel lens, ie without shutters. They look just like enlarging lenses.

This is my Xenar 100/3.5, which certainly looks like an enlarging lens.

removed account4 · May 16, 2013

does it really matter if it is an enlarging lens or a "taking lens" ... you put an enlarging lens on your camera it's a "taking lens".
enlarging lenses are "flat field" so when projected on to paper everything is in focus
and it isn't a curved image plane .. a "copy lens" is an enlarging lens, a "g claron" is an enlarging lens ..

ir really doesn't matter ...

Bill Burk · May 16, 2013

I was just going on looks and the fact it fit the DII cone.

If it's a camera lens, then I'll be darned. All my prints from 4x5 are through it...

Still there are valid points to discuss about who needs to demand quality in an enlarging lens. I am willing to accept some lesser quality in my personal work, but I would want a better lens if I were to print for others.

Every once in a while I recognize some limitation I run up against, and the latest limitation is the match from proof to enlargement. My Red Cones enlargements, while they satisfy me in several ways, don't live up to the contact print. If I had never made the contact print, I wouldn't know what I was missing. I gave up scanning a long time ago for about the same reason, not wanting to be trying to match an unrealistic proof. So my new rule of thumb ... no more contact prints. By definition, I will have no unrealistic proofs to try to match.

ChristopherCoy · May 17, 2013

Well all three of them arrived. The Nikkor and El Omegar look good, ill use them for a few more months and when I can afford to ill upgrade.

The Wollensak looks good aside from a few scratches on the lens. It'll lend itself well to the Holga type prints I like to do. My only issue with it though is that I have no way to mount it. The lens board that the Nikkor and Omegar fit on is WAY TOO BIG. The Wollensak nearly goes straight through the hole. There is a retaining ring on the Wollensak with three screw holes, so I may have my brother in law machine me a piece of sheet metal.

Bill Burk · May 17, 2013

ChristopherCoy said:
Well all three of them arrived. The Nikkor and El Omegar look good, ill use them for a few more months and when I can afford to ill upgrade.

The Wollensak looks good aside from a few scratches on the lens. It'll lend itself well to the Holga type prints I like to do. My only issue with it though is that I have no way to mount it. The lens board that the Nikkor and Omegar fit on is WAY TOO BIG. The Wollensak nearly goes straight through the hole. There is a retaining ring on the Wollensak with three screw holes, so I may have my brother in law machine me a piece of sheet metal.

tuna can makes a good lens mount

ChristopherCoy · May 17, 2013

A tuna can??

Bill Burk · May 17, 2013

ChristopherCoy said:
A tuna can??

I had to resort to that once to use my 28mm lens. Half kidding but half serious.

Noble · May 18, 2013

eddie said:
I'm completely serious. There's a reason people work with Holgas, Petzvals, etc. A well conceived photograph is more than accomplishing the utmost in sharpness and resolution.

Eddie you misunderstand me. I meant your criticism of my post can't be serious. Read the OP. The guy mentioned he had some concerns about quality control and then asked how the lens performs. It's a general question and I recommended a lens for general use. I have never heard of someone using a specific lens on their enlarger based on the specific brand of lens they used to take the picture and it would have been ludicrous for me to include such conjecture in my reply.

We have a saying at my work. When you hear hooves think of horses... not zebras. The lenses I recommended are industry standards that you can use to enlarge negatives made with any lens. Criticizing me because I didn't come up with a niche unusual answer based on some information that wasn't even in the OP is really stretching things a bit far. Anyway if a soft print is what you want there are numerous free solutions lying around your house that can be used to easily accomplish that goal regardless of what lens is in your enlarger. I never occurred to me to spend money and buy a lens for something like that.

Also I would suggest in addition to reading the OP to look at the study I linked to and also read my posts. I never said all a well conceived photograph is is, "the utmost in sharpness and resolution." I think if you take the time and actually READ the material I linked to and my own posts you will find where I and Ctein actually say quite the opposite. But again you have to actually read what we wrote. You can't just argue against strawmen.

Bill Burk · May 18, 2013

Noble said:
Once the sum of money that is being discussed gets so small I just pay my money and expend my energy worrying about more complicated issues. The converse is also true. Once the sum of money gets so large there is no way I am going to part with that amount I just keep it in my pocket and use whatever "inferior" device I currently own. Everyone has their cut offs. I personally never got involved in the APO wars because a single used APO lens costs more than my entire darkroom setup with two enlargers and two lenses...

I'd misread you too, thought you were missing the mark. So I reached back a bit to find we have common ground...

I agree with you on the cutoff and stick with what you have. This is why for 35mm work I use the lowly 50mm Apo-Rodagon instead of seeking the superior N version. Actually found both in same box at flea market with that 28mm Rodagon I've been talking about... the one I have to mount on a tuna can to use... Paid $5 each.

The Xenar I've been using has served me well, and though I got a good deal on it, being on my third job out of college it was a significant investment at the time. Now I might replace it, but it's not urgent because I know its limitations.

Ctein is sort of a local hero, hung out at Pedro Point watching Venus transit and talked with the guy who convinced him to convert to digital. And I think we've got an APUG'er who knows him.

EL Nikkor, EL Omegar, & Wollensak

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency