Enlarging lens performance

Given that a hell of a lot of enlarging lenses are sold nowadays as second, third etc. hand and that, even when new, there are bound to be manufacturing and QC differences between a manufacturer's model and another, how useful are threads rating different enlarging lenses? Then of course, there is the case of lenses made by an unknown third party that may be sold under several different brands. There appears to be a standard answer of, "it has to be Schneider, Rodenstock or El Nikor", as if those companies were the only ones engaged in serious lens manufacture.
The second question is what differences could the average user notice even when printing up to a maximum size of, say, 20x24"?

I have an often disparaged 75mm Fuji that I like just fine, as well as a no-name 150mm that works as well as my El-Nikor 135mm but the shorter focal length makes it handier.

Look at what pro labs use. It shall give you the answer.

Dali said:

Look at what pro labs use. It shall give you the answer.

Click to expand...

Well, what do they use? As Fuji is one of the big players, I suppose their machines are equipped with Fujinon lenses.

Enlarging and process work is probably the most demanding work for the lenses we commonly use. I suspect that individual sample of a given lens design will vary more than differences between competing brands of similar design. I have an old Schneider Comparon 150mm/5.6 that is stellar in its performance even though only a 4-element lens. But the design is optimized for lower magnifications which is useful for reasonable sized enlargements from 4x5.

I've used several El-Nikkors over several decades, and have found them to be consistently good. However, replacing the original OEM 4 element f/4.5 135mm lens on my 1950s 4x5 DeJur enlarger with an El-Nikkor 6 element f/5.6 135mm lens didn't improve print quality perceptibly. This may say more about my standards than about El-Nikkor quality.

Martin Rickards said:

Well, what do they use? As Fuji is one of the big players, I suppose their machines are equipped with Fujinon lenses.

Click to expand...

Generally Rodenstock APO Ronars, Schneider Componons and G-Clarons and EI Nikkors. I think that probably covers 90% of the pro labs out there.
As to Fuji/Fujinon: since optical enlargement in a machine setting is something from the past, I wouldn't know, but they probably used Fujinons back then, yes.

I personally don't see the difference between the various lenses I use, but I mostly use Componons of various vintages and EI Nikkors. Still I can't see the difference with the fungus-infected low-tier brand 150mm I sometimes use for 4x5...I'm with Jim on that one - probably says something about my standards.

I've used mostly El Nikors. I also have a Rodenstock 80mm. I think there are slight differences with black and white printing. Don't know too much how it will affect color printing. What I do know that most enlarger lenses have flat fields and nothing makes an enlarger lens perform poorly faster than a misaligned enlarger. Also, most enlarger lenses perform their best stop down a couple of stops from it's widest aperture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the differences between enlarger lenses isn't night and day.

I am in the EL Nikkor camp. However, over the last 50 years, I've owned and used Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, Wollensak, Lucky, and a few others. All can be fine. Minolta is reported to have made superb enlarging lenses (not surprising since their camera lenses are excellent), but I have no first hand knowledge.

I love my fuji lenses...was all in on Schneider but there are lots of duds out there
The fuji's are great..

My favorite enlarging lens is a Minolta C.E. 50mm 2.8. It's extremely well built and the performance is stellar. I also have Schneider, Rodenstock and EL-Nikkor lenses. They're all very good, but to my eyes the Minolta beats them all in terms of sharpness and contrast. When I started out, it was with one of the budget four-element Minolta Rokkors. That was also surprisingly good when stopped down a couple of stops, even when it started developing some fungus. If you come across a Minolta C.E. in good condition, grab it. It's one of the often-overlooked gems, perhaps because people tend to confuse it with the budget version.

there are lenses with three, four, six, seven and more elements

in any focal length some of the quality factors that matter are:

maximum aperture (faster lenses can be used with shorter exposure times, also they are brighter wide open and easier to focus)
corner darkening (all lenses suffer from this to a certain extent, it makes the corners of a the print lighter than the center which is often aesthetically displeasing)
flatness of field (are the corners and the center of the negative in focus at the same time at all apertures?)
chromatic aberration (how much red and blue blur is there? regular achromat lenses are corrected for two wavelengths red and blue, apo-chromatic lenses are corrected for three wavelengths)
range of enlargement factors it was designed for (for example 2x - 6x, outside this range results may be slightly inferior)

most lenses improve with closing the aperture

the Rodenstock catalog describes the quality gradations of their lenses in clear language, see the attachment (with apologies for the loss of some line justification, this is an extract, the original is too large to post unfortunately)


PS: better quality lenses offer three advantages: they are a pleasure to use; they deliver high quality results; they hold their resale value.

Martin Rickards said:

Given that a hell of a lot of enlarging lenses are sold nowadays as second, third etc. hand and that, even when new, there are bound to be manufacturing and QC differences between a manufacturer's model and another, how useful are threads rating different enlarging lenses? Then of course, there is the case of lenses made by an unknown third party that may be sold under several different brands. There appears to be a standard answer of, "it has to be Schneider, Rodenstock or El Nikor", as if those companies were the only ones engaged in serious lens manufacture.
The second question is what differences could the average user notice even when printing up to a maximum size of, say, 20x24"?

Click to expand...

the answer is quite simple: as long as you use a six-element name-brand enlarging lens, you probably can't do much better. the only possible improvements you can make are to stabilise the enlarger column and sandwich the negative between glass,

Martin Rickards said:

... how useful are threads rating different enlarging lenses? ...

Click to expand...

One could ask the same of any forum thread including this one.

Take an average of the information you find on the internet with a bias to answers from credible sources and/or posters. The consensus that I see, and backed by my own experience , is that you won't be disappointed by any decent 'modern' (ie lenses designed post c. 1980 but preferably later) six element lens when stopped down a couple of stops.

Brands/models id suggest are:
Fujinon EX
Minolta CE
Hoya EL/Osawa Tominon EL/Yashica (they are the same)
Rodenstock Rodagon (and apo versions)
Schneider Componon-s (and apo versions)
Nikon EL-Nikkors

The condition of any lens is important as haze, scratches or fungus will all have a softening effect to resolution or contrast, to varying degrees.

At the budget prices you can find top end enlarger lenses for, i dont see why to cheapen out even more on them....

afriman said:

My favorite enlarging lens is a Minolta C.E. 50mm 2.8. It's extremely well built and the performance is stellar. I also have Schneider, Rodenstock and EL-Nikkor lenses. They're all very good, but to my eyes the Minolta beats them all in terms of sharpness and contrast. When I started out, it was with one of the budget four-element Minolta Rokkors. That was also surprisingly good when stopped down a couple of stops, even when it started developing some fungus. If you come across a Minolta C.E. in good condition, grab it. It's one of the often-overlooked gems, perhaps because people tend to confuse it with the budget version.

Click to expand...

It's my enlarging lens too. As I'm not a collector, I've got very little to compare it with, but it seems to produce good copies.

jjphoto said:

One could ask the same of any forum thread including this one.

Take an average of the information you find on the internet with a bias to answers from credible sources and/or posters. The consensus that I see, and backed by my own experience , is that you won't be disappointed by any decent 'modern' (ie lenses designed post c. 1980 but preferably later) six element lens when stopped down a couple of stops.

Brands/models id suggest are:
Fujinon EX
Minolta CE
Hoya EL/Osawa Tominon EL/Yashica (they are the same)
Rodenstock Rodagon (and apo versions)
Schneider Componon-s (and apo versions)
Nikon EL-Nikkors

The condition of any lens is important as haze, scratches or fungus will all have a softening effect to resolution or contrast, to varying degrees.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, you could add the Meopta Meogons to that list.

Martin Rickards said:

From what I've read, you could add the Meopta Meogons to that list.

Click to expand...

Maybe. The Meogon 2.8/80 and Meogon S 2.8/50 are both 5/4 lenses so possibly not as well corrected as typical 6/4 or 6/5 lenses.

On the subject of odd optical designs, a few of the Fujinon EX lenses (90, 105, 135) are 6/6 which is quite unusual in enlarging lenses.

Martin Rickards said:

Given that a hell of a lot of enlarging lenses are sold nowadays as second, third etc. hand and that, even when new, there are bound to be manufacturing and QC differences between a manufacturer's model and another, how useful are threads rating different enlarging lenses? Then of course, there is the case of lenses made by an unknown third party that may be sold under several different brands. There appears to be a standard answer of, "it has to be Schneider, Rodenstock or El Nikor", as if those companies were the only ones engaged in serious lens manufacture.
The second question is what differences could the average user notice even when printing up to a maximum size of, say, 20x24"?

Click to expand...

The "average user" is the key in your question, not that those who call themselves "master or advanced printers" are necessarily more aware of what darkroom is for. The quality of an enlarging lens, it being the final player in optical path from subject to print (and not accounting for even more critical processing quality), MAY show up in large prints or one with fine detail that all up to enlarging stage had been done to near perfection and detail in question would get affected by enlarging len's qualities (which is also subjective). While 20x24" print is the start of large printing, it is arguable if lens will get in the way in majority of times.

Enlarging lenses, as are most analog photographic equipment and materials, can vary in price so widely, one needs to be careful. There are a ton of crazy sellers who want to put your house on a reverse mortgage so you can have that CULT-y thing that will change your photography forever. Truth being, the very same thing is likely to be had for a fraction, perhaps with some prudent patience.

If your budget is tight, get an enlarging lens you can afford from ANY known manufacturers, just ensure it is in an as-designed shape, working properly, and check prices through several sources before committing. If you have some leeway in budget, get the best you can, but with even more due diligence in ensuring you're not being had by the market crooks. This means essentially that top quality enlarging lens in 50-110 mm range should not cost you more than $100-150, and you can have them at half that with some luck.

Keep in mind that to get the best bargain is to look for whole darkrooms, or at least enlargers, as at times you will not believe what you can get for the price of lens that's part of it. In the end you may as well have the best for nothing if you opt to sell off the rest of that "kit' at rock bottom prices.

Last but not least, try to avoid taking "pixel peeping" advice which has more and ore trickled into analog photography. It hardly applies to most digital applications, and is a total nonsense in analog mediums.

One thing I want to point out: APO lenses are the last thing you want to consider. This is 3-4 times in price over the next best (say Schneider Componon-S line) and I don't know of the kind of microscope you would need to evaluate for differences. I'm sure a print enlarged through an APO lens shot by the great photographer Andy Warhol would sell for a couple of millions (and for 2 millions were it enlarged though piece of flat glass), but that's pretty much it.

Peter Schrager said:

I love my fuji lenses...was all in on Schneider but there are lots of duds out there
The fuji's are great..

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you should say that. Over time I was able to pick up a couple 50mm samples of both Componon-S and El_Nikkor. I settled on the Nikkor because the Componons just didn't seem to have the sparkle the Nikkors did. I was surprised because of the reputation that came with the Schneider products. I should do some kind of test; see if there's genuine empirical evidence rather than just "seeming" so.
thx!

Have a look in the book from Ctein who provides the criteria of a good enlarger lens and why a good lens should be used:
http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf
The book is currently free to download and it provides many details I was not aware.

I had a decent collection of enlarging lenses that I got when I bought out an old photographer's darkroom. I owned several from Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Beseler, Wollansak, and one Kodak. I sold the Rodenstocks, Schneiders, and Beselers, and kept the El Nikkors, Kodak, and Wollansaks. The reason? The Rodenstocks and Schneiders fetched the most money. The Beselers were all 4 element designs and most of the others (other than the Wollansaks and Kodak) were 6, and while I'm sure they would have been good enough for me, I had better at my disposal so I decided to take advantage of it. The El Nikkors seemed just as good as the Schneiders and Rodenstocks to my eye, but were newer looking, and since they didn't seem to command as much money on the used market, I decided to keep these and use them. The Wollansaks were in terrible condition, so while I tried to sell them (people don't want lenses with bad haze and scratches, even for a buck or two), no one would buy them. The Kodak I kept because it's a Heliar design and I might adapt it one day for normal camera use. That, and it didn't seem to have much value.

My point is, I wouldn't worry too much about enlarging lenses. You've got to be a damn fine printer doing some very demanding prints to get to the point where the lens is holding you back (assuming the lens is in good shape).

Speaking of Kodak enlarging lenses, I acquired a 75mm f4.5 Kodak Ektar enlarging lens specifically for negs from my Medalist, and I got it for $25 shipping included. It’s a superb lens IMO and I find the results are as good as any other lens I’ve used.

Martin Rickards said:

Well, what do they use? As Fuji is one of the big players, I suppose their machines are equipped with Fujinon lenses.

Click to expand...

..........a very....very....good point Martin!

Well this would lead us to a good question!

"What is a prof. lab today??"

If you regard a big costomers lab (the big players of remaining labs today) I can easily imagine
that their machines are equiped with Fuji lenses! (But I can't say - I realy don't know - but it would be quite possible).
What are these labs most printing ? Answer : Small prints for the masses of costumers!

With digitaly mixed workflow ! So we should regard the scanning units first - before we will come
to the lens characteristics of prof. labs?????

But a prof. lab could also mean : A smaler (individual) lab to real profs. (the most expensive ones today). I can't say for sure : " Fuji enlarger lenses??" it will obviously depend with he machines they have in use?


For example this fine machine here :






(Agfa Dlab2[laser guided digital printer400dpi)


So the equipment of prof. labs is a dead end for our darkroom????

Short answer : Y E S !

But never mind in details - what have great prof. labs used in the past (the small ones)? :

Rosenstock, Schneider Kreuznach a.s.o.

I will not come to the maths. concerning the design of lenses!

But have in mind pls. : The numbers of lens elements in total has nothing to say about the characteristics of a lens! But generally lenses with 6 or 7 elements are more expensive (from
construction/manufacturing) - so these lenses are often at the same time the more expensive
and better lenses.
Better we will see this issue from the opposite side :

Cheap enlarger lenses (the very cheap ones) with less elements are in many cases the ones from
poore characteristics - BUT NOT GENERALLY!



Have in mind if you are able that you are telling your budget what superior lens you need for your
darkroom !

Or you should think about : Is my budget is telling me how superior my darkroom will be equiped
with an enlarger lens???

In the second case there is a good middle way : exeptable cost from not too expensive lenses
AND consequently impact to ALL other darkroom parameters (good calibration)!
Because a good calibrated darkroom will cost you much less!

And for your lens that would mean : No "open" lens pls!

with regards


PS : Be smart and follow this thoughts : If you use an aperature of 5,6/8 with your cheaper
enlarger lens you can (in most cases) higher the characteristics of the cheaper lenses up to a level wich is in the very near of most expensive enlarger lenses at open lens (2.0)in comparison!

This workflow has indeed restrictions because with a poore lens from eBay at about 10bucks
you can't replace a used Rosenstock at about 970,- bucks!

Even NOT if you operate aperature at f11 Be aware because you should Google the term

"Sweetspot" that can help to save budget and it may help to invest in more papers!