Which lens for 4x5 enlarger: 135mm or 150mm?

[optique]

The subject about says it all. This is for Beseler 45 enlarger.

I am looking at a Nikkor EL-150mm 5.6.

Will this particular lens cover 4x5?

I would like a 150mm lens for my 4x5 enlarger but it seems the 135mm may be more common.

Will all 135mm lens cover 4x5 or which do, or which should I avoid?

I need to get the lens board too.

Thanks in advance.
Steve.

 

[papagene]

Both lenses will cover 4x5. Which 135mm lens is it?
I have a 135 Schneider Componon-S and it covers 4x5 easily. I got it a long time ago for what was then a very good price. It has served ne very well over the years.
One advantage for the 135mm is that it will allow you to make bigger enlargements.

gene

 

[optique]

Sorry, my original posting should read Nikkor EL-135mm 5.6

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, Steve,

Gene is correct. For decades, I have used a 135mm Componon for 4 x 5 negatives in a Beseler MCR-X. A used Beseler lens board shouldn't be hard to find and shouldn't cost much. If you're in a hurry, just get some 1/8" tempered Masonite and cut a hole the right size. That's the way mine's mounted; someday, maybe I'll get around to finding an actual Beseler board.

Konical

 

[Ian Grant]

Originally I used a 150mm lens for 5x4, then I acquired a better 135mm Componon the resulting prints are just as good but the enlarger was more practical.

Ian

 

[optique]

Ok. Very good. You guys are great. What did we do before the internet?

I will proceed on a Componon or Nikkor lens in 135mm. Ability to choose between 150 and 135mm makes choices easier.

B&h has a lens board for about $85 new but I will check used first.

Thanks.
Steve.

 

[optique]

By the way, I saw a Componon (no -s), for sale for cheap in great condition. Is there a reason why I should shy from this?

TIA
Steve.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I had the Componon 150mm for years. Thought it was a great lens. I reasoned the 150 would give more even coverage than the 135... but have no proof of that.
You can't go wrong with either one... or with Nikon or Schneider for that mater.
-Rob

 

[JohnArs]

If you find a Rodagon then you can also take thad one.

Cheers Armin

 

[dpurdy]

I got by with a 135 Rodagon for years though it was annoying to always have to burn the corners for 16x20s. I finally got a Componon-S 150 which I love and no more corner burning. I used to have problems getting an old style 75 componon to cover 6X6 negs at large prints but then I got a 75 Nikkor and have no coverage problem at all.
Dennis

 

[Anscojohn]

The old lab rats that first taught me darkroom said use the next step up from needed coverage. Sharper, more even coverage, they said. But, like Rob, I have no real evidence this is true. Of course, lens design has changed a whole lot, I guess.
But I use a 60 for my 35mm negs; a 100 for 6x6; a 105 for 6x7. Of course, I have an extra long girder on my old Beseler.

 

[nsurit]

Steve, if you are not in a huge hurry and would have an interest in the turret lens mount for your Beseler, let me know. I have an extra I plan to sell when my stuff moves from storage into a new darkroom. Could possibly have an extra 135/150mm lens. House to be complete in mid-February. Oh, I also happen to be in the Houston area, although my storage is in San Marcos. Bill Barber

 

[Ian Grant]

With my 135mm Compoon I was making 20"x30" prints and larger with good even coverage and definitely no need to burn in the corners. I also use a 240mm for 10x8's.

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

The main difference between 135 and 150 will be enlarger head height.

Optimum aperture for depth of field and minimal diffraction will be the same for both (focal length is not in the equation).

There will be slightly more falloff at the edges with the 135 but it is a very small difference.

This composite shows the light falloff of the two Componon-s lenses. 135 is in Green and 150 is in Red.

The 150 is technically sharper, as the MTF curves also favor the 150 in all cases, but, like the light falloff, the difference is small and only in the far corners.

BTW I use the 150

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Of course the 150mm lens will have less illumination fall off towards the corners of a 5x4 neg than for a 135mm lens - all other things being equal

It is the cos^4 effect coming into play – and that’s just plain physics

However, your taking lenses also have a cos^4 illumination fall off - again its just plain physics.

Very wide angle taking lenses have the most severe cos^4 fall off - hence the need for centre filters

Very long taking lenses will have very little cos^4 fall off - particularly true about the centre of the lenses axis.

Ideally you would have a cos^4 fall off matching characteristic on both your taking and enlarging lens - but you would need a whole range of matching pairs.

You also have to throw into the equation - illumination evenness of your enlarging head.

But the real question is - is it whole effect significant enough to worry about ?

The answer seems to be no - not with a decent enlarger and enlarging lens

Martin

 

[fschifano]

I can't compare 135 vs. 150. I have two 135's though, one an old Schneider Componon, and the other an EL-Nikkor of approximately the same vintage. The EL-Nikkor is the better of the two in this case, primarily because the Componon is a little hazy and the Nikkor has the better AR coating. Both provide even enough illumination out to the edges of the frame. The only time I notice any light fall off is when there are large areas of continuous tone extending from the center out to the edges, and then only when these areas range from the middle of the tonal range out to the highlights.