Questions about enlarger lenses

Considering the number of quality enlarging lenses which can be had at a great price, I'm wanting to upgrade and get a wider range of magnifications. But I had a few questions which could probably be answered by most of you. First, I've always noticed that there are a large range of sizes for lenses of the same magnification and maximum aperture. Why is this? Also, should I give lens coating the same consideration as my camera lenses? I've had some really bad older view camera lenses which were uncoated and I found them difficult. And lastly, could you recommend some lenses for my hit list? I'm looking for coverage for 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5. And thanks as always for any help you might be able to offer.

It would not be practical to use just one lens for all 3 formats.

To me, 50mm or 80mm works well for 35mm film and 80mm and 105mm works well for medium format (645 for me). I use almost all EL-Nikkor and have no complaints. My understanding is, you'd be wanting 135mm for 4x5 but since I don't use that format, I am not 100%....

There is a BIG difference between 3 element variety often sold as "kit lens" for lower end enlargers to Nikkor but I really can't see much difference once I go beyond the lowest end. Of course, I only print up to 11x14 equivalent, and not huge enlargements.

Casey Kidwell said:

Considering the number of quality enlarging lenses which can be had at a great price, I'm wanting to upgrade and get a wider range of magnifications. But I had a few questions which could probably be answered by most of you. First, I've always noticed that there are a large range of sizes for lenses of the same magnification and maximum aperture. Why is this? Also, should I give lens coating the same consideration as my camera lenses? I've had some really bad older view camera lenses which were uncoated and I found them difficult. And lastly, could you recommend some lenses for my hit list? I'm looking for coverage for 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5. And thanks as always for any help you might be able to offer.

Click to expand...

Most all the modern 'quality' lenses will be multicoated. Since negative value range is less than a typical photographic scene, multicoating to reduce flare is not as important as coating on taking lenses.

I'm not sure what you mean about range of 'sizes' unless you mean the mounting thread size. Some enlargers can only take a limited mounting size, so the lens manufacturers cater to need that by selling the same lenses in different thread sizes.

If you don't have the spec sheet on a lens, the good rule of thumb is to select an enlarger lens focal length equal to the format diagonal. That should give you good coverage. If you go to a longer length, then coverage will be better.

I understand coverage issues and I generally swap lenses among formats. But for example I have two 50mm lenses of dramatically different sizes but same aperture. I think ic-racer accounted for this. And if there's no benefit to the larger one considering the same resolving power then I guess there's no issue there to be considered in my search. As far as older lenses, I have an older Nikkor of much better build quality than a newer one that I have purchased. Not that it's any sharper but I didn't want to eliminate the possibility of buying an older lens. Thanks everyone.

I use El-Nikkors. I have the 50mm f2.8 for 35mm, the 75mm (I've read that the 80mm lens is better) for 6x6, and the 135mm for 4x5. Truth be told, I don't really use the 75mm lens anyway. I keep the 50mm on my Saunders LPL 670 enlarger, which handles up to 6x7, and the 135mm on my Omega D, which I mainly use for 4x5 or contact print from 8x10. I no longer really shoot MF.

Dan

I use two lenses for 35,120 (6x6), and 4x5 use. Schneider Componon-S 80/4 for the two smaller sizes, and a Nikkor 135 for the bigger. I used to use a el-Nikkor 50 2.8 for 35 which was great, but the new-to-me 80 covers both.

There's so much stuff on the used market or being thrown in the dump with enlargers that didn't sell, theres no sense in dealing with no-name lenses unless you really want to. Rodenstock, El-Nikkor, Schneider, etc... are generally good and I'm sure others will have good favorites as well.

What's important to me:

1. A bright aperture is worth paying a little extra for. 1 stop makes a big difference in focusing. Not so many aperture choices in the longer lenses, but there is a lot of choice in 50mm range lenses. For now, I can get away without a focusing aid except when printing soft focus stuff. That may change in a decade or two.

2. Avoid dirty junk. Sometimes it can be cleaned up, but there's so much pristine used stuff, there is little sense to buy lenses the DPO didn't take care of and smeared them with dektol, acid, fixer, tobacco, and dirt.

3. consider ergonomics. I like lenses that click at each stop so I can know in the dark how stopped down it is. Other people like smooth aperture dials to work with darkroom metering methods. The scneider also has a lever to go wide open and the aperture setting is backlit. Nice but not critical.

For 4x5 I chose as wide a lens as practical for 4x5; 135 instead of 150-160 range. I figure that will give me a few inches bigger enlargement before the enlarger bumps the ceiling.

Rodenstock or Schneider will be very OK.

I am using Rodenstock 2,8/50mm Rodagon for 35, 4,0/80mm Rodagon till 6x7cm. I have also a Rodagon 4,0/WA-60 (till 6x6, wide angle lens). I am not doing anything in L.F. so also my enlarger stops at 6x7cm diffusion, combined condensor system equipped with the Heiland Split Grade (TM) unit.
Meopta Meogon are also nice lenses. I have one: 2,8/80mm a light canon

Also, should I give lens coating the same consideration as my camera lenses?

Click to expand...

Probably more. I don't mind shooting with uncoated camera lenses but uncoated enlarger lenses are just shorting your possible technical reproduction capabilities.

There is a BIG difference between 3 element variety often sold as "kit lens" for lower end enlargers to Nikkor

Click to expand...

Maybe sometimes. I compared my (probably 3-element) Beslar lens that came with my old Beseler Printmaker 35 enlarger to my new Nikkor 50/2.8 on a 11x14 print from a rather fine-grained and detailed 35mm negative. Even in the fine details, I couldn't really see a difference, at least not at f/11 or whatever I was printing at.

When I compared my EL-Omegar (3 element) with EL-Nikkor (6 element), there were significant differences. The softness in center was noticeable at 8x10 but clear difference at 11x14. (yes, it was focused....) At corners, it was obvious to naked eyes. When I stuck in grain focuser, former never focused enough to show clear grain even at the center. If I remember correctly, I was using either f/5.6 or f/8 (my standard).

In a way, I am glad there IS a difference.... why else would I buy Nikkor (or Rodenstock or whatever)....

I'm guessing, since this is the least expensive lens one can buy, tolerance to pass QA is probably not that stringent. You may get a good one like yours or you may get one like mine. As someone has already said, since good stuff is so available and so cheap, it would probably make no sense to chase these. I got one because it came with an enlarger. All other similar grade lens were given away here not too long ago.

Modern multi-coated, six-element enlarging lenses from Nikon, Schneider or Rodenstock are all OK unless abused. Select a focal-length slightly longer than you film format diagonal. In your case, 50, 80 and 150 mm would be an obvious choice.

When I stuck in grain focuser, former never focused enough to show clear grain even at the center.

Click to expand...

I can safely say I have never had a lens that bad. Sounds like it was a real dud. Maybe, in just this one area, I'm actually lucky and get good things, as opposed to others like computer parts where I always seem to get the bad ones.

Hey, lucky you.... I seem to be a magnet for bad stuff. If you ever want to break your lucky streak, I'll send you something so you, too, can experience the frustration of opening a nice shiny box in shrink wrap and find a DUD!