Enlarger lens

Well, the VERY best would be none of the above, but rather, the Apo EL Nikkor 105/5.6, if you can find and afford one of those in either of its versions. But besides being expensive, these are also rather heavy, and some enlargers might not support their weight without deflection.

Sometimes there is simply too much of a good thing. Although I had the opportunity to buy one of those at a reasonable price, and do have very solid commercial enlargers, the MTF is simply so high that every tiny anomaly in the film surface or carrier glass might get revealed under certain circumstances, even using diffuse light. And NOBODY seeking a lens in this league is going to waste its potential by not using a precision glass carrier (glass on both sides). Sometimes I have to be cautious in this respect even with my Apo Rogagon N's, where open skies are involved and I am boosting the contrast grade.

I personally prefer to use Apo Nikkor f/9 process lenses for large format enlargements, and these are superior in optical performance over ANY kind of official enlarging lens, and are only a stop slower than the Apo EL series. But these simply weren't made in shorter focal lengths such as MF film needs.

Color printing is a more complex subject. If I need to tone down contrast a little bit, I keep on hand a few regular enlarging lenses too, like Rodagon or El Nikkor.

I did a shootout of smaller format enlarger lenses the other day (so not directly related to the 6x9 format question). Source negative was 35mm Kodak Ektar, a real-world photograph taken with a real-world (suboptimal, for this kind of) Canon EF35/2 IS lens, no fancy synthetic-situation test chart. Contenders were a Rodenstock APO Rodagon N 80mm, an EL Nikkor 75mm and an old Schneider Componon (non-S) 80mm. I made actual enlargements to the size I could get to when dropping the table on my Durst 138 all the way to the floor and raising the head as high as it would go. That corresponded to an image width of around 75cm or 30".

The old (1970s?) Componon suffered from contrast issues that mostly dropped away to invisibility when stopping down 2-3 stops and/or when working at more modest enlargements like 8x10 from a 35mm.
I had to look really, really hard to spot any meaningful difference between the Nikkor and the Rodenstock at sensible working apertures and to be perfectly frank, couldn't see any difference that would allow me to tell which lens was which if I hadn't been taking good notes. The Rodenstock did produce superior contrast and resolving power to the Nikkor at full enlargement and wide-open, but this difference was invisible at more sane enlargements.

My conclusion was that if I were to benefit from the superior performance of the Rodagon, I would have to make fundamental changes to my workflow especially at the front of the process - always carry a tripod, only use the sharpest available lenses, always use them at their ideal aperture, etc. And always enlarge everything to 30" width, of course. In reality, I walk around with a portable camera and an affordable lens, most of the time when shooting 35mm (which is most of what I do) I don't carry a tripod because hey, if I'm going to haul mass around, I'm better off shooting a larger format anyway, so a tripod for 35mm is mostly antithetic for me. Furthermore, I snap a shot under suboptimal lighting if it needs be, at a slower shutter speed than what can reasonably yield perfect sharpness, my focus will likely be off by a hair some of the time at least, and I may very well shoot at an aperture too wide or too small for optimal results anyway.

I decided that if someone were to gift me a Rodagon-N, I would try to remember to use that instead of the EL Nikkor. And that I would spend no time, let alone any money, on trying to purchase one, ever. Because in reality, that's just not where the bottleneck is.

You're only a strong as your weakest link. I use a tripod with MF about 95% of the time, and my own workflow is oriented to either making 16X20-ish black and white prints from 6x7 or 6x9 negs worthy to be in the same portfolio as 4x5 and 8X10 enlargements, or else making up to 20X24 color prints worthy to be hung alongside those attained from large format shots as well. That's a tall order; but I routinely accomplish it. Bigger than that... well, then it's no contest with 4x5 or 8x10.

30 or 40-inch width from anything enlarged from MF is only worthy of viewing from a distance. Different ballgame.

That being said, sometimes it's not the sheer subject detail which warrants an especially crisp enlarging lens, but perhaps the character of the film grain itself, especially in the case of 35mm work, where that can lend an interesting layer of character to the image.

To each his own. I've tried all kinds of enlarging lenses for all kinds of formats, have sold off quite a few of them, but still keep a selection. Each has its own character when it comes to fine-tuning images. But most people would probably get along just fine with a few ordinary ones. And "ordinary" Rodagons and El Nikkors are generally very good enlarging lenses; numerous others could be mentioned too.

An extremely underrated enlarging lens in the same class is the Fujinon-EX 90mm f5.6, which can be had in mint/near-mint condition for around $100-$125 if you want an incredible price/performance ratio and are on a budget. It is an apochromatic design even though Fuji didn't label their APO lenses as such.

Fuji also offered a 135 EX lens, likewise noteworthy with respect to potential 6x9 applications. It's only problem is an odd thread size.

When I taught photography at a local community college one of the class projects was to do a blind viewing of the same negatives shot with a 35mm, Nikon FG with Nikon AI 50 1.4, 6X6 shot on Kowa with 80mm 2.8 6X9 shot on Mamiya Universal on Mamiya 80 3.5 and 4X5 shot on Speed Graphic, ground glass back with Kodak 150,, commercial ektar. All printed on Kodak Elite glossy at grade 2, at 5X7, 8X10, 11X14 and 16X20 on a variety of enlarging lens, some I had, some the college owned and an APO that a well heeled student brought in. I had a 3 elements 50mm and 75mm that I collect somewhere. I owned 4 and 6 elements the college owned a set of Rodenstock 6 elements lens. The enlarger was a D6 with condenser head. Viewing audience were students and staff, we had over a hundred viewers. We only asked each viewer to rate the photos from lest to best "liked". The 3 element 50mm and 75mm I brought in were judged to the the worst in 35mm and 6X6 in all sizes. There was no statistical difference differance between the 4 element and 6 element lens from 35mm to 6X9 when corrected for size of negative. My Kodak and Wollensak 50mm 4 elements did just as well as the Rodenstock and Schneider 6 element lens. My 4 element Rodenstock 80mm and the colleges were judge to be equal with 6X6, as did my 4 element and schools 6 element 105 up to 16/x20 while at 20X24 the schools element won the day. With 4X5 we had 3 lens, my 6 element Wollensak Pro raptor 162 and Vivitar 150 F4 along the the School's 150 Rodenstock and the students' 150 APO, (I don't recall the maker) the APO was judged superior at 20X24.

When 4 elments lens, Wollensak and Kodak Ektaras were designed for smaller enlargements, 5X7 to 11X14. There can be found for little money. But they are slow, a fast 6 element lens may be worth to money for ease of focusing.

If you plan on printing very large then a APO lens can be wise investment, if your on a budget and plan on printing up to 11X14 then a good quality 4 element is doable. I use my Wollensakes for 35mm and 6X6 on my Metopa while I use a 6 element 2,8 Schneider on my D3. I now have a 6 element Rodenstock 105 for 6X9 and continue with the Wollensak 6 element lens for 4X5. As I print up to 11X14 I could easily get by with Wollentaks and Kodaks.

DREW WILEY said:

You're only a strong as your weakest link.

Click to expand...

It's even worse. You're only as strong as the weakness of each link multiplied by each other. On the basis of that argument, there's probably some sense in using the best enlarger lens you can reasonably get, but....the tiny little difference between a good and a stellar lens isn't going to break a technically reasonable (not necessarily near-perfect) image, nor is it going to fix any of the problems incurred elsewhere in the process.

I can see how for some it's relevant or (emotionally) important to use the best lens they can get their hands on. I'm just not that kind of person, and I suspect I'm not really alone in this, either.

koraks said:

I can see how for some it's relevant or (emotionally) important to use the best lens they can get their hands on. I'm just not that kind of person, and I suspect I'm not really alone in this, either.

Click to expand...

To quote the greatest photographer of our age: "What does it all MEAN, Basil??"

You're not alone in that. I'll readily admit to being Public Enemy #1 when it comes to the resolving capacity of enlarger lenses, of which I've both used and discarded a small busload. There are times that I definitely want an image to have really great resolution, tonality and texture, and those are the times when it feels like the lens that can even get close to what I'm looking for has never been invented...but there are also times where my old Componon-S with fungus scars and lens-glitter covering up 92% of the interior is simply too sharp for what I'm trying to create. I think that in the end, it comes down to what the lens does on the paper, and not what it should do on paper; rather, practice vs. theory. It's kind of like what @Paul Howell said: one has to rank things by what one likes, and that may not be the best lens that can be found. It's all about what you want to do; not what some abstract chart says is the "best."

Also, there's that other elephantine fact that we have to consider: having a great lens won't make the prints any better. I mean, if I went around saying that I was Michael Kenna just because some moistened bint lobbed a high-grade Rodagon at me, they'd put me away.

Lens selection is basically just another tool selection choice. I've heard my share of arguments over laminated Japanese woodworking chisels versus German or English steel, versus cheapo Home Center options, versus a chainsaw if you really want to go funky. I have my own reasons for still having a variety of enlarging lenses, none of the funky variety, however. With a few notable exceptions, most enlarging lenses are so affordable today on the used market that it becomes easy to get any number of technically excellent ones.

koraks said:

That corresponded to an image width of around 75cm or 30".

Click to expand...

Unfortunately you're running outside the optimal enlargement range for all those lenses at that size - 10x & 15x would tell more useful information about those lenses, rather than running them at a point where they are more likely to be travelling towards relatively more equally less-optimal performance. Most lens, especially enlarging lens tests, are, as you said, tests of critical (often vibration derived) failure points in people's systems. That said and done, the cheap 75 Nikkor at 10x off 35mm will hold up to double blind print comparisons with first-class 6-element 50's at the same size - done on a very securely bolted down De Vere 504FS - you could immediately see the 4-element 50's failing by that point. At 25x, the difference between excellent 50's and a Rodagon-G 50 was equally striking in terms of the transmission of negative structure and contrast - and hilariously illustrative of how wrong people's untested - but inevitably very vocally asserted - assumptions are about how sharp D-76 developed negs really are.

Largely all you're getting with the Apo-N and HM lenses is a somewhat broader enlargement range (bit more coverage too) and nominally more usable performance across more of the field at a stop or so earlier than a regular Rodagon/ Componon-S. That doesn't necessarily mean their across-the-field performance is as consistent or good at 2-stops down as a plain (newer) Rodagon 105 within its optimal enlargement range. The Rodagon-G's are up there with the Apo-EL-Nikkors for enlargements at scales where it might be visually perceptible, but are far far rarer - and were much more expensive at a time when you could probably acquire an Apo-EL if you knew the right pre-press house who would otherwise be scrapping depreciated kit (headline market prices don't tell the full truth) - Nikon dumped their graphic arts lens range quite a while before everyone else did.

A good 6-element 105 (doesn't need to be any of the specialist ones) is really all that most people will need - throw in a decent 40/50 and a 135/150 (doesn't need to be anything special at all) - and they'll be able to cover almost all their 135/ 120/ 4x5" needs out to 16x20"-20x24" (which, let's be honest, is as big as a great many people who want to print their own work in a darkroom will be able - or want - to achieve)- the change can be spent on making sure their enlarger is adequately vibration free.

As Ian points out

"A good 6-element 105 (doesn't need to be any of the specialist ones) is really all that most people will need - throw in a decent 40/50 and a 135/150 (doesn't need to be anything special at all) - and they'll be able to cover almost all their 135/ 120/ 4x5" needs out to 16x20"-20x24" (which, let's be honest, is as big as a great many people who want to print their own work in a darkroom will be able - or want - to achieve)- the change can be spent on making sure their enlarger is adequately vibration free."

Before spending a lot of money ask yourself what are needs? If you printing 8X10 to 11X14 a good 4 element or 6 element will meet all of your needs. If you thinking 16X20 to 20X24 then a 6 element, if you want the best color and have deep pockets then perhaps an APO.

@Paul Howell - I was going to add a comment that if someone is working only to 8x10" from 135/120, a 90 or 105 Rogonar-S (or Fuji/ Schneider etc) will deliver just fine, but felt I'd added quite enough potentially confusing options by that point!

A lot of good enlarging lenses will generally pretty accurately spit back what they are fed, taking lens aberrations and all - but some of them attempt to further correct for those, which is what some of the alphabet soup alludes to, rather than being purely 'Apo'.

Related question: are any of the older enlarging lenses worth considering? Sure, stuff from the 40's and 50's probably won't be as technically perfect as the newer efforts, but some of my antiquated lenses have taught me that there's often a lot to be had from vintage designs. It might be something to consider...and since I'm vaguely in the market for a 6x9-specific lens to enlarge stuff from my old and busted Medalist, I'd like to hear some learned opinions on the subject

Mods, feel free to move this if it's too much of a departure.

Let's just say if you aren't using a full glass carrier, all bets are off in terms of sharpness. If you don't want to bother with that, then don't waste money on an expensive enlarging lens; it won't make much difference.

Old lenses, special look? If I want that kind of "special" I attach a colorless glass filter to the lens and smear some vaseline on it - an authentic old trick, especially for flawed complexions. Or the nylon stocking over the lens method. But nowadays you can just scan the negative and use a "fungus in lens" or "cobwebs" app instead.

But since lots of older enlarging lenses can be had for almost free, or downright free, it might be fun to play with some of them.

Lachlan - there was a time when the biggest AV & Graphics house in this area bellied up, and a couple dozen brand new Apo El Nikkors went right into a dumpster, along with a number of Goerz Blue Dot Trigors. None of them were salvaged. Once in awhile a process camera would turn up in the architectural salvage store with a Trigor on it, with the whole thing dirt cheap. I kept looking, but only spotted Roganors. But I did manage to cannibalize a whole set of Apo Nikkors for free from a giant abandoned process camera.

DREW WILEY said:

Let's just say if you aren't using a full glass carrier, all bets are off in terms of sharpness. If you don't want to bother with that, then don't waste money on an expensive enlarging lens; it won't make much difference.

Click to expand...

I have a few of those; they work really well, outside of the dust issues.

DREW WILEY said:

Old lenses, special look? If I want that kind of "special" I attach a colorless glass filter to the lens and smear some vaseline on it - an authentic old trick, especially for flawed complexions. Or the nylon stocking over the lens method. But nowadays you can just scan the negative and use a "fungus in lens" or "cobwebs" app instead.

Click to expand...

Well, since I don't have a scanner, printer or software that will do any kind of decent job with digital conversion, those methods are right out...but I do still have that fungified Componon if I want that particular effect. This being said: I'm not really talking about the intentionally-flawed or altered look; that's a heavier and palpable manipulation than what I was intending. I guess I'm thinking of something with more subtlety and less overtness...and I know I'm not describing it well, but I'm not sure how to describe it.

I already mentioned how I often fine tune RA4 color image contrast a little bit via enlarger lens choice - for example Apo Rodagon N versus regular Rodagon. That's easier to do than supplemental contrast masking (which excels at more significant contrast changes). Or I've used certain lenses to accentuate illumination falloff one way or the other, but mainly in relation to Cibachrome, where falloff equates to darkened corners rather than lighter corners needing burning in, like when printing negatives. I'm more into subtle sensitive controls than what I term "artsy/craftsy" effects.

DREW WILEY said:

I'm more into subtle sensitive controls than what I term "artsy/craftsy" effects.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not looking for artsy/craftsy... I just sometimes want something a little less-technically-flawless than the exacting perfection of modern lenses.

A parallel example might help clarify my meaning. I once had two different generations of the same 50-mm lens; I had an older one from the late 50's and a much newer one from the late 90's with more modern optics, coatings, etc. Sharpness-wise, they were equivalently good; it was hard to tell one from the other...but even though the later lens made great images, the earlier one just had a better look. It wasn't soft or "artsy" in any way; it just felt more dynamic and luminous...so I kept that one and got rid of the later-edition one. It's not the only time I've seen that kind of thing happen, so I was just thinking on the nature of that occurrence as it relates to enlarging lenses.

Sundowner said:

are any of the older enlarging lenses worth considering?

Click to expand...

Yes. But you will often find that they are only slightly different in contrast and colour fringing handling than newer lenses. Kodak's enlarging Ektars and Ektanons, first gen Schneider Comparons and Componons all fit the era you're talking about. Many of them aren't particular bargains though. Meopta's 105mm Anaret-S is something you should give serious consideration too.

I have both Kodak and Wollensak lens, from the 50s, in , 75, 80, 90, 135 and a 162, the Wollensaks are the pro versions, so they are 6 element lens. The Kodaks are all Ektars 4 elements. All are coated, they hold up well against my newer German lens, at 11X14 just as sharp. I have not noticed any large differences in contrast due to better coating. The only lens I have that is really different is on a Federal Stowaway Jr with a fixed 2 element lens with waterhouse stops. I do use when I want a softer image on 6X6 and 6X9 negatives 5, it is sharp, but I think the lens is uncoated and contrast is lower, and somewhat different, I have not replicated the look by using a lower graded or VC paper.

Lachlan Young said:

Yes. But you will often find that they are only slightly different in contrast and colour fringing handling than newer lenses.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the differences I'm talking about are very slight; it's more of a subjective feel than an objective, measurable quantity.

Lachlan Young said:

Kodak's enlarging Ektars and Ektanons, first gen Schneider Comparons and Componons all fit the era you're talking about. Many of them aren't particular bargains though. Meopta's 105mm Anaret-S is something you should give serious consideration too.

Click to expand...

You know, I am unfamiliar with Meopta to the point of literally forgetting about them unless someone brings them up. Thank you; I'll check into that one.

Paul Howell said:

I have both Kodak and Wollensak lens, from the 50s, in , 75, 80, 90, 135 and a 162, the Wollensaks are the pro versions, so they are 6 element lens. The Kodaks are all Ektars 4 elements. All are coated, they hold up well against my newer German lens, at 11X14 just as sharp. I have not noticed any large differences in contrast due to better coating. The only lens I have that is really different is on a Federal Stowaway Jr with a fixed 2 element lens with waterhouse stops. I do use when I want a softer image on 6X6 and 6X9 negatives 5, it is sharp, but I think the lens is uncoated and contrast is lower, and somewhat different, I have not replicated the look by using a lower graded or VC paper.

Click to expand...

Wollensak is a good idea as well, and another manufacturer with whom I'm generally unfamiliar.

The two-element/Waterhouse lens sounds interesting; it's definitely going to fall into the "heavy" category of process signatures for me, but I like how you explained that you can't replicate the look with other means. That's exactly what I was trying to say in my own example, with my 50mm lenses; there's just a certain look to one of them that I can't seem to replicate with other methods. It's not a strong effect - maybe a 1.25 on a scale of 1 to 10 - but it's there.

I think the 2 elments lens on the federal is uncoated, the contrast is different, not in a bad way just different. Second is that it is a bit softer around the edges, I doubt that it can resolve the LPM found in modern papers or negatives, and the enlarger is a diffusion type, it has a frosted glass plate but used a bear bulb. I used a LED to compare with the bear bulb, somehow it is different. The Federal Stowaway Jr is 6X9, works with 6X6 but painfully slow with 35mm. The next model up the Stowaway is a condenser modes with interchangeable lens.