Minolta CE 50mm 2.8 35mm enlarger lens?

I just bought a bulk lot and it included this lens. Is it any good? I don't have a 35mm lens and was planning to buy a nikkor el 50mm 2.8, however if this lens is good I will keep it.

Minolta CE lenses are generally well thought of. The real test is to make prints with it.

I have Minolta C.E., Nikon EL Nikkor, and Rodenstock Rodagon 50mm and 80mm lenses, all excellent 6-element enlarger lens but I consider the Minoltas to be the best in terms of sharpness, color rendition, and build quality.

Contrary to the last post, I have used a Nikon 50/2.8 in the past and currently have a Rodagon 50/2.8 APO and a Durst 50/2.8. I have also used a Minolta CE 50/2.8 and to be perfectly honest I found it not up to the standard of both the Nikon or Rodagon lens. It always seemed slightly soft when compared to others.

If you are thinking of buying a Nikon, I would also suggest if you can try to find the earlier version which is all metal, I used one in the late 70's and it was outstanding and far better than the last version which was partly plastic.

I have a strong afinity for Minolta camera lenses which I always though they were always underated, but was quite dissapointed with the enlarging lens.

tomfrh said:

I just bought a bulk lot and it included this lens. Is it any good? I don't have a 35mm lens and was planning to buy a nikkor el 50mm 2.8, however if this lens is good I will keep it.

Click to expand...

They have a good reputation.

The condition of the lens will probably determine its quality.

Minolta is one of the better lenses, better than the regular Componons and Rodagons. I would probably prefer the Nikon over the Rodagon, but I would prefer the Minolta over the Nikon. Keep in mind too that they all made some duds, although I have never come across one myself. You will need to test it.

As mentioned above, the condition of your lens is a big factor. If you have bought a 'lot' then maybe they are not particularly clean, or maybe they have haze or fungus (quite likely if from a humid climate like Sydney). This affects image quality far more than anything else. If you are comparing perfectly clean lenses then that's another matter, and even then there may be sample variation.

I suggest you test YOUR lens and if you are satisfied then keep it, if not then seek an alternative, but don't worry too much about it unless you decide from the get-go to buy an APO-Rodagon-N or similar high end optics because the lenses you refer to will be broadly in the same ball park. It's not like comparing a 3 element lens to a 6 element lens.

By the way, most quality enlarging lenses are 6 element/4 group designs whilst the Minolta 2.8/50 is unusually a 6 element/5 group lens (see: http://photocornucopia.com/1061.html ). Not sure how this translates print quality but chances are there is a difference (for better or worse).

jjphoto said:

As mentioned above, the condition of your lens is a big factor. If you have bought a 'lot' then maybe they are not particularly clean,

Click to expand...

It's actually in very good condition. The "lot" was actually a guys darkroom setup, rather than just a box full of odds and ends...

I have the CE Rokkor-X (older) & the CE, both in 50mm. They are built like 1958 Oldsmobiles and will give you a luxorious, if somewhat dated, look.