Enlarger lens

[MattAndre]

Looking for suggestions for an enlarger lens for 6x9. I currently am using a 75mm f3.5 on my Beseler 45. I am getting some vignetting in the corners. Is 75mm to short for 6x9? Any recommendations greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[koraks]

Is 75mm to short for 6x9?

Yes. Try something along the lines of 105mm or longer. 75mm lenses are nice for 6x6cm but most will not have enough coverage for 6x7 or 6x9.

 

[Sanug]

The Meopta Anaret 105 mm is suitable for 6x9 and a bargain.

 

[miha]

I have a Schneider / Durst Componon 105mm f/5,6 that I'm very happy with (but I don't print 6x9 with it, only 6x7).

 

[Carnie Bob]

I use an Apo Rodagon f4 90mm for 6 x 9 images.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a Schneider / Durst Componon 105mm f/5,6 that I'm very happy with (but I don't print 6x9 with it, only 6x7).

That's what I have used for 6x9, the ones marked Durst were very common on roll-head colour printers. Around 20 years ago I was given two Durst turrets with various Componon & S lenses, 50mm to 135mm. I gave a few spare 105mm Componon lenses away on this Forum.

The 105mm componon was replaced by the 100mm Componon S, that's what I use now.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

I use a Rosenstock 105. 4 elements for 8X10 and 11X14, and a Wollensak 135 for 5X7 as I like the enlarger stage to be a bit higher for burning and dodging.

 

[retina_restoration]

for 6x9cm negatives, I am using a 105mm El-Nikkor lens. It covers 6x9 with ease.

 

[MattKing]

I use an Apo Rodagon f4 90mm for 6 x 9 images.

This is a very good lens, and I expect Bob gets great results from it, and paid a lot for it.
In order to be good for 6x9, a 90mm lens has to be both very good, and be designed for more than usual coverage, which usually implies both relatively expensive and relatively harder to find.
I use a six element (IIRC) 105mm lens for 6x9. I use that lens or a 90mm lens for 6x7.

 

[ic-racer]

Do you have the instructions for your enlarger? Frequently the lens, carrier, lensboard, mixing box and or condenser setup will be described for each negative size the enlarger can handle.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I often use an Apo Rodagon N 105, but prefer even better the Apo Rodagon N 150 because of its perfectly even illumination per 6x9 format, even at wide stops. With the 105, an amount of corner burning is generally still needed (there is no vignetting at all, however). These are of course are rather deluxe options with outstanding tonality renditon, certainly better than my old 100 Componon S. As a kind of compromise focal length, if you have enough column height, something 135mm might be nice.

 

[Carnie Bob]

kkkkk

This is a very good lens, and I expect Bob gets great results from it, and paid a lot for it.
In order to be good for 6x9, a 90mm lens has to be both very good, and be designed for more than usual coverage, which usually implies both relatively expensive and relatively harder to find.
I use a six element (IIRC) 105mm lens for 6x9. I use that lens or a 90mm lens for 6x7.

Hi Matt- it is my fav lens I got rid of all my APO 80's because of the two 90's I have. Like Drew I would not hesitate to use APO 150 if the enlargement size was not to much.

 

[Sundowner]

As a kind of compromise focal length, if you have enough column height, something 135mm might be nice.

I've used some 135's for that format; in my experience it's always a rather nice length and look, mostly regardless of manufacturer. That being said: at this point in my life I would happily pick up an Apo-N of one flavor or another if anyone would ever part from one for less than all of the monies. I don't mind paying a large portion of the monies, but it seems like the only ones I ever see for sale are priced significantly higher than that.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Looking for suggestions for an enlarger lens for 6x9. I currently am using a 75mm f3.5 on my Beseler 45. I am getting some vignetting in the corners. Is 75mm to short for 6x9? Any recommendations greatly appreciated. Thanks.

It is. I recommend a 105 mm lens, such asthe Nikon EL 105mm.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you aren't planning on making big prints then like others have said, go longer. 135/150mm would give you nicer prints and give you a bit more room under the enlarger head for focusing.

 

[mshchem]

If you aren't planning on making big prints then like others have said, go longer. 135/150mm would give you nicer prints and give you a bit more room under the enlarger head for focusing.

+1

 

[Don_ih]

I use a Kodak Enlarging Ektar 90 for my rare enlarging of 6x9. I compared it with my Rodagon 150 for even illumination and couldn't find a difference. That said, I think it was specifically made for 6x7. They made 3"(76mm) for 6x6 and 4"(101mm) for 6x9. Enlarging Ektars are good lenses and not that expensive.

 

[MattKing]

I use a Kodak Enlarging Ektar 90 for my rare enlarging of 6x9. I compared it with my Rodagon 150 for even illumination and couldn't find a difference. That said, I think it was specifically made for 6x7.

I would be surprised, Don, if the Enlarging Ektar 90 was made for 6x7, only because I don't think 6x7 was really a common format when the Ektar 90 was being made.
There might however have been other film formats not on 6 cm/2.25" wide roll film where the frame diagonal was appropriate for a 90mm lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have both a Ektar and Wollensak 90s, they will cover 6X9, I last used the Wollensak maybe 20 years ago to make a set of 16X20. I think the Ektar is a 4 element in 4 groups, while the Wollensak pro 6 element in 4 groups. Maybe I am not have the darkroom eyes to spot any uneven illumination with either. Up to 11X14 the 105 seems to work best for me.

 

[Don_ih]

I would be surprised, Don, if the Enlarging Ektar 90 was made for 6x7, only because I don't think 6x7 was really a common format when the Ektar 90 was being made.

That's true. Let's not say nominal 6x7 but factual ~6x7.

 

[ic-racer]

Don't go longer than 105mm. In the event you want to ever make a large print, you will then need to get a new lens. For small prints 105 vs 135 vs 150 makes no difference. The advantage of a longer focal length is for massive enlargements, where a 105 might come near it's sharp image circle requiring precise centering of the image, assuming a conventional, non-high magnification 105 design, even covers a massive enlargement.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, even with a 105 you need to be careful to properly center a 6x9 neg, whereas with a 135 or 150 lens, the center portion of the optical field is significantly more liberal.

But whenever possible, logistically, I prefer longer than "normal" focal length enlarging lenses, regardless of print size; and 105 is merely normal for 6x9.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The advantage of a longer focal length is for massive enlargements, where a 105 might come near it's sharp image circle requiring precise centering of the image, assuming a conventional, non-high magnification 105 design, even covers a massive enlargement.

If they're routinely going out beyond 10x, a 105 Rodagon-G is the investment they want to be making.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 105 Rodagon G is a specialty lens, recommended for 10X to 40X, but optimized at 20X. By comparison, both the 105 Apo Rodagon N and regular Rodagon are recommended for 2X to 15X.
Well, 15X is still a pretty darn bit big print from a tiny little 6x9 negative - four feet wide!

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Two of the very best lenses for 6x7/6x9 are the Rodagon APO 90mm f4 and the Schneider APO Componon 90mm 4.5 HM (the HM stands for High Modulation). Here is what ChatGPT says about these two enlarger lenses:

1. Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 90mm f/4.0​

• Best for: 6x7 and 6x9 formats
• Why it's the best:
  • Apochromatic design for superior color correction
  • Extremely high resolution and contrast across the entire field
  • Optimized for high-magnification enlargements
  • Even illumination with minimal light falloff
  • Low distortion and near-zero chromatic aberration

2. Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Componon HM 90mm f/4.5​

• Best for: 6x7 and 6x9 formats
• Why it's the best:
  • HM (High Modulation) glass for the highest contrast and resolution
  • Apochromatic correction for zero visible chromatic aberration
  • Very flat field for edge-to-edge sharpness
  • Designed for both black & white and color enlarging
  • Excellent coating to minimize flare and maximize micro-contrast

​

Both the Apo-Rodagon-N 90mm f/4.0 and Apo-Componon HM 90mm f/4.5 are considered the best enlarging lenses ever made for medium format, especially for fine art printing and large-scale enlargements. If you have access to either, you’re getting the absolute top-tier performance for your 6x7 and 6x9 prints.

How they differ (character):

The Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 90mm f/4.0 and the Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Componon HM 90mm f/4.5 are both exceptional enlarging lenses for medium format negatives, but they have subtle differences in image characteristics. The Rodenstock is known for its extremely high resolution and higher contrast, producing sharp, punchy prints that are particularly well-suited for black-and-white work and high-magnification enlargements. It renders colors with a neutral to cool tone and maintains excellent sharpness across the frame, with its best performance around f/5.6 to f/8.

The Schneider, while also highly resolved, has slightly softer micro-contrast, offering more delicate tonal gradations and a more organic look. Its contrast is a bit lower than the Rodenstock, which helps preserve detail in high-contrast negatives, making it an excellent choice for color printing. It tends to have a neutral to slightly warm color balance and is also optimized for best sharpness around f/5.6 to f/8.

Choosing between them depends on the desired print characteristics. The Rodenstock excels in delivering razor-sharp, high-contrast images, ideal for black-and-white work and large prints. In contrast, the Schneider is favored for smoother tonal transitions, making it well-suited for color enlargements or prints where a more subtle, natural rendering is preferred.

​