• 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

Enlarger lens for 4X5

barzune

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
281
Location
Ontario
Format
Multi Format
For years, I've been using 135mm lenses (El Nikkor and Componon S) to enlarge 4X5 negatives, and I've always been satisfied.

Recently, though, I was reading through the manual for my Beseler MCRX, where it states that the recommended lens for 4X5 is a 6 3/8" (162mm) focal length.

Now, I've often seen 150mm lenses available, but rarely do I see a 162mm (or thereabouts).

Do others of you use the longer (than 135mm) lenses for enlarging? Am I missing some advantage?

Dan
 
I use a 180mm for 4x5", and small enlargeents from 5x7".
 
The wider the enlarging lens, the lighter the print edges will be. The difference between a 135mm and 162mm will be very slight. Many of us often burn down the edges, which makes that difference irrelevant.
 
I have 135mm & 150mm enlarger lenses, I'm happy with both focal lengths and all my lenses are excellent performers, I guess I prefer using 135mm though I find it more flexible.

Ian
 
After years of comments on this site stressing the importance of enlarger alignment and stability, flat negatives and longer focal lengths . . .I use a 4X5 glass carrier with a 135mm rodenstock for everything, a wall mounted and anchored enlarger, and the difference is subtle but it is a difference. I can't see doing anything differently, ever.
 
Jim Jones said:
The wider the enlarging lens, the lighter the print edges will be. The difference between a 135mm and 162mm will be very slight. Many of us often burn down the edges, which makes that difference irrelevant.
Click to expand...

An interesting point.

A longer enlarging lens will reduce the maximum size print that can be made on an enlarger.
 
I guess I have no reason to change what I've been doing, and I thank you all for the reassurance.

As I originally said, I've been satisfied with my output, and I'm certainly not out to please anybody but myself,
but I thought I'd check to see whether I was out of synch with the norm.

Dan
 
I may need a new lens. I am considering the 135mm El Nikkor. What lens board would I need? I read it is a 46mm mount.
 
My favorite is the 161mm Kodak Ektanon, I also use a 150mm Rodagon and a 135mm El Nikor.
 
Well not at all scientific.....the lens produced beautiful images from large format negatives. While I also used it for color printing, I picked up the Nikon 150mm since it is probably better corrected for color. Overall, I prefer a longer lens for printing unless I need more magnification on the baseboard.
 
135 are really for 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 neg but will work on smaller prints from 4x5. 150 were made for 4x5 and you will need a bit longer column than from 135.

162 is in theory correct, but they are only made by some sold manufacturer whose name I can`t recall, in 1940 or 50. They are not coated and you will not like it.
 

According to manufacturers like Schneider and Rodenstock their 135mm enlarger lenses are designed for 5x4 so they are not really for Quarter plate a format not used in German and Continental Europe anyway. Quarter plate disappeared in the UK during WWII and no new cameras were made after the war ended.

Ian
 
Some folks will disagree but, IMO, you only need longer than 'normal' enlarging lenses (for any format) when making enlargements greater than 6x or so... and this may be pushing it a bit. This is because smaller prints require longer bellows draw moving the lens away from the film. Consequently, only the center part of the lens is used. So, IMO, if one is enlarging a 135 negative (full frame) to 7x10 inches then a good 43mm lens should be fine but larger prints will probably look better with a slightly longer lens such as a good 50mm which is nearly 20 percent longer than normal for the format. For smaller prints (up to 2x) a slightly wider than normal lens can be used... but no wider than .9x (38mm in this case). For a full frame 135 negative this would only be a 2x3 inch print.

If we interpolate the above for full frame 4x5 enlarging one can use a slightly wider than normal lens (135mm) for prints up to 16x20 but no larger. If one wants to make mural-size prints then it's better to use at least a 150mm lens and probably a 180mm. Longer than that is completely unnecessary no matter how gigantic the print size.

EDIT #1: Unfortunately, lens focal length works against us because longer than normal is usually easier for tiny prints but nearly always more difficult for very large prints. Wide lenses are very difficult to use when making tiny prints.

EDIT #2: As stated, some will disagree. That's okay because I think I know what I think I know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The more I read, the more I learn !

Thank you all, "Ape Huggers" ; always happy to have access to your experience.
 
I have not yet printed 4x5 (yet), however I do remember a similar discussion for 35mm film.
Normal lens for 35mm film is 50mm, however there were real world situations where I use 80 and 100mm lenses. The problem was printing small image size and the resulting height of the enlarger head over the baseboard. Here are 2 examples of the problems I ran into where the solution was a longer than "normal" lens.
- The enlarger that I was using was not convenient with the head lowered real low, opening the easel was a hassle because the easel would hit the head. So we used a longer lens to allow us to lift the head higher so the easel would clear the head.
- There were also situations where I could not get the head down low enough to get the desired small image size. So we ended up stacking boxes or books under the easel to raise the easel closer to the head, to get the desired small image size. The problem here is the bottom of the easel is not flat. So we needed to use LARGE boxes or books. Again a longer lens made this task much easier, no more stacking boxes or books under the easel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register