Printing with feinschmecker lenses...really necessary?

[Helinophoto]

Hi

Just a couple of quick questions:

How much does the lens you use on the enlarger matter?
- I mean, if you are already able to focus (and see) the grain-particles under the grain-loupe?

I print with my lenses at around f8-f11 and print from A5 to A3 sizes 35mm to 6*7 and they all look fine, sharp and detailed. Even with the lenses I use, at wide open, the grain, even on fine grain films, are easy to focus on. (I have no idea what lenses I have, nothing fancy I guess)

I have used a Focomat (the big expensive one, seemingly with great glass), but could not see any difference in my prints (in-fact, I gave the enlarger back and did not buy it, since it was massively heavy to boot and the "autofocus" was not a thing I had any use for).

People talk about using the finest lenses (Nikkor, leica(?) and others) with their enlargers, but does it matter?

Doesn't the lenses already out-resolve the paper at some point?

I do black and white printing, are there any differences regarding the lenses you use in terms of color vs black and white?

 

[cramej]

I had to look up "feinschmecker". I thought it was a brand of enlarger lens that I hadn't heard of only to find out that it translates to "gourmet" in English. I like the use of that term - printing with gourmet lenses! I suppose you could substitute "boutique" for gourmet.

Anyway, I don't have any experience with high end lenses, but I do know that stepping up from the bargain basement lenses that tend to come with student-oriented enlargers makes a difference.

 

[Neal]

Thanks for the post, I enjoyed looking up "feinschmecker"!

Neal Wydra

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've printed with an ordinary Beseler enlarger for decades with a Plane Jane El Nikkor lens for decades and it's worked well. Until I made a print with half of it out of focus. It was the 3 lens turret that gave me issues. My point is that if you're happy with your prints, stick with what you have until at a point you're not getting the results you want. Most middle of the road enlarger lenses are pretty good. I did printed on a Focomat decades ago and they're nice enlargers. They're a little too sharp for my taste.

 

[tedr1]

There are a lot of variables involved which makes simple yes no answers unsatisfactory. Perhaps you have an opportunity for a friend having a different enlarger and lens to make a print from one of your negatives so that it may be compared.

Here is a document published by a maker of feinschmecker lenses and they talk a little about the quality differences

 

[ic-racer]

- I mean, if you are already able to focus (and see) the grain-particles under the grain-loupe?

If you are able to see the grain particles under the loupe all the way to the edges then you verified you already have a feinschmecker. And, yes, you need one.

 

[Helinophoto]

Hahaha

I didn't think that the term would be unknown, we use it here so often, even though it is German.
We basically use it for anything high-end, and even for people with the taste for the expensive and high-end stuff often food-stuff but anything really...."He is a real feinschmecker, only shoots with Leica" and so on. ^_^

Even for stuff, "That car is for real feinschmeckers only" =D

I think the origin means "a fine taster"

Thanks for your answers tough, I suppose I have something that is ok, need to check what brand they really are (I think I have something mid-range, bought the enlarger used from a Buddhist of all people).

 

[chip j]

The Nikkor is a fine Buddhist lens.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The three most important technical things when you are enlarging are in this order-

1- Alignment
2- Alignment
3- Alignment

After that, the lens matters but not as much as people make it out to. Any modern 6 element lens that is centered is going to get you 95 percent there. The last 5 percent gets expensive. The last one percent is a budget mangler.

Basically, feinschmecker lenses are great, but not the most important thing. Spend your money first on a laser alignment tool.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yes alignment is key, second is making sure the enlarger is stable during exposure, then the lens. Enlarging lens are designed to be optimized at certain enlargements sizes. I print up to 11X14 with Wollensake and Kodak lens made in the 50s to early 60s, I cannot tell the difference between these "legacy" lens any my newer lens until I print at 16X20. A newer lens with mutiltcoating or an APO lens might make a difference with color. Other factor is speed, a modern 6 element 2.8 lens is easier to focus, but once stopped down to working aperture the older 4 and 5 elements lens are just as sharp to 11X14. I don't often print larger than 11X14, so not often that I use the newer lens as my Rodenstocks and Schneiders which were designed for larger prints. When looking for legacy glass you need to be mindful that these lens are 50 to 60 years old and may have issues with mold or the coating clouding over. I have a 52mm or 2 1/2 inch Wollensack that has a haze.

 

[faberryman]

Used enlarging lenses are so inexpensive these days you can get a nice 6-element "feinschmecker" lens for little money. I see the difference not so much in resolution but micro contrast.

 

[trendland]

Hi

Just a couple of quick questions:

How much does the lens you use on the enlarger matter?
- I mean, if you are already able to focus (and see) the grain-particles under the grain-loupe?

I print with my lenses at around f8-f11 and print from A5 to A3 sizes 35mm to 6*7 and they all look fine, sharp and detailed. Even with the lenses I use, at wide open, the grain, even on fine grain films, are easy to focus on. (I have no idea what lenses I have, nothing fancy I guess)

I have used a Focomat (the big expensive one, seemingly with great glass), but could not see any difference in my prints (in-fact, I gave the enlarger back and did not buy it, since it was massively heavy to boot and the "autofocus" was not a thing I had any use for).

People talk about using the finest lenses (Nikkor, leica(?) and others) with their enlargers, but does it matter?

Doesn't the lenses already out-resolve the paper at some point?

I do black and white printing, are there any differences regarding the lenses you use in terms of color vs black and white?

It is depending on the sort of enlargements you print. Bw or color is the first question. In case of "just bw enlargements" the need of most expensive (and corrected) lenses is less.
For normal prints a normal lens should be enough. To higher the performance of your print system the lens is playing a central role / but it is not the only option.
What may it make sense to shot Tmax 3200 with ISO 4000 developed in Rodinal, exposed at 1/4 sec. with lousy tripot at night and print in Format 1,40 x 1,80 on long expired Orwo Paper of 1965 with the
use of a superior Rodenstock lens ?

By the way : If you shot Rollei ATO 2.1 "supergraphic" 25 with EI. ISO 6 at f5,6/f developed in special developer with this lens :

Zeiss Distagon T 1,4 35mm

And your extravagant ambition is to 1.00 x 1.40 (in Meter) with 120film

It would make much sense to use enlager lenses with characteristics not below this one here :

Rodenstock Rodagan at F/8 is a need for then .

The rest is on you !

with regards

PS : Don't buy expensive enlarger equipment when there is no need for

 

[trendland]

Little correction : 135 Film (not 120film) - yes I know 120 Film is much better on that Format
1.00 x 140 but it is just an example for the need of extreme parameters to reach the last of 8% of
quality wich is sometimes a need to have.

with regards

PS : The last 8% "performance" is allways that part what makes it real expensive. That is allways the same : In darkroom, with cars, on the job, with girls.........a . s . o .

 

[Bill Burk]

I once spent an evening with a member of APUG who wanted to see what his negatives would look like printed by enlarging (vs scanning and inkjet).

My enlargements from his 6x6 neg through my cheap 80mm lens didn’t do a good job convincing him that darkroom printing is really worth it.

The grass under the tree in the print looked a little fuzzy. A better lens might have helped the demonstration.

 

[Helinophoto]

It can be several things, like alignment of paper or board, but it seems from this thread that there are indeed some differences in terms of glass.

Just checked my two lenses that I use,
One is a 105mm Rodenstock Rodagon f5.6 (I use that for my medium format stuff)
The other is a 50mm Vivitar VHE f2.8 (From what i gather from the net, this is an American brand with Schneider or something other German glass?)

I suppose the first is rather nice, at least it cost a bit on b&h
The 50 is cheaper, 75$ on eBay

Can easily spot and focus grain with both, no complaints and I am not a Feinschmecker at all, as long as I get sharp results.
As for contrast, I thought that was controlled with appropriate filters? What is micro-contrast in a practical manner?

 

[chip j]

The VHE is made by Schneider.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The quality of an enlarging lens can unquestionably make a visible difference in the print, but only if you've ironed out the basics first. And if you don't use a high quality glass neg carrier, precisely aligned, don't read any futher, cause it will be a waste of time. There are regular good enlarging lenses by Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider as well as cheaper "student" options. Then there are the distinctly more expensive "apo" versions like Apo Rodagon N's, which will in fact render better
detail, contrast, and microtonality in prints if the paper itself is of excellent quality. But even these aren't the very top of the line option, which very few people can afford anyway, even if they can find them. But there's only so much detail you can put on a piece of film the size of a postage stamp. Moving up to 120 or from there to LF makes a way bigger difference than enlarger lens selection. But that's the catch, if you want to squeeze as much as possible out of a relatively small neg.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi

Just a couple of quick questions:

How much does the lens you use on the enlarger matter?
- I mean, if you are already able to focus (and see) the grain-particles under the grain-loupe?

I print with my lenses at around f8-f11 and print from A5 to A3 sizes 35mm to 6*7 and they all look fine, sharp and detailed. Even with the lenses I use, at wide open, the grain, even on fine grain films, are easy to focus on. (I have no idea what lenses I have, nothing fancy I guess)

I have used a Focomat (the big expensive one, seemingly with great glass), but could not see any difference in my prints (in-fact, I gave the enlarger back and did not buy it, since it was massively heavy to boot and the "autofocus" was not a thing I had any use for).

People talk about using the finest lenses (Nikkor, leica(?) and others) with their enlargers, but does it matter?

Doesn't the lenses already out-resolve the paper at some point?

I do black and white printing, are there any differences regarding the lenses you use in terms of color vs black and white?

from my experience and testing, I came to a very similar conclusion as Ctein in his book about enlarging lenses:all name -brand, six-element lenses for enlargers are excellent and different print results have probably more to do with enlarger stability and negative flatness than with enlarging lenses.

 

[Eric Rose]

Leica makes enlarging lenses??

 

[chip j]

from my experience and testing, I came to a very similar conclusion as Ctein in his book about enlarging lenses:all name -brand, six-element lenses for enlargers are excellent and different print results have probably more to do with enlarger stability and negative flatness than with enlarging leThe

from my experience and testing, I came to a very similar conclusion as Ctein in his book about enlarging lenses:all name -brand, six-element lenses for enlargers are excellent and different print results have probably more to do with enlarger stability and negative flatness than with enlarging lenses.

The Rodagon 50mm 2.8 (non-APO) & the 50mm Focotar 2 did NOT pass Ctein's tests.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The Rodagon 50mm 2.8 (non-APO) & the 50mm Focotar 2 did NOT pass Ctein's tests.

sorry; glad somebody is paying attention!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

When enlarging lenses got cheap, I upgraded to 50 and 90mm Apo-Rodagons and a 150mm Apo-Componon, and they're contrastier and sharper at the edges than the 6-element lenses they replaced, even for small prints, but the lenses I used previously were still pretty good. No regrets about upgrading, and it wasn't too costly to do so. I figured that all my images from all my cameras and taking lenses were going through those same three enlarging lenses, so it was worth it to get the best lenses I could get.

An advantage of being able to enlarge at wider apertures is that you can crank out a large batch of identical prints really fast, particularly if you have a bright enlarger head and a compensating timer that can be set in 1/10's of a second.

They're also excellent flat-field macro lenses, perfect for flat copy work.