Side-by-Side enlarging lenses

With 2 "matched" prints, made with the same enlarger but different major brand enlarging lenses, how many of you can tell which was made w/which? I have about 20 top lenses and my track record is near faultless (Rodagon vs Besler HD is too close, if not the same). Just curious.

Unless you go bigger than 16x20 you won't be able to tell.

There are no magic bullet lenses

Johnkpap

not sure

Let me see if I have got this right. You have a competition of You vs You and the judge is You.

I can tell the difference between the 5 EL-Nikkor 50mm's. I have 2 old ones and 3 New ones; the new version is better at 2.8 but by f/5.6 they are close. I have only one version of the APO-Rodagon 50mm and I liked that one the best but it got internal haze after near constant use for 5-6 years, and used to use a Componon-S 50mm, but again only one version. It was nice but I was doing more larger prints and felt I needed the APO for the big stuff and I was right; I liked the APO very much. But at this stage I've been using and liking the EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8N, one version I have was not very good until I took it apart to clean, and when I went to unscrew the rear set of elements it felt quite loose like it was just barely tight; after an easy dusting I torqued it to the tightness I thought it should be and it tested quite sharp, enough that I use that on my other enlarger a Leitz Focomat. My Bessler 4x5 with cold light head gets another near identical Nikkor, I think they are the best bargain going in enlarging lenses. See my post http://four-silver-atoms.com/2014/01/29/what-the-future-finds-el-nikkor-50mm-f2-8/

Depends on how big you enlarge. The bigger the enlargement, the closer the corners get to the edges of the maximum image circle. For very small levels of magnification (wallet-size prints,etc) , a 4 or 5 element lens may be perfectly fine.

There are many opinions. Test reports on a fair number of enlarging lenses can be found here:
http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm

In my opinion, spending loads of time trying to tell enlarging lenses apart is somewhat like the analogue version of pixel peeping.

Any reasonable lens will, when stopped down, 2 - 3 stops give very acceptable results easily up to 20" x 16" (as is also the case with most camera prime lenses made by the major manufactures after the early 1980s).

When I used to print mural sized prints for good old British High Speed Rail (before the whole photography and film unit were Maggied) there was a very definite need for expensive lenses with exceptional resolving power. However, as is the case with much smaller prints, negative flatness, correctly aligned negative, lens and baseboard stages, eliminating (or compensating for) negative 'pop' and meticulous working from exposure of negative through to final print play a far more important roll. When all of these things are in place any decent lens will do (the old three element Taylor Hobsons were a preferred choice for printing pre-war half-plate glass negatives) UNLESS you need to work wide-open - very unlikely these days with the speed of current papers (for example my base exposure time with a 6 x 9 negative printed to 16 x 12 (nominal) on Agfa Record Rapid with the lens closed down two stops used to be in the region of 40 seconds plus. These days, using Adox Fine Print Variable Contrast (discontinued but I still have a stock), Kentmere Fine Print Variable Contrast (discontinued but I still have a stock) and Fomabrom Variant 111 (thankfully still being produced) my usual base exposures are in the 10 -12 seconds range.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

Well, I print 35mm to 6" x 9", and can say that the Componon is true-blue, the Fujinon-EX is giddy, the Komuranon S looks like a billion bucks, the Angenieua G 10 is jazzy, and on and on. It must be a gift I have. The different looks influence not only how & what I shoot, but colors my whole outlook on life!