Just got a D2 Enlarger!

[Don_ih]

Enlarging lens are designed for optimal performance at different magnification, for armatures or home use, most folks were enlarging 5X7 to 11X14

That has to be about 35mm film. Englarging 4x5 onto 11x14 paper is not even an enlarging factor of 3. If a lens can't make a 3x enlargement, it should be fired off into outer space.

 

[Rick A]

yes please! will send a message asap

Haven't heard from you, do you want it? Send me you're address with postal code so I can get a shipping price. If you're in Toronto Metro area figure around $25-$30usd (I've shipped up there before) for first class internat'l. Trust me, you don't want to pay for priority.

 

[MattKing]

Enlarging lens are designed for optimal performance at different magnification, for armatures or home use, most folks were enlarging 5X7 to 11X14. When I taught photography at a community college I had the class do a project by printing from the same negative with 3, 4, 6, element lens and one term a student had an APO lens. These prints were judged in blind showing for sharpness by other students and staff. Every term, the 3 element lens were out performed, the 4 elements were as good or better than the 6 elements lens up to 11X14, past 11X14 the 6 element lens and the APO were much better. As we did not print color the APO lens was not really evaluated for it full potential. I have 4 and 6 elements lens, the one advantage of my 6 element 50mm is that it a stop faster at 2.8 than my Wollensake 50 and is easier to focus, at this point my largest prints are 11X14 so a good 4 element lens works just as well.

Thinking in particular at the flat field challenges that larger formats present, how did the corner response compared between the lenses in your 35mm film tests?

 

[Bill Burk]

I enlarge every kind of negative from Minox to 4x5 with whatever lens I can get.

A forum member once stopped by my place. I had the idea that we would demonstrate that dry grasses under a tree by a pond would look better on a darkroom print compared to his inkjet print.

At the time, I only had a cheap 80mm lens suitable for enlarging from his negative (square medium format).

Analog lost the challenge that day, the inkjet looked better.

I went to the Kaufmann’s Camera and picked up this 105mm and this is the lens I use for medium format now.

I don’t know… do reflections hint at how many elements a lens has? Or is it inconclusive because some are in groups.

(Looked it up this is a 4 element lens 3 groups.)

 

[Paul Howell]

Thinking in particular at the flat field challenges that larger formats present, how did the corner response compared between the lenses in your 35mm film tests?

Up to 11X14 we did not see any issues, as I recall the negatives were printed at F8, what was likely corrected by the students when they printed the reference negative was contrast. My guess is that newer lens with improved coating may have increased contrast, which could be a good or bad characteristic. I have a 2 element uncoated waterhouse stop Federal lens fixed to a Stowaway Jr which is a diffusion system, does really well with the right negative . In the end it all come down to what the printer wants.

 

[kfed1984]

Up to 11X14 we did not see any issues, as I recall the negatives were printed at F8,

speaking of lenses again, I picked up a bundle of darkroom stuff for about $150 USD yesterday. Including 4x5 negative carrier, 2 lenses, a cone, 3 timers, 11x14 easel, etc.

 

[kfed1984]

thought it was a good deal, as it also included an omega D2 enlarger, though not in a good shape, so now I have 2 of them.

 

[kfed1984]

the 135mm lens that came with the bundle provides a pretty good coverage for a 4x5 neg, in terms of light intensity

 

[kfed1984]

the 135 lens appears to be sharp throughout for a 4x5 negative; Rodenstock Omegaron 135mm f4.5

But I will need a 4x5 negative that is more sharp all across for a proper evaluation of the 135mm lens.

What is clear for sure is that for a 35m negative, 80mm and 135mm lenses produce a sharper image across the field compared to 50mm lens.

The 50mm lens is more sensitive to enlarger misalignment and film buckling

 

[kfed1984]

Now the question is, what is the absolute best lens for enlarging a 4x5 negative to lets say a 16x20 inch print?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Mmm most decent 6 element lens for 4x5 that's reasonably modern will print to 16x20 easy, I would be more concerned with neg flatness (AN glass) and alignment (Versalab laser tool). Heat cutting glass is a must as is sparkling condenser glass.
I've done plenty of tests and heaps of high quality darkroom prints, and when it comes to enlarging lenses, the newer ones have better coatings and sometimes better quality, the older lower element and budget lines usually worked fine with smaller sizes and fine for an 'occasional' lens. If you're aiming to get the maximum quality out of your personal set up, you'll end up getting the better quality eventually (and likely a cold light head). Lucky that there are many excellent lenses to choose from especially for 4x5. When I did more 4x5 portraiture I would switch out the crispy modern 150mm for an vintage Wollensak and while yes "less sharp' the tones were sumptuous.

 

[Bill Burk]

Now the question is, what is the absolute best lens for enlarging a 4x5 negative to lets say a 16x20 inch print?

You know... I think you will be fine with what you got.

Before I found an APO Rodagon 50mm lens for five bucks at a flea market, my favorite 50mm lens was an Omegaron.

 

[Paul Howell]

speaking of lenses again, I picked up a bundle of darkroom stuff for about $150 USD yesterday. Including 4x5 negative carrier, 2 lenses, a cone, 3 timers, 11x14 easel, etc.
View attachment 331941

Nice find.

 

[Paul Howell]

Now the question is, what is the absolute best lens for enlarging a 4x5 negative to lets say a 16x20 inch print?

Because of the size of a 4X5 negative a good 4 element will enlarge to a 16X20, on the other hand a decent 6 element that will go to 20X24 is worth considering, if your thinking about color an APO is going be best. I have printed color 4X5 with my 6 element Wollensake, looked fine, the client had no issues, but I think the color would have a bit better, maybe a lot better with an APO lens.

 

[ic-racer]

The six element lenses have a wider field of coverage that is sharp. You know lens coverage, because I see you are using a 4x5 camera. Enlarger lenses are the same; at low magnification (like using a 4x5 lens at close-up distance) most lenses have plenty of coverage. At high magnification (big prints) it is like using a 4x5 camera at infinity. So the edges of the print can be blurry with a cheaper enlarging lens.
You probably know how to center your 4x5 lens by peeking in the clipped corners of the ground glass. Too bad there is not an easy way to make sure your lens is centered over the negative in the enlarger. But it is just as important when making big prints, otherwise one corner can be blurry, even if everything is aligned correctly.

 

[kfed1984]

The six element lenses have a wider field of coverage that is sharp.

Could you provide some examples of apo and 6 element lenses on ebay or their model names? Are all 6 element lenses of apo type and are there 4 element apo lenses?

 

[Sirius Glass]

speaking of enlargers, I just got an Omega D2 today, which can take 4x5 negs for $300 CAD. I thought this was a great deal, so I took it without thinking. Here at Downtown Camera in Toronto. The condenser is a lot more beefy than my Besseler 23.

Although the lens is not for 4x5 and still needs a 4x5 carrier.


View attachment 331390

I think it's a D2
View attachment 331393

View attachment 331394

Enjoy it.

 

[Don_ih]

@kfed1984 --- I'm just wondering how much darkroom printing you've done. An apo enlarging lens is a significant expense. A worthwhile one that covers 4x5 will cost more than your two D2 enlargers combined.

 

[Pieter12]

@kfed1984 --- I'm just wondering how much darkroom printing you've done. An apo enlarging lens is a significant expense. A worthwhile one that covers 4x5 will cost more than your two D2 enlargers combined.

So true. But then again, 16x20 paper ain't cheap. I would get my stuff all working and my skills up to snuff before making any more investments like an APO lens. Of course, it doesn't hurt to keep your eyes open for a better lens just in case a good one comes up at a decent price.

 

[Paul Howell]

APO lens are often 8 or 9 element, lens, Nikon 170 /APO is 8 elements in 4 groups, Rodenstock are 6 to 7 elements depending on the focual length of the lens. As noted by Don Heisz APO lens are really expensive, they shine in color work. Below is a link to the Rodenstock home page that explains the difference in lens design. If you are thinking about color then APO may be worth the expense.

Rodenstock lenses for enlarging and reproduction

 

[kfed1984]

@kfed1984 --- I'm just wondering how much darkroom printing you've done. An apo enlarging lens is a significant expense. A worthwhile one that covers 4x5 will cost more than your two D2 enlargers combined.

I don't have much darkroom experience; a few amateur years in 2000's with a 35mm Durst enlarger, just playing around sporadically, and since Sept last year with a Besseler23. Probably I don't need the APO now, but I'm still curious about what good equipment can do.

The 50mm lens I had on the Besseler23 was difficult to get sharp enlargements with, so it was a bit disappointing to be honest.

When I got the Omega D2 4x5, it just felt different. For one thing, the larger condenser lens did something to the negative contrast, and I was able to make out some extremely small text on a very fine-grained test negative. This text was placed in the center of the enlargement, so I don't think it's the enlarger lens but rather the condenser lens design + bulb arrangement.

When I tried a 6x6cm negative on the Omega, I did not get the film buckling issues as I did on the Besseler23. Besseler also buckled the 35mm a bit. I think this is because the 3 condenser lenses combined block the bulb heat better than the single condenser lens on a Besseler23.

The light distribution on Omega is more even, and overall I don't think I've hit a limit to what I can do on this equipment. With the Besseler I felt like I've hit several limits, but wasn't sure what they were. Maybe I just need to understand the Besseler better and it can do the same job, but I don't know what it can be. Too many variables.

With all the stuff I bought recently I now have a bunch of lenses spanning from 50 to 162mm. Also a 190mm coming and couple of soviet ones.

A bit too many, but I will test and keep what I like and Ebay-out the rest of them.

 

[kfed1984]

APO lens are often 8 or 9 element, lens, Nikon 170 /APO is 8 elements in 4 groups,

Thanks for the link. Looks like all the lenses I have are of the 3-4 element type. Wonder what a 6 element can do in terms of sharpness. One of the reasons I want to get the best lens is to do a YouTube video on the resolution limits of a 35mm film vs. full frame digital camera. I estimated that with a 35mm camera and a document/line film, you can get at least 100Megapixel digital-equivalent image resolution. The lens I had on the Besseler would not produce this detail on the enlarger, but when the negative was viewed in a backlit microscope, it showed all the details I wanted to see. But the Besseler enlarger blurred it out.

The Omega D2 + 80mm lens came close to what the microscope showed on the 35mm negative.

 

[kfed1984]

Yes I realize the comparison is a moot point, but still a good topic to expand on as I think it hasn't been explored in detail. Later want to make a video on the resolution of contact prints vs. ink-jet.

This is not to prove that film is "better" than digital, but to show that 1900's technology sometimes produced better results than what we have.

My personal goal is to make large format contact prints and high quality enlargements from medium and large format. Also, I haven't seen anyone making large format contact prints from color negatives.

Below are comparison images, top is film, bottom is digital 24Mpixel.


Line film under microscope, its a view of a text on an isopropyl alcohol bottle, sitting on my kitchen counter.
Leica iiif + Industar 50mm lens.

Digital image of the same view, zoomed in on the bottle.
Sony Alpha a7ii, 24Mpixel, Industar 50mm lens.

 

[kfed1984]

View of the bottle from that 35mm negative on a sheet of expired 8x10 paper.

The film is very fine grain but also very high-contrast and difficult to control. But with post-flashing and a low contrast developer it can behave somewhat like regular ortho film.

The shot below had no post-flashing, only low contrast developer. With flashing it would have showed more detail in the shadows.

 

[kfed1984]

Zoomed view of the bottle text. The view is a bit blurry I think because the film was bucking from the heat. I was turning the enlarger (Besseler, not Omega) on/off when focusing and placing paper. The film had time to cool down and it popped/buckled on a different side when the lamp was turned on again for exposure.