• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

EL-Nikkor vs. Componon-S


Nice link. I am surprised at how few studies actually get done in the photographic world. Everyone just gets by on anecdotal generalizations. Looks like the author really put in some work. I didn't jump on the APO band wagon. Premium enlarger lenses can be purchased for next to nothing but the prices for modern good condition APOs are a bit prohibitive. I will scrape by with what I have for now. If APOs get more reasonable I'll see what I can get and test.

Another interesting thing in that book is the shocking lack of QC across the board. I guess tightening standards would make lenses prohibitively expensive.
 
There's a reason even used apo's sell for a premium and get snatched up fast. You web junkies can form
an opinion any way you wish. But those of us who actually use these lenses know why they're still in demand. And it isn't marketing hype ... never was. The other thing is that many apo lens designs had
well-known industrial and graphics applications all along, that ordinary photographers simply aren't aware of. And they're still being made for high-end industrial applications, though often in fixed aperture. If you want high-quality relatively affordably, Apo Nikkors are quite common, and will
beat the pants off most ordinary enlarging lenses, if you can work at f/11 with relatively large film.
They never made short focal lengths. Not to be confused with conventional El Nikkors or the very
expensive and now rare Apo El's.
 

I take it then that there is no online information or references regarding the El-Nikkor 80/4. Alternatively maybe you just meant the 75/4.
 
Oh ... I'm certainly senile enough to confuse 75 with 80. I have to check next time I pull the lens drawer
open. I haven't printed any 35mm for about a month. Got some kinda intense 8x10 interneg work going
on at the moment. I'll try to remember to look and see the exact focal length; but the characteristics of
this lens are exactly as described - really good for 35mm at a bargain price, probably OK for 645, but
then less than ideal for anything larger.
 
Just to mess up your choices even more, for 6x7 the sharpest lens I have used is a 90mm Fuji EX, and that will supposedly do for 6x9 too . . .
 
MartinP said:
Just to mess up your choices even more, for 6x7 the sharpest lens I have used is a 90mm Fuji EX, and that will supposedly do for 6x9 too . . .
Click to expand...

At what magnification?
 
MartinP said:
90mm Fuji EX
Click to expand...

I have one of those (came with a cheap enlarger!) and do agree it seems good, however I generally use the Componon-S for it's usability functions (stop down lever) I like.
 
Given the superb results I've had in general with Fujinon lenses, as well as what I've heard about their
enlarging lenses in particular, they seem like an excellent option. But they're not as common as some of the others, and I've never personally tested one.
 
I've just acquired the newer design El Nikkor 150 (newer, that is without a knobbly aperture ring, and with a 50mm and 39mm threads). I'm going to compare it to my Rodagon 150, and perhaps 135, all for use with 4x5 black and white.

I was wondering if there is a disadvantage/advantage to mounting this newer El Nikkor using its 50mm thread, without the 39mm adapter. When the 50mm thread is used, the rear element is more exposed, and when using the 39mm adapter, the rear element is more concealed, visible only through the adapter and what looks like its flare-reducing barrel. I can mount both ways, I wonder if anyone has compared the two approaches with this lens?
 
Rafal
Is that a 50mm or 53mm thread when you remove the adapter?
My notes show the version before your 150 had a 53mm thread.
If 50 it would match the Componon-S thread, if 53 then the harder to find 53mm adapter.
 
Ac12, it is the newer 50mm thread, and it comes with a reducer that brings it to 39. I have both panels on hand, and I'm just curious if there is an observed benefit of one over the other, mainly because the rear element gets very exposed when used without the reducing ring.
 
I've had and seen the Sample Variation on 3 Nikkor 50mm 2.8 EL. One was improved after a dismantle and cleaning, one of the retaining rings holding on set of elements was somewhat lose. After cleaning, I tightened that retaining ring to what I thought was a proper torque and the lens was much sharper.
 
Well, smelling fresh of fixer, I just emerged from the darkroom doing a couple of prints from 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5 (yes, long, cold night in the shed) and I couldn't see any perceptible quality difference in the print between and of the brands. I have a 50mm 2.8 El-nikkor, 105 Componon-s, and a 150 El nikkor. All are perfect as far as I can tell.

By the way, I did an enlargement of a 35mm neg shot with the Nikon E series 50mm 1.8 on Fuji Acros developed in Pyrocat and am convinced it could go to 16x20 easily. Brilliant little lens/film/developer combo.
 
Both brands are good. Maybe to good for our negatives. But the visual look of print, enlarged with different brands, is different. I must admit that I prefer Rodagon lenses over other brands.
 
Old-N-Feeble said:
At what magnification?
Click to expand...

I've made prints from parts of negatives with the head at the top of the column, so the total image would be a little over 50cm. Umm, so magnification of about seven times or so. It worked better, all over, than the borrowed Componon-S I was previously using, but these are all relatively old lenses and I doubt one can exclude sample variation from the results.
 
There is a difference in the look of enlarging lenses. Most people don't look,or under the wrong light, or are not sensitive. My 50mm Componon-S gives a Christian world-view, while that of my 50mm 2.8 nikkor-n is Buddist.
 
So, chip, what view, do you 'spose, a Meopta would render?
 
It's a lot like a Rodagon (my Meogon S)-beautiful grays, but more neutral in tone, like a nikkor, w/out the royal purple tone of the Rodagon. Too worldly for me.
 
I mean the Rodagon is too worldly for me. I have to do more printing w/ the Meopta.
 
The componon 100 is a slightly better lens from what i've heard but nikkor glass has always been amazingly IMO. I'd go with the nikon because the difference is minuscule, and the nikon is probably a little cheaper and more plentiful. Also 100/105mm is kind of focal length over kill(not that that is a bad thing) but an 80/90mm would cover 6x7 no problem.
 
Dear Old n Feeble--that's me too1 Leg, knee, and ankle problems have kept me out of the darkroom for over a year and a half. First up when I get back to it is printing w/Meogon S. I can say from what I have that it is the most neutral look I have ever seen from among my many tested lenses (20+).
 
DREW WILEY said:
There's a reason even used apo's sell for a premium and get snatched up fast. You web junkies can form
an opinion any way you wish.
Click to expand...

Web junkies?! I would think a "web junkie" would be someone who makes an expensive purchase based on the opinion of one poster while ignoring all the other posters who are saying the exact opposite and a published report. This very forum is littered with posts from numerous people that are somewhat cool on the whole APO thing. Should we ignore them in favor of you? If so why?

DREW WILEY said:
And it isn't marketing hype ... never was.
Click to expand...

How can anyone be so emphatic that "APO" was NEVER used as a marketing tool?! I have seen amazing Zeiss surgical scopes. I can only imagine how much they cost. I've seen neurosurgery done with them. I personally own some Zeiss lenses for my medium format camera. I find them to be acceptably sharp. My camera phone has a Zeiss lens on it... I believe Zeiss engages in marketing hype sometimes.


I am not sure what this has to do with us buying 50mm and 80mm enlarger lenses. I'm sure there are fine products with APO stamped on them in use all over the planet. That does not mean "APO"=substantially better 100% of the time. You should read page 81 of the e-book that was posted. The author doesn't sound like he is talking out of his rear end.


DREW WILEY said:
If you want high-quality relatively affordably, Apo Nikkors are quite common, and will
beat the pants off most ordinary enlarging lenses, if you can work at f/11 with relatively large film.
Click to expand...

Mighty big "if," DREW. Most of us don't shoot large format film. We just want a way to make prints from the 35mm and medium format negatives we already own. I am not discounting what you are saying. I'm just really not sure how applicable a lot of that is to the average hobbyist. Photography is not my vocation. I set up a basic B&W darkroom with two enlargers for about $250... including mint modern large aperture Nikkor and Componon-S lenses. The recession is over but money is still tight. Spending $250 to set up a darkroom was a luxury. Spending substantially more on a single lens ain't gonna happen any time soon.

I appreciate you posting and it makes me want to check out APO lenses for myself at some stage but not right now.
 
Does anyone know if Beseler HD lenses are rebranded APO=Rodagons? I sw a 50mm 2.8 advertised as such on E-bay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register