Omegaron Lens

I did a search, and there is a fair amount of information. But it is hard, at least for a beginner like me, to discern what exactly is being said.
I read Reviews/Opinions, and they are often saying things like... Garbage, Soft, Might Take For Free, Not As Good As.....etc etc.
But what dos that really mean.?
If somebody prints a few Negatives, are these lens so bad, that just on their own, photographers think the prints look so bad that they do not want to use the lens.?
Or is after comparing prints made with a Much "Better" Lens that people think the Omegaron Lens look lousy.?
Are they so bad that most people, not photographers, would look at prints from these lens and think the picture quality was poor.?
Thank You

Cheap entry level kit lens supplied with low end enlargers, might be okay for up to 8x10's but really not good.

i have one on a 5x7 enlarger and have made lots of prints with it,
never had a problem.. if its only a few bucks why not get one and see how YOU like it ?

good luck !
john

What are you asking of the lens.
If it is an appropriate focal length for, as an example, 6x4.5 negatives and you don't plan on printing beyond 8"x10" or smaller than 4"x5" than you may find one in good shape to be useful.
A better lens may give you marginally better results in those non-demanding circumstances, and distinctly better results in more demanding circumstances like 16"x20" prints or larger.

Good Evening, CMoore,

I have a 90mm Omegaron which performs superbly, at least up to 16 × 20 from 6 × 7 negatives. I know it's not thought of as a top-of-the-line enlarging lens, but I don't see how its performance could easily be exceeded.

Konical

For a long time it was the best lens I had!!!! I was able to get good prints with it where everything else was a little soft. So I think it’s a sharp contrasty lens.

The condition of old lenses is a major factor in their performance. For example a hazy lens, to name just one of many common problems with old enlarging lenses, can't perform as it did when in optimal condition.

Omegarons are four element lenses so are quite typical of lenses of their era but certainly not the best. You could also buy three element lenses with inferior correction to a four element lens but you could also buy better six element lenses at thd same time. The omegarons are a budget lens .

As many have said, these are so Cheap/Affordable...just buy one...and i already had when i posted this thread. I was simply wondering about all the bad comments i had heard, and what was really meant by it all.
I purchased one from Ebay that says it has been "tested" and is in good condition.
Also, just looking at Ebay, it seems i do not have much choice. 90mm looks to be one of the more uncommon lens lengths. Besides getting the Omegaron, i would have to spend a lot of money for a 90mm enlarging lens. I have an 80 and a 105.....i could probably go the rest of my notable "Career" without using a 90.

I am just a street photographer, i doubt i will ever be making prints any larger than 11x14 and more likely 8x10.
The Omegaron will probably be fine.
Thanks Again for all the replys.!

Three and four element lenses can make good prints at small magnifications because at low magnification ratios a lens is using only the center of the image circle.

CMoore said:

I did a search, and there is a fair amount of information. But it is hard, at least for a beginner like me, to discern what exactly is being said.
I read Reviews/Opinions, and they are often saying things like... Garbage, Soft, Might Take For Free, Not As Good As.....etc etc.
But what dos that really mean.?
If somebody prints a few Negatives, are these lens so bad, that just on their own, photographers think the prints look so bad that they do not want to use the lens.?
Or is after comparing prints made with a Much "Better" Lens that people think the Omegaron Lens look lousy.?
Are they so bad that most people, not photographers, would look at prints from these lens and think the picture quality was poor.?
Thank You

Click to expand...

I compared dozens of enlarging lenses and never found too much of a difference but settled on EL Nikkors. I agree with above to get and try.

I had an Omegaron and thought it was pretty good and I was happy but then I tried EL Nikkors, Componon-s, and Rodagons and found that they were better and I was happier. Then, I tested (see Ctein) multiple samples of each of the latter (sometimes sample variation in the same brand can make more difference than the brand) and picked the best performer in each focal length. Enlarging lenses are so cheap these days and so easy to acquire and sell online that it is easy to experiment.

There are a number of technical details that distinguish the various qualities of enlarger lenses. I am speaking about those for use with film formats from 35mm to 4x5 in black and white enlargers I have no experience with larger formats or specialist lenses.

QUALITY FACTORS IN THE PRINT

#1 sharpness: it is not difficult to make a lens that is sharp over a small portion of the center of the print. Keeping things sharp in the corners is more tricky. Many lenses deliver best sharpness performance when stopped down from maximum aperture (maximum aperture is useful for providing a bright image for composition and focusing) by one two or three stops. The better lenses are good one stop down, many require two stops and the cheapest are not sharp even at three stops down. The better lens can be used at larger apertures and therefore offer the choice of shorter exposure times. The inferior lens used at smaller apertures for acceptable sharpness forces longer exposure times.

#2 evenness of illumination: there is often some fall off in the brightness of the projected image as distance from the center increases, this is most noticeable in the corners and can cause the print to be too light in the corners compared to the center. This is most noticeable at larger magnifications and also when a lens focal length has been chosen that is too short for the film format in use, for example using a 50mm lens to enlarge 6x6 which requires 75 or 80mm. Better lenses show less of this effect although it may be present to a small extent even in the best.

#3 distortion: are squares square or barrel or pincushion shaped?

#4 flatness of field: can all parts of the negative be placed in sharp focus at the same time?

#4 chromatic aberration: in BW printing this can reduce sharpness. Most enlarger lenses are corrected for chromatic aberration at two wavelengths. Those designated Apo-chromatic are corrected at three wavelengths and therefore superior in this respect. Since BW papers are sensitive to blue and green light but not to red light this is less of a problem in BW than it is for color printing.

there are probably other quality factors, I believe these are the more important ones.

USE OF THE LENS

The degree of enlargement: lenses are optimized to give best performance for a range of magnifications, for example 2x to 6x. Such a lens will also give enlargements of less than 2x and more than 6x however there will be loss of quality.

LENS CONSTRUCTION

Lenses are fabricated from several sub-component lenses known as elements. Usually more is better. The entry level inexpensive 50mm f5.6 lens for 35mm work was probably most of a time a 3 element device that performed moderately well under a fairly narrow set of conditions. Better lenses had four elements and gave superior performance in almost all the categories described above. The best lenses were usually six element, though some had more than this. It is helpful to know when shopping for lenses how many elements are present in a given lens, and this can sometimes be discovered from literature produced by the manufacturer. The German brand Rodenstock used to publish a good descriptive leaflet for their lenses which included this information. It seems to me this document may be a very fine model of the description of lens performance for the layman and for this reason I have included a copy below (this was edited from a version online and includes some minor inadvertent formatting problems.)

Rick A said:

Cheap entry level kit lens supplied with low end enlargers, might be okay for up to 8x10's but really not good.

Click to expand...

I think you may be referring to the "Omegar" which was a cheap, entry level kit lens supplied with low end enlargers. The Omegaron was a step or 2 above and commonly described as a 6 element lens.

This may be driving some of the conflicting comments the OP has heard. I've used one and, while I think there are better lenses (even short of the APO lenses), I thought it was fine.

The only real issue I have with them is that enlarging lenses (that don’t say APO on them) are so cheap these days, that I don’t think it would be worth buying one. But if you have one already (like I do), they’re worth using. For twice the price of an Omegaron, you can get a lens that’s 10% better. That may not seem like such a good deal to an economist, but to a photographer, it’s more like for $25 more you can get a lens that’s noticeably better. And that’s what we are. So that’s what I suggest.

mgb74 said:

I think you may be referring to the "Omegar" which was a cheap, entry level kit lens supplied with low end enlargers. The Omegaron was a step or 2 above and commonly described as a 6 element lens.

This may be driving some of the conflicting comments the OP has heard. I've used one and, while I think there are better lenses (even short of the APO lenses), I thought it was fine.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was just the one I owned that was below mediocre. I ended up so frustrated with it I smashed it on the basement wall. My 4 element Wollensaks perform far better than that Omegar ever did.

mgb74 said:

I think you may be referring to the "Omegar" which was a cheap, entry level kit lens supplied with low end enlargers. The Omegaron was a step or 2 above and commonly described as a 6 element lens.

This may be driving some of the conflicting comments the OP has heard. I've used one and, while I think there are better lenses (even short of the APO lenses), I thought it was fine.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 'El-Omegar' is a simple, entry level three element lens.

No, the 'Omegaron' is not a 6 element lens, you might be confusing them with Rodagons. Do you have any credible sources that state it is 6 element such as ads from Rodenstock agents/suppliers or Rodenstock brochures.

This link ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/136094828@N04/26837956939 ) from a 1967 'Modern Photography' ad by the American agent clearly describes the 'Omegaron' as: "Each is a four-element three group formula, ...".

And, not that I consider Wikipedia to be a credible source but even Wiki (whatever that's worth) describes the Omegaron as 4 element lenses;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenstock_GmbH#Omegaron

jjphoto said:

Yes, the 'El-Omegar' is a simple, entry level three element lens.

No, the 'Omegaron' is not a 6 element lens, you might be confusing them with Rodagons. Do you have any credible sources that state it is 6 element such as ads from Rodenstock agents/suppliers or Rodenstock brochures.

Click to expand...

I was operating from memory. But I think you are correct about it being a 4 element lens.

The Omegars are cheap, the Omegarons are Rodenstock lenses, especially in the larger sizes, the Omegarons are fine, I have a couple of the 135's and for 4x5 negatives they perform adequately.