Surprising results in testing vintage enlarging lenses

John Galt said:

agreement 100%

Click to expand...

My grandfather worked for the navy on optics, rangefinders etc. He volunteered. He was actually an optometrist who worked for the Dolland and Aitchison. I also work for the navy but I'm just a doctor. My father was an army scientist. I learned how to focus a microscope before I could walk!

John Galt said:

I have followed this thread with interest because I will very shortly be printing again. I have recently forayed back into analog B&W after a 50 year hiatus. I have been doing MF and ~some~ 35mm B&W, processing my own film then scanning for about 10 months now. I have posted some of my recent feeble attempts to the Gallery. :/

Since making the decision to get back into Analog B&W photography over a year ago I have been acquiring "stuff" . . . included in this "stuff" is a Beseler 23C II with Dichro Head and these enlarging lenses;

Beslar 50mm 1:3.5
Computar dL 65mm 1:3.5
El-Nikkor 80mm 1:5.6
El-Nikkor 80mm 1:5.6
El-Nikkor 50mm 1:2.8
El-Nikkor 50mm 1:2.8
Perfex Anastigmat 50mm f3.5
Rodenstock Omegaron 50mm 1:3.5
Schneider Kreuznach Componon-S 50mm 1:2.8

yes, I know I have duplicates of El-Nikkors, one 50mm and one 80mm are NOS. The most expensive ones on the list are the two NOS El-Nikkors which I paid $20 each for.The rest were free or thrift store/yard sale el-cheapo items. And I know I am heavy on 50mm (for 35mm negatives). Although most of my photography this past year was MF I am hoping to do more 35mm. Love Tri-X 35mm.

Looking forward to printing soon (in a week or so) and contributing to this thread.

Click to expand...

The Computar DL is probably going to be the best one as long as it is clear, but the Computars are prone to separation. Amazing lens.

I'm not sure why 50 2.8 lens is expected to be sharp wide open. Or how it is related to vintage.
I have latest version. No problems. I need 2.8 for specific negatives where at f2.8 exposure takes two minutes. Regular negatives - f5.6-8.
I can't say if it is significantly better than my Vivitar kit lens. Both are neutral, this is what I need from enlarger lens.

Svenedin said:

You will see "grain" easily but is your subject truly sharp? The "grain" deceives me. Find something you can really focus on AND the grain.

Click to expand...

I am puzzled.

AgX said:

I am puzzled.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is my bad eyesight. I find that using a grain focuser I can easily find the grain but that the actual image may not be exactly in sharp focus. What I do is ensure there is some detail in my field of view in the focuser and I ensure that is sharp by moving the focus knob of the enlarger back and forth. All I am saying is it is easy to blame bad lenses but one has to be sure the image is really in sharp focus. It is surprisingly easy (at least it is for me) to be happy that an image is sharp when in fact it is not quite.

Another lens I have is a 13" f:10 Eastman Anastigmat process lens, 4 element Aviar type. I bought it to use on a homebrew horizontal enlarger, to make 16x20" prints of 8x10" negatives.
At f:11, it's everything I could wish for. $25, with the prism.

Update from my original post. I appreciate all the comments and I took a cue from Patrick Robert Jones in that I wondered if my f/2.8 El Nikkor may be "decentered". With my lens spanner I disassembled the lens(easy). The lens was already clean and the initial appearence looked like everything was right. Cleaned the elements again and set the elements back in and screwed it tight. Don't know what I did but the the performance did improve!! Wide open at f/2.8 I would now say it improved to what I consider "fair". At f/4 it improved to "good". At f/5.6 thru f/11 it is now excellent.
Now with this new information I can choose between 3 lenses for 35mm enlarging, the f/2.8 El Nikkor, the f/4.5 Kodak Projection Ektar, and the f/4.5 Wollensak Rapter. I may disassemble th f4 El Nikkor to see if the same magic will happen there.

Dan0001 said:

Update from my original post. I appreciate all the comments and I took a cue from Patrick Robert Jones in that I wondered if my f/2.8 El Nikkor may be "decentered". With my lens spanner I disassembled the lens(easy). The lens was already clean and the initial appearence looked like everything was right. Cleaned the elements again and set the elements back in and screwed it tight. Don't know what I did but the the performance did improve!! Wide open at f/2.8 I would now say it improved to what I consider "fair". At f/4 it improved to "good". At f/5.6 thru f/11 it is now excellent.
Now with this new information I can choose between 3 lenses for 35mm enlarging, the f/2.8 El Nikkor, the f/4.5 Kodak Projection Ektar, and the f/4.5 Wollensak Rapter. I may disassemble th f4 El Nikkor to see if the same magic will happen there.

Click to expand...

The 2.8 Nikkor was always well regarded, the f:4 not so much.
Also, when tightening things in a lens, don't just screw them down but sneak up on them, tighten ever so lightly then try to wiggle or vibrate the locking rings radially, tightening in many light stages, this allows things to center themselves. Overtightening is very very bad, it can actually set up strains in the glass spoiling definition - strain is observable under polarised light.

John Galt said:

Since making the decision to get back into Analog B&W photography over a year ago I have been acquiring "stuff"

Click to expand...

Not just me then.

I buy something i think I might need and a month or two later 'better and cheaper' is up for grabs. I've also been buying stuff I lusted after back in the 70s, just because I can. Luckily, I never lusted after a Leica or a Hassy.

I should be picking up a quarter plate enlarger tomorrow. Gives me good reason to look at older longer lenses.

Any suggestions for inexpensive but good lenses in the 130mm to 150mm range?

Yes I was going to post that the Nikkor might need a clean. I found from a few Nikkors improved when I cleaned them and set the torque of the element group properly. More than oneI've had has had excessively loose front or rear groups. To me the Nikkor's seem to be built to be be cleaned efficiently and are easy to reassemble in particular the N versions.
I've used many good 50's and my faves are the Rodenstock APO and the Nikkor N. Super close but the APO better at wide open and used f/4 all day; the Nikkor best at 5.6. The only thing I don't like about the APO is the price when you have to replace them. I dont find them very durable and had to replace two over the years where as the Nikkor N while plastic build the element groups are held with sensible retaining rings. If you unscrew it right you can clean in between the elements without touching the edges or disturbing the arrangement. An elegant and efficient design.

I have 3 El-Nikkor "N"s and 1 APO_Rodagon. Should be the other way around, I guess.

Paul Howell said:

I use Wollensake 50, 75, 90 135 and 162, here are samples I printed yesterday, have not printed color, with B&W very nice lens. Kodak 4 and 5 element lens are very good as well.

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

Do you have any experience with the 162mm Wollensak Enlarging Pro-Raptar? One of these has fallen into my collection of enlarging lenses, but my darkroom is out of commission at this time, so I don’t have any way to test it. It’s hard to find much info about the Pro-Raptor enlarging lenses on the net. If it’s anywhere near as good as the Kodak Enlarging Ektars that I have, that would make me happy. The Kodak lenses are great.

Mine is Raptar, not a pro Raptor, use it when enlarging 4X5 to 5X7, seems to be sharp corner to corner at F11.

From the Big List of Enlarger lens

Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/2"-12" 4-3 Tessar 50° N[pc] 1950's A generic description of the Enlarging Raptar lenses [pc][36]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/2"(50mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 1 1/4"x1 5/8"
[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/3"(75mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 2 1/4"x2 1/4"
[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/3 1/2"(90mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 2 1/4"x3 1/4"
[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/4"(101mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 2 1/4"x3 1/4"
[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/5"(127mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 3 1/4"x4 1/4"
[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/5 5/16"(135mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 4"x5"[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/6 3/8"(162mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 4"x5"[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/7 1/2"(190mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 5"x7"[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/8 1/4"(210mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 5"x8"[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/9 1/2"(241mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 6 1/2x8 1/2"
[47] N[pc] 1950's Coated[47] [pc][36][47]
Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 4.5/11 7/8"(302mm) 4-3[36] Tessar[36] 8x10"[48] N[pc] 1950's Coated[48] [pc][36][48]

Wollensak Graphic Raptar 4.5/3"(74mm) N 9 Coated[pc]
Possibly identical to Enlarging Raptar[tbc] [pc]
Wollensak Graphic Raptar 4.5/3 1/2"(90mm) N 9 Coated[pc]
Possibly identical to Enlarging Raptar[tbc] [pc]
Wollensak Graphic Raptar 4.5/7 1/2"(192mm) N Coated[pc]
Possibly identical to Enlarging Raptar[tbc] [pc]

Wollensak Enlarging PRO Raptar 4.5/3 1/2"
(90mm) 4.5, 5.6 ,8 ,11 ,16 ,22 ,32[pc] 6-4 Plasmat N[pc] 1950/60's Coated[47] [pc][12][47]
Wollensak Enlarging PRO Raptar 5.6/4"(101mm) 5.6 ,8 ,11 ,16 ,22 ,32[pc] 6-4 Plasmat N[pc] 1950/60's Coated[47] [pc][12][47]
Wollensak Enlarging PRO Raptar 5.6/4 1/2"
(114mm) 5.6 ,8 ,11 ,16 ,22 ,32[pc] 6-4 Plasmat N[pc] 1950/60's Coated[47] [pc][12][47]
Wollensak Enlarging PRO Raptar 5.6/6 3/8"
(162mm) [46] 5.6 ,8 ,11 ,16 ,22 ,32[46] 6-4[12] Plasmat[12] N[46] 1950/60's Coated[47] [12][46][47]
Wollensak Enlarging PRO Raptar 5.6/7 1/2"
(190mm)[39] 5.6 ,8 ,11 ,16 ,22 ,32[39] 6-4[12] Plasmat[12]

Svenedin said:

Perhaps it is my bad eyesight. I find that using a grain focuser I can easily find the grain but that the actual image may not be exactly in sharp focus. What I do is ensure there is some detail in my field of view in the focuser and I ensure that is sharp by moving the focus knob of the enlarger back and forth. All I am saying is it is easy to blame bad lenses but one has to be sure the image is really in sharp focus. It is surprisingly easy (at least it is for me) to be happy that an image is sharp when in fact it is not quite.

Click to expand...

You would be surprised at how much easier it is to focus an enlarger lens since I have had cataract surgery, especially with a grain focuser. It is also easier to focus on ground glass. In fact it is just easier to do photography. I see things "sharp" that I hadn't seen in years. Check with an opthomologist to see if any of you might be ready for the procedure. Friends, believe me, it helps......Regards!

oldtimermetoo said:

You would be surprised at how much easier it is to focus an enlarger lens since I have had cataract surgery

Click to expand...

My father had a cataract surgery some years ago and claims his eyesight improved a lot. He says he was seeing white as yellow before the surgery.

I guess we all will need it, sooner or later.

Another vote for cataract surgery when needed. It also corrected the near sightedness that required glasses for correction for 70 years.

When evaluated for cataract surgery the surgeon's staff will perform an A scan that determines which lens to implant, you have a choice of either distance or up close (reading) vision. Other option is getting a near lens in one eye and a far lens in the other. My wife uncorrected vision was 20/800, she wore coke bottle glasses or glasses with contacts for best corrected of 20/30. After cataract surgery her uncorrected vision is 20/40, with glasses with light grind lens now 20/20 and reading glasses. There are folks who are getting lens implant rather than Lasik's.

The effects of cataracts (and cataract surgery) on the artist Claude Monet are well documented: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408507/

Zathras said:

Hi Paul,

Do you have any experience with the 162mm Wollensak Enlarging Pro-Raptar? One of these has fallen into my collection of enlarging lenses, but my darkroom is out of commission at this time, so I don’t have any way to test it. It’s hard to find much info about the Pro-Raptor enlarging lenses on the net. If it’s anywhere near as good as the Kodak Enlarging Ektars that I have, that would make me happy. The Kodak lenses are great.

Click to expand...

The Pro Raptars were intended to be a notch above, they were Plasmat types, better corrected and possibly intended to work at different ratios. Cameraeccentric migh have some Wollensak brochures; Wollensak was always very good stuff.

Thanks Paul Howell and E. von Hoegh for your replies. I'll have to get my darkroom back up and running so I can see what the Enlarging Pro-Raptar can do.

Zathras said:

Thanks Paul Howell and E. von Hoegh for your replies. I'll have to get my darkroom back up and running so I can see what the Enlarging Pro-Raptar can do.

Click to expand...

If it's in good shape, you will be very happy with it. Do try to find out what ratios it's intended for.

I think the 162's are designed for 5X7 negatives, I print 5X7 from 4X5 at the top of my D3. The pro should be able to print 5X7 up to 16X20 without issue.

I tested my 50mms and a 60 and 75 as well,

1. Schineider Componon 50 mm 2.8

2. Rodenstock El Omegar 3.5

3. Wollensak 50mm 4,5 Raptar

4. Wollensak 51 mm 4.5 graphic raptar

5. Wollensak 75 mm 4.5 Rpatar

6. Schneider Componon 60mm 5.6

I used a negative that I know is tack sharp, taken with a Kowa SE with 6 element 50 1.9. I don't have a high end scanner so don't if any of the fine details will show in a scan.

Of the lot, not just middle of the road it was really poor is the Rodenstock El Omegar 3.5, lacks contrast and has poor resolution, not sharp corners. I have never used it has been sitting on a shelf, might just toss it, will not even want give it a way. The Wollensak graphic was ok, better than then the El Omegar, I think it a lens from the 40s or early 50s, just not up to the other lens.

Schineider Componon 50 mm 2.8 was good, but not as good the Wollensak enlarging Raptars, for 4 element designs to an 8X10 as good as it gets. These along with . Schneider Componon 60mm 5.6 are excellent. I have a Kodak 50mm Ektar in storage it as not tested, wonder how it will stack up against the Wollensak. When I have more time will try the Wollensaks up to a 16X20, at least a 8X10 cropped from a full frame 16X20.

Paul, your results pretty much mirror my own especially regarding the Wollensak Raptars. This is my 3rd posting so there is a little bit of new information I can share. I looked at my alignment again on my Omega B22 and it looked very good initially. However after I used a torpedo level underneath my El Nikkors I realized the lens stage was off due to a poorly mounted lens ring attached to the lens board. I believe the issue is now fixed and I can now say the 50mm El Nikkor f/4.0 performs very well now although I will give an edge to the 50mm El Nikkor f/2.8 overall. This probably means my initial findings in the 1st post were in error because of the alignment problem and not due to the decentering. Those lenses were the only two that I used that particular lens board. I am anxious to find out about your test of the Wollensaks at 16X20. My darkroom stuff that I used in a spare bathroom is put away in a closet not to be used again until Nov when I return to Florida. Will be heading back to Michigan shortly to my permanent darkroom where I can test even more lenses.