What's the advantage of a 63mm enlarging lens?

[waffles]

Most of the enlargers at my school have 50mm or 80mm lenses for 35/120 roll film. But one has a 63mm El-Nikkor. What's the purpose of an intermediate-length lens like this? It is designed for some kind of outdated film format? Or does it have some use in enlarging normal roll films?

 

[Ozxplorer]

Hi... I "googled" - "specification 63mm El-Nikkor" and found information here ...

 

[mdarnton]

I cannot speak to enlarging, but of all the lenses I tested for digital duping of negatives at 1:2, the 63mm/2.8 blew away all competitors, besting the 50/2.8 el-Nikkor as well as several other premium enlarger lenses and several 55-60mm micro-Nikkors. And the difference was not small. If this holds for normal enlarging sizes, it could be worth testing it for enlarging.

Like all lenses in critical applications it was fussy about the precise aperture used, but unlike the others, which were best around f/7.1 and quickly degraded beyond that, the 63mm was best approaching f/11.

 

[MattKing]

They were designed for those who used 127 film.
Most cameras used 127 to create square negatives or slides (40mm x 40mm) although there were a few cameras that used it to create 40mm x 30mm or 40mm x 60mm negatives.
A 40mm x 40mm slide would fit into a mount that will work in a projector designed for 135 slides - a so called "super" slide. The super slides were great!
There are some high quality 127 cameras out there. The Baby Rollei comes to mind.
127 became much less popular over time. Kodak discontinued film production in 1995. There is some film still being produced.
My first camera took 127 film:

 

[darkroommike]

The 63's are popular choices for macro work, slide duping (does anyone still dupe slides?), and UV photography.
I want one to try simply because it gets the lens and enlarger head a little higher when making smaller prints from 35mm. Four blade easels are a PITA when making small prints.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I use a 80mm whenever I can for 35 mm work to get better centering so a 63mm would also be a good factor , never seen a 63mm btw.

 

[darkroommike]

They were designed for those who used 127 film.
Most cameras used 127 to create square negatives or slides (40mm x 40mm) although there were a few cameras that used it to create 40mm x 30mm or 40mm x 60mm negatives.
A 40mm x 40mm slide would fit into a mount that will work in a projector designed for 135 slides - a so called "super" slide. The super slides were great!
There are some high quality 127 cameras out there. The Baby Rollei comes to mind.
127 became much less popular over time. Kodak discontinued film production in 1995. There is some film still being produced.
My first camera took 127 film:
View attachment 176746

That's my first camera also, might be a "King" thing (my last name same as yours!). I had to buy a replacement Kodak on Ebay a while back just because. That's another idea about why the 63mm's were popular early on.

 

[Ian Grant]

They were designed for those who used 127 film.
Most cameras used 127 to create square negatives or slides (40mm x 40mm) although there were a few cameras that used it to create 40mm x 30mm or 40mm x 60mm negatives.
A 40mm x 40mm slide would fit into a mount that will work in a projector designed for 135 slides - a so called "super" slide. The super slides were great!
There are some high quality 127 cameras out there. The Baby Rollei comes to mind.
127 became much less popular over time. Kodak discontinued film production in 1995. There is some film still being produced.
My first camera took 127 film:
View attachment 176746

Yes, when my mum got an Instamatic I was given her Brownie 127, aged about 8 or 9.

4x4 Super slides are great but a few 35mm projectors don't have a square opening in the part that carries the slide as I discovered when giving a lecture once using the venues projector.

The 63mm El Nikkor is quite rare I've never seen one for sale or in use.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

I use a 60mm Focotar on my Omega 6D enlarger for most of my work with 135 film. The focusing bellows on the enlarger is fairly stiff, so it can sometimes be awkward using a 50mm lens on it. That extra 10mm makes things easier, and it is rare that I need more magnification than the 60mm provides. A 63mm lens would serve the same purpose.

 

[Oren Grad]

I have the latest ("N") version of the 63mm EL Nikkor. They're not hard to find - there are a bunch on eBay right now - though some patience is required if you want one at a price that's not disproportionate to what 50's and 80's are going for.

FWIW, the various versions of the EL Nikkor brochure that I have all specify the intended format as "32x45mm". I don't recognize that as a standard format, have no idea where it came from.

 

[MattKing]

I have the latest ("N") version of the 63mm EL Nikkor. They're not hard to find - there are a bunch on eBay right now - though some patience is required if you want one at a price that's not disproportionate to what 50's and 80's are going for.

FWIW, the various versions of the EL Nikkor brochure that I have all specify the intended format as "32x45mm". I don't recognize that as a standard format, have no idea where it came from.

I wonder if it could be a cine film standard of some sort?

 

[AgX]

Yes, they were intended for 4x4cm images size.

Though Schneider and Rodenstock did not use 63mm FL, but 60mm.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The 63's are popular choices for macro work, slide duping (does anyone still dupe slides?), and UV photography.
I want one to try simply because it gets the lens and enlarger head a little higher when making smaller prints from 35mm. Four blade easels are a PITA when making small prints.

there are several for sale in the bay right now

 

[jjphoto]

I bought one 'brand-new' back in the day, I think about the 1980's and still have it. You do need a bit of extra enlarger height for it, depends on the print size you want.

I think the UV advantages of the earlier 63 F3.5 version have been debunked as an error in marketing material. For a period the price of the F3.5 version was off the chart which I think was as irrational as the Dutch Tulip bubble in the 17th century! The F2.8 version never saw such mania.

 

[darkroommike]

I bought one 'brand-new' back in the day, I think about the 1980's and still have it. You do need a bit of extra enlarger height for it, depends on the print size you want.

I think the UV advantages of the earlier 63 F3.5 version have been debunked as an error in marketing material. For a period the price of the F3.5 version was off the chart which I think was as irrational as the Dutch Tulip bubble in the 17th century! The F2.8 version never saw such mania.

Price 'em on Ebay and the cult classic thing is still holding strong. Like I said I would like one for making smaller enlargements from 35mm on my D5 but not at the price most folks seem to think this lens merits.

 

[mshchem]

Bantam, 828, The standard image format is 40 × 28 mm. This sounds pretty close to the pamphlet says 32mm x 45mm ????

I use one for 35mm, one more doodad.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

FWIW, the various versions of the EL Nikkor brochure that I have all specify the intended format as "32x45mm". I don't recognize that as a standard format, have no idea where it came from.

It's an unperforated microfilm format, which would call for a high-resolution, flat-field, high-contrast enlarging lens. I wouldn't be surprised if there are lots of cheap ones around salvaged from old microfilm readers.

 

[jjphoto]

Price 'em on Ebay and the cult classic thing is still holding strong. Like I said I would like one for making smaller enlargements from 35mm on my D5 but not at the price most folks seem to think this lens merits.

Just had a very quick look at Ebay SOLD (not 'asking prices' but actual 'sold prices') listings worldwide and the F3.5 sells for maybe USD250-350 (ballpark) whilst the F2.8 sells for about USD100 less. To put this in perspective, about 3-5 years ago (maybe longer) the F3.5 was actually selling for close to USD1000 and the F2.8 was about the same as it is now. Prices today may still be unreasonable, depending on your view I suppose.

 

[Oren Grad]

It's an unperforated microfilm format...

< search search search >

< light bulb >

Thanks, David - happy to learn something!

 

[mdarnton]

I watch these on Ebay because I've been thinking of getting an extra. One of the recent sellers mentioned that his came off a repro camera whose name I didn't recognie, and commented that this camera is where a lot of these lenses had lived and could be found. That would square with the microfilm idea. They're very easy to find in the sub $150 range if you are willing to wait, but I found mine at a camera store's web site for around $80. It may be a less common lens, but it's not an expensive one.

 

[calebarchie]

I know they were used in agfa alto film recorder set ups. There is one in a 35mm module on the bay right now.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I'm not sure if it's sharper but the longer focal length does offer a more comfortable working height with smaller prints.
If the enlarger head is relatively close to the easel it's hard to see around, and gets in the way when burning/dodging.

Chris

 

[darkroom_rookie]

There's also this little Japanese gem, a real sleeper:

http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=19767

 

[Nige]

I had a 63mm which was either a Schneider or Rodenstock, can't remember. I think it was f5.6, something not so sexy, but it did cover 645 negs. I gave it to someone who had graduated to a 645 but didn't have a lens to enlarge with.

 

[AgX]

As said above Schneider and Rodenstock offered 60mm lenses, to be formally correct.