Enlarging lens usage

Hey all! I’m looking for some relative enlarger lens experiences. I acquired two EL-Nikkor lenses, one 50mm f/2.8 and one 80mm f/5.6. Will be printing mostly 6x6 with some lingering 35mm stuff.

1. I assume lens behavior on enlarger is pretty similar to camera (f/5.6-8 will yield best sharpness)
2. I see these Apo lenses. Are there any people willing to go to bat for the relative quality and ROI that an Apo Rodagon lens will get me? I will probably be printing up to 16x20 maybe a tad larger. Is there any benefit at that size from Apo lenses with a sharp Hasselblad 6x6? I don’t believe I’ve ever used Apo lenses before nor have I experienced disappointment in sharpness department. Seems like anything will kick the pants off a flatbed lol
3. Not super lens related but my Dual Dichro head supports diffusion or condenser mode. The indication from the manual was that for color film the diffusion mode is not going to display as much difference as B&W film relative to condenser mode. Do other people have similar experiences?

Thanks!

For most non-APO lenses, two stops down from wide open is a usable rule of thumb for best performance.
Your 80mm f/5.6 may be an older model, and slightly more awkward to use than a more modern 80mm f/4 - the image at f/5.6 isn't particularly bright so focusing and cropping a large enlargement is a bit more difficult.
The APO lenses are optimized for larger enlargements. As part of that optimization, their wide open and one stop down from wide open performance is better. Large enlargements - particularly from colour negatives - are benefited if the exposure times can be kept reasonably short.
For smaller enlargements, don't worry too much about using smaller apertures. While diffraction at smaller apertures may reduce resolution, the reduction isn't as important at small magnification. Workable (not too short) print times are more important (IMHO).

Your El Nikkor 80 mm f5.6 was designed to cover up to 6x7 format so in theory you are using less than the maximum image circle for your Hasselblad negatives. This may be an advantage to weigh against the slower speed.

When I was teaching at the local community college in the 90s we did a blind test of various lens, made prints from 5X7 to 16 X 20. In the 5X7 to 8X10 range from 35mm negatives. The viewers, who did not know which lens were used for what photo, could not tell the difference between a 4 or 6 element lens or an APO, at 11X14 the 6 elements had a slight edge, but at 16X20 the one APO lens we had was the clear choice. Considering that you will be cropping a 6X6 for a 16X20 don't be surprised if your current lens seem to lose sharpness. Our test was limited to black and white, I think that if you intend to print 16X20 color you will want an APO.

nickandre said:

1. Not super lens related but my Dual Dichro head supports diffusion or condenser mode. The indication from the manual was that for color film the diffusion mode is not going to display as much difference as B&W film relative to condenser mode. Do other people have similar experiences?

Click to expand...

This all is about the Callier effect (read it up). Basically this effect only comes into existance at imageforming particles and not at respective dye clouds.
So strictly speaking it is not even matter of b&w versus colour, but rather particle versus dye, taking dye-based b&w films into account.

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0064/index.htm Here’s an interesting article about your Nikkor. I have one myself as well, and I also have a 90mm apo-rodagon. The 90 came attached to a Craigslist enlarger I got for free, a very nice surprise, and I was not able to notice any difference printing at f8, 8x10 between them. I have planning to sell the SK but haven’t gotten around to it, maybe because I imagine printing bigger some day.

Paul Howell said:

When I was teaching at the local community college in the 90s we did a blind test of various lens, made prints from 5X7 to 16 X 20. In the 5X7 to 8X10 range from 35mm negatives. The viewers, who did not know which lens were used for what photo, could not tell the difference between a 4 or 6 element lens or an APO, at 11X14 the 6 elements had a slight edge, but at 16X20 the one APO lens we had was the clear choice. Considering that you will be cropping a 6X6 for a 16X20 don't be surprised if your current lens seem to lose sharpness. Our test was limited to black and white, I think that if you intend to print 16X20 color you will want an APO.

Click to expand...

Paul, were all your lenses from the same generation? I remember reading in cteins book that the relative age of a lens design was a big factor in its quality. I can imagine your apo being newer than the rest. In my little test of the nikkor vs apo companon, I also had an old 60s 6 element 80/ 5.6 companon, which is actually quite decent but the 80s el nikkor clearly better.

MattKing said:

For most non-APO lenses, two stops down from wide open is a usable rule of thumb for best performance.
Your 80mm f/5.6 may be an older model, and slightly more awkward to use than a more modern 80mm f/4 - the image at f/5.6 isn't particularly bright so focusing and cropping a large enlargement is a bit more difficult.
The APO lenses are optimized for larger enlargements. As part of that optimization, their wide open and one stop down from wide open performance is better. Large enlargements - particularly from colour negatives - are benefited if the exposure times can be kept reasonably short.
For smaller enlargements, don't worry too much about using smaller apertures. While diffraction at smaller apertures may reduce resolution, the reduction isn't as important at small magnification. Workable (not too short) print times are more important (IMHO).

Click to expand...

By the way just to the clarify, at least in the el-Nikkor range the 80/5.6 is the better lens compared to the El-Nikkor 75/4, even though the 75 is brighter. The 75/f4 is a four element tessar design, the 80/5.6 (at least the "N" type) is a six element biometar design. I think Nikon's idea was to have a small and cheap lens and compared to German competitors, compete only in final print quality, and not even try to offer a brighter image for focusing.

Grim Tuesday said:

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0064/index.htm Here’s an interesting article about your Nikkor. I have one myself as well, and I also have a 90mm apo-companon. The 90 came attached to a Craigslist enlarger I got for free, a very nice surprise, and I was not able to notice any difference printing at f8, 8x10 between them. I have planning to sell the SK but haven’t gotten around to it, maybe because I imagine printing bigger some day.



Paul, were all your lenses from the same generation? I remember reading in cteins book that the relative age of a lens design was a big factor in its quality. I can imagine your apo being newer than the rest. In my little test of the nikkor vs apo companon, I also had an old 60s 6 element 80/ 5.6 companon, which is actually quite decent but the 80s el nikkor clearly better.

Click to expand...

The lens were all over the map, my Wollensakes and Kodak Ektar were likely from the 50s or 60s, the school's Schneider and Rodenstock were from the 80s when the enlargers were replaced, the lone APO was owned by a student, it was a Rodenstock and brand new, that was in the late 90s, The Wollensaks and Ektar are 4 elements optimized for smallest prints up to 8X10, in that range still excellent. The school's lens were all 6 element. I do have two 6 element Wollensaks a 135 and 162, the 135 will just cover 4X5 while the 162 is good for 5X7 from 4X5, but a bit to long form my Omega D3.

At least from a 35mm negative at 16X20 the APO was a tad better than the 6 elements and much better than my 4 element lens. My day to day lens is are the Wollensak 50 and 75, another sleeper lens is Meopta Belar 50 4.5, another 4 element lens that is quite good up to 11X14

Grim Tuesday said:

By the way just to the clarify, at least in the el-Nikkor range the 80/5.6 is the better lens compared to the El-Nikkor 75/4, even though the 75 is brighter. The 75/f4 is a four element tessar design, the 80/5.6 (at least the "N" type) is a six element biometar design. I think Nikon's idea was to have a small and cheap lens and compared to German competitors, compete only in final print quality, and not even try to offer a brighter image for focusing.

Click to expand...

My apologies - I mixed up the Rodagon and Componon options with the El Nikkor options.
The El Nikkor line does not include an 80mm f/4. My newer Rodagon 80mm lens is a stop faster than my older Rodagon 80mm lens, and an improvement.

El Nikkors are not officially apo lenses; but most of them are very well corrected, especially two stops down. Nikon did make true apo lenses; but these were once expensive and marketed to the printing trade; I use some of them on my large format enlargers, but all are much too long a focal length to be practical for MF work. Among the El Nikkor choices, the 75/4 is a miserable dog exhibiting focus shift and soft corners, although I use one for 35mm film, where it works quite well because only the center of the optic is involved. The more expensive 80/5.6 is the one you want, or better yet, a 105. But in that focal length, I personally use a 105 Apo Rodagon N, a pricier animal, but well worth it to me.

But as I've stated numerous times before, unless you're using a precision carrier with glass on both sides to keep the film truly flat, and have all your other enlarging planes true, and you're print paper itself flat, none of this lens talk means much. You might as well be using a Coke bottle for enlarging.

DREW WILEY said:

El Nikkors are not officially apo lenses; but most of them are very well corrected, especially two stops down. Nikon did make true apo lenses; but these were once expensive and marketed to the printing trade; I use some of them on my large format enlargers, but all are much too long a focal length to be practical for MF work. Among the El Nikkor choices, the 75/4 is a miserable dog exhibiting focus shift and soft corners, although I use one for 35mm film, where it works quite well because only the center of the optic is involved. The more expensive 80/5.6 is the one you want, or better yet, a 105. But in that focal length, I personally use a 105 Apo Rodagon N, a pricier animal, but well worth it to me.

But as I've stated numerous times before, unless you're using a precision carrier with glass on both sides to keep the film truly flat, and have all your other enlarging planes true, and you're print paper itself flat, none of this lens talk means much. You might as well be using a Coke bottle for enlarging.

Click to expand...

I assume I'm SOL for good original glass negative carriers, right? And presumably the flatness is only an issue for edge-to-edge sharpness, not for an image already blurry on the periphery?

There is some dude printing 3D printed negative carriers. Curious if I can source the correct optical glass. Does anyone have tips on that end?

nickandre said:

I assume I'm SOL for good original glass negative carriers, right? And presumably the flatness is only an issue for edge-to-edge sharpness, not for an image already blurry on the periphery?

There is some dude printing 3D printed negative carriers. Curious if I can source the correct optical glass. Does anyone have tips on that end?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be sure you can't find glass carriers--depends on the negative size and the enlarger model. You can always use a carrier designed for a larger negative, masing out the excess opening on the top side. I don't think you can convert a glassless carrier, whether 3D printed or metal into a glass one easily, and anti-newton ring glass (a necessity for the emulsion side) is hard to come by nowadays.

On the other hand, I use a glassless carrier all the time for medium format with an LED head and I have no problems with sharpness. And a negative that is not sharp on the edges will not get any sharper with a glass carrier!

Pieter12 said:

I wouldn't be sure you can't find glass carriers--depends on the negative size and the enlarger model. You can always use a carrier designed for a larger negative, masing out the excess opening on the top side. I don't think you can convert a glassless carrier, whether 3D printed or metal into a glass one easily, and anti-newton ring glass (a necessity for the emulsion side) is hard to come by nowadays.

On the other hand, I use a glassless carrier all the time for medium format with an LED head and I have no problems with sharpness. And a negative that is not sharp on the edges will not get any sharper with a glass carrier!

Click to expand...

Aha! It would appear I can get a 6x9 carrier for the 23C from Beseler themselves for a mere $300.

nickandre said:

Aha! It would appear I can get a 6x9 carrier for the 23C from Beseler themselves for a mere $300.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd stick with ebay or the sale/trade/wtb forums on APUG, photo.net, etc.. Beseler prices them that high because volumes are so low, and volumes are so low because the prices are so high.

The whole APO/glass carrier thing is quite a pain what with keeping the enlarger aligned (something Beselers aren't noted for), keeping the glass clean, dealing with zilch depth of field because the lens is used close to wide-open, and having negatives of a quality that can take advantage of an APO system.

My advice to folks is to try plain-old El-Nikkors and glassless carriers first and see how you like the results.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Yeah, I'd stick with ebay or the sale/trade/wtb forums on APUG, photo.net, etc.. Beseler prices them that high because volumes are so low, and volumes are so low because the prices are so high.

There's a vendor on ebay offering 3D printed carriers for about $40, this is also in the range of going prices for used carriers.

Click to expand...

I ordered one of those (oversized 6x6) but it’s not going to solve the glass problem. Will probably start there and see how it goes. I would guess that it won’t be a problem for negatives that don’t require edge to edge sharpness.

Just depends on your expectation of quality. No, you don't need a dimensionally-stable glass carrier or even a better quality enlarging lens just to have fun in the darkroom. But that's the only way you're going to get precise results if that is what you do have in mind. Anyone who states they have "no problem" with glassless carriers has probably never made an objective comparison of with or without. Repeatedly cleaning carrier glass is indeed a chore. I went through it this morning; but it was for sake of a master 8X10 internegative of an 8x10 chrome original, which at today's prices would cost around $80 to generate in terms of film and film development, not to mention the hours involved in precisely masking registered masks - and that's all before the expense of even printing it. But the actual result was well worth it.

Every little step learning quality control advances you one step further. And eventually, cumulatively, one can do some serious things if they put in the necessary fuss and investment up front. That's my way of looking at things. And yes, I was using a very solid enlarger today too, which originally cost around $27,000. What did I pay for it? Zero, except to buy the gas for the truck of one of the fellows who helped me move it (it took six of us). But I did invest in a new bellows and new anti-Newton glass. It's still available any size you need. My most recent set of AN glass was supplied by Scan Tech in the LA area.

DREW WILEY said:

Just depends on your expectation of quality. ... I was using a very solid enlarger today too, which originally cost around $27,000.

Click to expand...

That is often a problem with forums like this. There is such a wide range in "expectations of quality."

I make pictures to please myself. Sometimes they please other people. And I like technical excellence, I'm an engineer by profession after all. I'll take a 10x jewelers' loupe to the corners of a 20x24 print, so I have my anal-retentive cred. But what pleases me about my photos has not much to do with their technical merit, instead it is how they move me. Some are pin-sharp and some are enigmatic blurs.

As a result of some readings on sites such as this I purchased an APO Rodagon and an AN glass carrier and a laser aligner (it's a Beseler 45MX so alignment needs to be tweaked into line whenever the head is moved up or down) and, frankly, as should be obvious, I was underwhelmed by the results. All the fuss didn't improve any of my prints. That's my experience and my opinion, take it or leave at as you see fit.

Mr. Wiley's operation obviously dwarfs mine and his required level of quality is much higher than my own. Quite beyond me, in fact. (Wouldn't happen to be a Wild-Heerbrug rectifying enlarger?)

Everyone who comments in a thread like this has a valid and very different perspective. It's up to the reader to synthesize what he can from the cacophony and maybe use the result to inform his own decisions. There is no 'right' answer here. The goal is making art, and the quality of the result resides the eye of the beholder.

I've noticed a difugalty in these forums: the more trivial the subject matter the more heated the discussion. 15 years and 50 pages on the merits of stop baths - it boggles my mind.

I had a nice system of optimizing aperture for focus over a curved field and and negative pre-heating. I used this system with good success until 2008 when I got my 8x10 Durst with a glass carrier. Slowly I have converted all 5 of my enlargers to glass carriers. Much less hassle; focus and forget it.

Start working with registered masks and so forth, and all the debate about glass carriers is instantly over. I did strictly large format color printing my first ten years, where masking was routine. Had to clean one of my Durst 10X10 AN glass carriers three times yesterday. No big deal; just part of the routine. Digital printers don't get away with anything; they still have to spend time a lot of time sitting on their sore arse digitally spotting whatever remained on the film when they scanned it, or whatever. And dust still might circulate inside "glassless" enlargers, and will land on the film anyway. There is simply no substitute for working clean, no matter how you slice the pie.

But I'm not trying to make converts. One of my backpacking buddies likes to carry expensive MF gear and ultra-fine-grained films like Tech Pan. He enlarges glassless. And he just ignores all the little BB's and zits in the sky afterwards. He's made some very interesting prints. But it makes little sense to use Zeiss lenses costing several thousand dollars apiece just to compromise the result during enlarging. He has a lot of money, so can do that; but I'd have to think twice. You're only as good as your weakest link.

Save the money for the APO lenses, the ones you bought should do well when stopped down. I've always heard that diffusion is better for portraits when you don't want to do a lot of spotting, and condenser is better for contrast. I think your paper and developer will come into play on this too, along w/ the type of shot you're working with.

A 6x6 neg should go to 16x16 easily and be plenty sharp w/ or w/o a glass neg carrier. I never got on w/ those because of the 4 extra surfaces to catch dust, and dust is an issue here in the dry desert.

Don't forget to make your enlarger, and all other surfaces down to the print easel, really level and stable.

Nicholas Lindan said:

As a result of some readings on sites such as this I purchased an APO Rodagon and an AN glass carrier and a laser aligner (it's a Beseler 45MX so alignment needs to be tweaked into line whenever the head is moved up or down) and, frankly, as should be obvious, I was underwhelmed by the results. All the fuss didn't improve any of my prints. That's my experience and my opinion, take it or leave at as you see fit.

Click to expand...

The reknown printer, Ctein (who bought up ALL of the remaining color dye transfer materials from Kodak after they stopped production) said in his book that in testing conventional vs. Apo lenses, he could not detect sufficient benefit to offset set the greater cost of so-called Apo lenes, and said that most were NOT true apochromatic designs. You experience mimics what Ctein observed

nickandre said:

Hey all! I’m looking for some relative enlarger lens experiences. I acquired two EL-Nikkor lenses, one 50mm f/2.8 and one 80mm f/5.6. Will be printing mostly 6x6 with some lingering 35mm stuff.

1. I assume lens behavior on enlarger is pretty similar to camera (f/5.6-8 will yield best sharpness)
2. I see these Apo lenses. Are there any people willing to go to bat for the relative quality and ROI that an Apo Rodagon lens will get me? I will probably be printing up to 16x20 maybe a tad larger. Is there any benefit at that size from Apo lenses with a sharp Hasselblad 6x6? I don’t believe I’ve ever used Apo lenses before nor have I experienced disappointment in sharpness department. Seems like anything will kick the pants off a flatbed lol
3. Not super lens related but my Dual Dichro head supports diffusion or condenser mode. The indication from the manual was that for color film the diffusion mode is not going to display as much difference as B&W film relative to condenser mode. Do other people have similar experiences?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

APO lenses make sense for color photography. It's hard to find better enlarging lenses than the Nikkor EL series.

A lot of mythology. Ctein was hoping to buy an Apo El Nikkor for one of his last big DT printing commissions. It wouldn't have made a whit of difference in his case, because the dyes themselves migrate a bit before they dry. That particular medium is simply not capable of extremely sharp images. Chris Burkett did drop a staggering sum of money on a 360 Apo El Nikkor for sake of big Cibachrome enlargements from 8x10 film. Ciba is a medium capable of holding extreme detail. But for 1/20th the price he could have purchased a clean used regular Apo Nikkor process lens and the prints would have been indistinguishable. I personally avoided the top-end Apo El because the MTF is so ridiculously high that one risks revealing every little scratch on the film base or carrier glass itself, or perhaps even the AN ring pattern. And I can't drop $12,000 or whatever for an enlarging lens, even if another one of those happens to turn up for sale in my lifetime. Very few were ever made in long focal lengths, whereas Apo Nikkors are abundant, left over from the printing industry. I have a set of them clear up to 760mm, mostly cannibalized for free from a giant retired process camera.

But when it comes to comparing between the ordinary El Nikkor and the process Apo Nikkor 360's, I have a good reason to own both, even though it would take a loupe to detect any difference way out in the extreme corners of a 30X40 inch print made from 8x10 film. One reason is that the regular El is f/5.6 is brighter wide open and hence easier to compose with when that overwhelming orange mask of CN film is involved. But in 360/5.6 fashion it's also a huge lens that won't even fit most enlargers. And sharpness-wise, it's best at f/11, two stops down, while the better corrected, far more compact f/9 Apo Nikkor is even sharper just a single stop down at f/11 - in other words, the same printing speed. And the Apos are precise over a far wider magnification range than the regular El's. That makes them versatile enough for 1:1 duplication work clear to huge mural work in the darkroom, or even view camera photography from macro clear to infinity.

There are subtle differences in contrast and microtonality which become even more evident in black and white printing. But is it a big deal for common enlarging applications? - No. It's a nuance, just like I said. And Apo Nikkors weren't even made in focal lengths shorter than 180, so are of little value in MF printing. But in that case, I do prefer Apo Rodagons (N's) because I am trying to squeeze the last drop of juice out the lemon. 6X7 and 6X9 film is pretty darn small if you expect it to compete in the same portfolio as prints made from 4X5 and 8X10 film, which is in fact a common situation for me. Yet if nothing existed except ordinary El Nikkors or regular modern Rodagons, I wouldn't complain. Sometimes I prefer the more ordinary enlarging lenses in color printing itself, because I want a tad less of an over-the-top look, or I might ideally need a particular focal length unavailable in anything truly apo.

So, if you happen to run into a bargain (or even free) apo enlarging lens in good condition, why not? Just realize that not everything labeled as "apo" is ideal for enlarging, and there are times it seems to be a marketing ruse. You need to do your homework first. I mentioned just the highly reputable Nikon and Rodenstock examples.

@DREW WILEY I have a funny feeling that the Apo Rodagon N's would probably equal if not best the Apo EL Nikkors - they are a considerably newer design & Ctein's comparisons in his book seem to be based on the earlier Apo Rodagons (I'm reasonably convinced that the 50 & 90 are misidentified as the 'N' series & the non 'N' 90 as the 80 - possibly a copy editing error - it seems that the work was initially done for magazine publication several years earlier - the giveaway is that the Rodagon-WA's are still referred to as Eurygons).

Not even close, Lachlan. Even my Apo Nikkor process lenses are in a distinctly higher league than my Apo Rodagon N's. Ctein is a swell guy and a friend of mine, but really didn't compare that many lenses, or relative to quite a few potential applications. The 4-element Apo Nikkors might seem deceptively cheap nowadays because most of the print shops outright dumped big process cameras themselves once pro scanners came of age. But they were about two or three times the price of top-end enlarging lenses when new, and made to much more exacting standards for sake of precise apo dot control clear out to the corners of the field. Ordinary photographic applications simply do not need that degree of correction; hence even the definition of "apo" is somewhat less strict.

Apo El Nikkors went even a step further to provide this level of correction a stop wider, optimized by around f/8 instead of f/11. And what remained of the shorter ones - 105 and 210 - got snatched up for use in high-end scanning back cameras for sake of art repro in museums etc. That's what drove the prices wild and introduced scarcity. The longer focal lengths were rare to begin with. That general category of lens is still made, but only in fixed aperture for designated machine optics applications, and often optimized for very specific wavelengths.

But again, is this a big deal in a real darkroom or not? Depends. The past couple of weeks I've been working with very precise color internegs. Most were contact generated 8X10 to 8X10, but some were enlarged 4X5 to 8X10. I also sometimes make 4X5 internegs from MF film via projection. The Apo Nikkors nail it in a manner the Apo Rodagon N's simply can't at the same magnification range, or with the same evenness of field, or even the same acute detail. I love them for general use, and once in awhile might make an enlarged interneg from MF or even 35mm film using the 150 Apo Rodagon N. For example, because only the center of the optic is involved, even wide open the Rodagon 150/4.5 will give a decent result with small film, versus the Apo Nikkor coming into its own at f/11. That is one way of controlling depth of focus only on the emulsion itself rather than deeper into the carrier glass, attached mask, etc.

Everything has to be superbly aligned of course, and the projection is made onto a machined pin-registered surface with integral vacuum flatness. Lots of fun shop projects were involved, but it all works very well for the range of intended applications. I don't know anyone else doing high-end internegs at the moment, but the majority of the prints really do come out a step ahead. And it's a nice way to salvage some of my old large format chromes, now that Cibachrome is gone.