Surprising results in testing vintage enlarging lenses

[Dan0001]

I recently acquired several “vintage “enlarging lenses,all used of course, and with some time on my hands I decided to do an informal test after I noticed one of my 8 X 10 prints looked out of focus on the edges. The lenses in question are :

1. F 2.8 50mm El Nikkor,

2. F4 50mm El Nikkor.

3. F 4.5 50mm Wollensak

4. F 4.5 75mm Wollensak

5. F 4.5 75MM Schneider-Kreuznach Componar

6. F 4.5 50mm Kodak Projection Ektar


The 2.8 El Nikkor should be the star of the group as it is a 6 element lens. The Ektar has 5 elements with a Heliar design from 1945. The others being a tessar design and a triplet in the case of the Componar( an inexpensive 4 blade diaphragm). The Wollensaks were heavy precision stainless steel with the “W” logo in purple(lens coating?) probably made in the 60’s. The two El Nikkors were probably made in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s. My tests were very informal and modest… just used several of my negatives that had lot of branches and buildings with windows, etc. My enlargements were all 8 X 10. My tests were mostly to test edge sharpness as all 6 lenses were tack sharp in the center. The 50mm lenses were tested on 35mm film and the 75mm lenses were tested on 120 film.

The biggest surprise was that the 2.8 El Nikkor was not that good, especially at the wider apertures on the edge... it really didn’t get ok until F 5.6 and was excellent at F 8 and F 11. I was led to believe that the attraction of this lens was that you could expose prints at the widest apertures and that it would maintain the sharpness thru all apertures. The F4 EL Nikkor also was disappointing at F 5.6 and F 8. It was rated Good to VG at F 11.

The Kodak Projection Ektar was VG at F.56(One stop from being open) and excellent in all subsequent stops.

The Wollensaks really surprised me too, as they have a so so reputation based on reading many forums. The 50mm lens was even good wide open. All other stops were excellent. The 75mm Wollensak was excellent from F 5.6 through F 16.

The 75mm Schneider Componar did not disappoint either as I expected mediocre results from this triplet. It was however excellent from F 5.6 thru F 16.

Again my tests were quite modest and were only 8 X 10’s. The El Nikkors could have been lemons… the 2.8 lens had very slight swirl internally in the rear element but it was really faint that is only detected with a strong light and I do not think it impacted on the results but I could be wrong. The Wollensaks and the Kodak Ektar are real gems and bordering on antique!! Go figure! The cheap Componar that I got for $2 in a thrift store was pretty amazing too.

Those are my meager results but others may have had different outcomes.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I use a prewar, uncoated, 4 element Aviar type Wollensak 4" enlarging lens that is superb, it's diffraction limited at f:11 and with my condenser enlarger it is a better match than modern coated lenses.
Your testing is an excellent example of why to take what one reads on fora with a truckload or so of salt.

 

[chip j]

Was it an old metal El-Nikkor? The new "N"s are supposed to be great.

 

[Jim Jones]

I've used several EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8, mostly older ones. Wide open they exhibited a slight hot spot in the center. At f/4 all were sharp corner to corner, and equally good at f/5.6. At f/8 the grain in Kodak Tech Pan showed a hint of diffraction limiting. I replaced the original 135mm DeJur lens on an early postwar DeJur 4x5 enlarger with an EL-Nikkor, thinking there might be a noticeable improvement. There wasn't.

 

[jim10219]

I bought a Nikkor 50/2.8 (latest version) thinking my Beseler 50/4 and Fungused out Rodogon 50/4 were no good. I was recently given a collection of old enlarging lenses, most in bad shape. Some I sold, some I threw away, and some I keep in a drawer somewhere, so my kids can have stuff to throw out when I’m gone. I was also given that Kodak projection Ektar you mentioned and spent 2 months trying to practically give it away on eBay with no bites. I never even thought to give it a try! Now I might have to, especially if I need a lot of light.

I’ve never noticed my Nikkor being soft in the corners, but I never have it set below f/8. Typical exposure times are around 4-6 seconds at f/8 on my setup (which seems oddly fast). Since the Nikkor was really cheap, I don’t guess I regret buying it. But I may now have to try that Kodak Projection Ektar as a macro lens and see what happens...

 

[ic-racer]

I was led to believe that the attraction of this lens was that you could expose prints at the widest apertures and that it would maintain the sharpness thru all apertures.

Where do you get your information? If you have access to the internet, you should read the lens manual:

 

[Jim Jones]

Enlarger misalignment will affect the corner to corner sharpness at wide apertures. This should be carefully checked when testing fast lenses.

 

[Svenedin]

I used Schneider Componar-S lenses in 50mm and 80mm a lot over 25 years ago. They were the best I could afford at the time. I still have them and they are sitting next to a Rodenstock 50mm APO. Nobody ever said my prints lacked sharpness (they may have lacked much else besides) and I would occasionally floor project for very large enlargements. I think these Tessar type lenses are underrated and capable of very pleasing “sparkly” results (probably considered a defect but it appeals to me). I think I will do some comparisons inspired by your thread.

 

[Bill Burk]

I no longer have my 50mm El-Nikkor ‘80s era lens, it was disappointing to me.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Eric Rose]

The Nikkor 50mm 2.8 EL lens never impressed me. It was sharp enough, just didn't have the personality my Schneider APO has.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have a 135mm f:4.5 Elgeet Colorstigmat, which looks like it could have been made by Wollensak. I haven't printed with it, but it's no slouch for macro photography.

 

[Svenedin]

The Nikkor 50mm 2.8 EL lens never impressed me. It was sharp enough, just didn't have the personality my Schneider APO has.

Personality is a great way of putting it

 

[outwest]

Here are the test results from a "vintage" photo magazine.

 

[AgX]

I used Schneider Componar-S lenses...

I do not have them in my archive. Only the plain Componar and the Componar-C from 1983 or so. The latter is stated to be recalculated on its pededecessor by modern means.

 

[AgX]

Here are the test results from a "vintage" photo magazine. View attachment 197989

I know the US "Spiratone" brand, their lenses are likely from Japan. I guess the "Voss" brand stands for a similar importer (Voss Photo Products).

The Spiratone and Voss branded lenses likely are plain triplets, as the Componar. It is interesting to learn about such great differences in image quality, especially as otherwise plain triplets do not show up at lens tests.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I think you learned first hand that you need to test lenses. Just the way it is. In all the testing I've done I've had some surprises. Of course it is possible that your Nikkors are decentered. I had a Schneider Componon-S that wasn't very good, but I took it apart to clean it and made sure it went back together correctly after which is was just as good as anything else.

When you are evaluating lenses though you should be using a glass (on both sides) negative carrier and make sure your enlarger is aligned, best done with a laser. It is possible that a lens which isn't well corrected can give a better result if the neg isn't flat.

Lastly, don't believe everything you read on the internet....

 

[chip j]

I do not have them in my archive. Only the plain Componar and the Componar-C from 1983 or so. The latter is stated to be recalculated on its pededecessor by modern means.

I just bought a new Componar S 50mm 2.8 on ebay.

 

[Bill Burk]

Here are the test results from a "vintage" photo magazine. View attachment 197989

Wish I had this list handy when I had the lens.

I probably used it at f/16

 

[Svenedin]

I just bought a new Componar S 50mm 2.8 on ebay.

Good. Take my wine soaked Easter dinner advice or leave it.......when you focus that lens wide open be careful. 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. I would not bore the forum with my tedious photographs but this is an excellent lens. Then stop down one or 2 stops. Best of luck. Stephen

 

[John Galt]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

Of the bunch I was most satisfied with the Omegaron.

 

[voceumana]

Enlarging is perhaps the most critical application that most photographers undertake. I suspect that a very well aligned 4-element lens will win over any 6-element where one or more of the elements is mis-aligned. Getting 4 to 6 lens elements perfectly centered is a difficult manufacturing task.

 

[Svenedin]

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.

I would really advise on your eyesight. Honestly! It is more important to achieve sharp focus on a so-called mediocre Lens than to fail to achieve it on a lens multiple times the price. I say that as a person with poor eyesight since my late teens.

 

[John Galt]

I would really advise on your eyesight. Honestly! It is more important to achieve sharp focus on a so-called mediocre Lens than to fail to achieve it on a lens multiple times the price. I say that as a person with poor eyesight since my late teens.

agreement 100%