What len(s) for a Besler 45 Enlarger

[OptiKen]

I just started trying to wet print and already know it's a mistake.
Wet printing is not only fun but addictive. VERY addictive.
And the tones are unmatched by any other type of printing I've seen.
I have a Besler 45 enlarger but am unclear on lenses for it.
I shoot 35mm, medium format (6X6 mostly) and large format (3X4 now...4x5 eventually)

I like to print 5x7, 8x10, 11x14.

What lenses would I need to do all of that?

Thanks in advance

Ken

 

[wiltw]

You want the 50mm for 135 format, about 80mm-105mm for medium format (depending upon neg size), 150mm for 4x5" neg

 

[Alan9940]

Many years ago, my mentor thought that using slightly longer lenses than normal for the film format would result in sharper prints with less vignetting. Don't know if any of that is true, but for nearly 40 years I've used 80mm for 135 format, 100mm for medium format (up to 6x7), and 150mm for 6x9 and 4x5. The only real downsides to using slightly longer focal lengths is more restricted print size (vs using something shorter) and higher enlarger head placement when trying to focus accurately. My only exception is on my Leica V35 enlarger where I use a 40mm lens because that's the focal length it was designed for; no complaints about image sharpness with this setup.

Good luck!

Kind regards,
Alan

 

[wiltw]

Claims of better sharpness with longer FL have been disproven in testing...it may have once been true long ago, but modern lenses (c. 2000) do not exhibit any advantage in sharpness attributable to longer FL for enlarging.
Longer FL do have better uniformity of brightness across the projected image, since (unlike wider FL) the coverage angle used on the lens is inherently not using the falloff seen with shorter FL at the edges.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Diagonals of various formats (rounded up or down)...

135.............. 43mm
6x6cm.......... 80mm
6x7cm.......... 90mm
6x9cm.......... 100mm
6x12cm........ 125mm
3.25x4.25in... 130mm
4x5in........... 150mm

The only time you should ever consider using an enlarging lens longer than the diagonal of the film format is when making high magnification prints of greater than about 8x, IMO. This is because the lens is relatively far away from the film at lesser magnifications so only the center of the lens is used. As magnification increases, the lens is focused closer to the film so more of the lens' coverage is used. It's far more common to use a longer-than-normal lens for 135 because the enlarging magnification is much greater so 50-63mm lenses are the norm. By the time you get to 4x5in film you don't need to worry about using a longer-than normal lens until you get past a 40 inch wide print, again IMO. In fact, 135mm lenses for 4x5in enlarging are far more common than 150mm because few people print larger than 16x20in so the lens is far enough away from the film that the lens' coverage isn't being fully utilized.

So, IMO, I would go with the following focal lengths for 11x14 enlargements...

135.............. 50-63mm
6x6cm.......... 80mm
6x7cm.......... 90mm
6x9cm.......... 100-105mm
6x12cm........ 120-135mm
3.25x4.25in... 120-135mm
4x5in........... 135-150mm

But... since you can use a longer lens than needed, you could use the 100-105mm for 6x6cm, 6x7cm and 6x9cm. You'll need a 50mm for 135 (63mm is a bit long so enlarger height could be an issue). You can share a 135mm for 6x12cm, 3.25x4.25in and 4x5in. So, IMO, a three lens set as follows should fit your needs nicely.

50mm
100-105mm
135mm

 

[Paul Howell]

In addition to focal length the design of the lens also matters. I would look for 6 elements lens, Photo Cornucopia has a link to list of enlarging lens (the Big List) which provides a lot of useful information on a wide range of lens.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That's right, and there are wide-angle designs too. I'd opt for 6-element but I don't care for the WA variety.

 

[Alan9940]

Claims of better sharpness with longer FL have been disproven in testing...it may have once been true long ago, but modern lenses (c. 2000) do not exhibit any advantage in sharpness attributable to longer FL for enlarging.

The fact that I bought all my enlarging lenses 35 years ago could explain the general thinking at that time.

Kind regards,
Alan

 

[winger]

I use a Beseler 23CIII for 35mm and 120 (mostly 645) and use a 50mm and 80mm. I also have a 105mm for the few 6x9 negs I could do. For 4x5, I have a 45MX and tried both a 135mm and a 150mm and settled on the 150mm. It was a few years ago, so I couldn't tell you why, but I liked it better.

I don't know that there are really any bad lenses for enlarging, but I think everyone has their favorites that they swear are the only ones you should use. My two for 35mm and 120 are both Schneider Componon S lenses and I really like what I get with those. I haven't done extensive comparisons with others, though. I've also discovered that enlarging lenses might breed when left in a drawer. Somehow, I now have about 11 enlarging lenses and I cannot remember actually buying more than 5.

 

[Chan Tran]

Many years ago, my mentor thought that using slightly longer lenses than normal for the film format would result in sharper prints with less vignetting. Don't know if any of that is true, but for nearly 40 years I've used 80mm for 135 format, 100mm for medium format (up to 6x7), and 150mm for 6x9 and 4x5. The only real downsides to using slightly longer focal lengths is more restricted print size (vs using something shorter) and higher enlarger head placement when trying to focus accurately. My only exception is on my Leica V35 enlarger where I use a 40mm lens because that's the focal length it was designed for; no complaints about image sharpness with this setup.

Good luck!

Kind regards,
Alan

I don't know about that but when I print 35mm I use the 50mm for 8x10 and up. When I print 4x6 I used the 80mm just because it gives me good distance from the easel.

 

[gzinsel]

I think old n feeble is correct in his assessment. Although I have 50mm, 105mm, 150mm.

 

[gzinsel]

oh, i also have a rodenstock 270mm for 10x8. and a 210mm for 5x7. But thats for a different enlarger. ( sorry to digress)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I didn't consider you may want to crop your 6x6cm images to 1:1.25 ratio (6x4.5cm). If so then you may want to add a 75-80mm lens to your arsenal.

 

[BobMarvin]

"I'd opt for 6-element but I don't care for the WA variety."
I had my doubts about WA enlarging lenses, but have been using a 60mm WA Companon to make 16 X 20 prints from 6 X 6 and 6 X 4.5 negatives with excellent results. I switch to an 80mm Rodogon for 11 X 14s, but using the WA lens probably wouldn't really make a noticeable difference.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I use an 80 mm Rodagon for 135 N 6x6 N a 135 mm Rodago for everything above. Often use the 135 for 6 x 6. L

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Bob, I know there are some wonderful WA ELs available and they're invaluable for when one truly needs one. However, My experience with them is the grain tends to stretch into oval shapes toward the edges/corners. The grain is sharp but distorted... at least that was my experience with the examples I tried.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Buy 6 element lenses in 50,80, 150. 135 is ok for 4x5 small prints, say 11x14.

Do not buy wide angle ones if it is a condenser enlarger. Corners are bad for unexplained reasons. I have several top drawer that work on diffusion, not on condenser.

 

[BobMarvin]

"Do not buy wide angle ones if it is a condenser enlarger….I have several top drawer that work on diffusion, not on condenser"

I was worried about that, but my 60mm WA Companon works fine with my Omega B 8, using the supplementary condenser intended for a 75mm lens. Of course I wouldn't have bothered with the WA lens if I had an XL model of my enlarger, but it was the only way to make 16 X 20 prints, with some room for cropping.