Best enlarging lenses

[Michael Wellman]

What are good enlarging lenses to get? Are most major lens makers fairly good or is there a difference? I'd like something for my 35mm and 4x5.

Michael

[Daniel Stone]

What size prints are you looking to make, and will you be printing black and white or color as well?
Just like taking lenses, enlarging lenses can get people into heated arguments rather quickly :p , so perhaps give us a little more info to make some recommendations.

FWIW, I have not seen a super huge difference between "APO" branded lenses and non-APO for regular b/w printing in most cases. APO lenses were primarily used for color printing, where you were trying to reduce the chances of color fringing, or for creating separation negatives/masks.

-Dan

[Larry Gebhardt]

Take a look at Ctein’s Post Exposure http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

I used a Nikon 135mm f/5.6 EL for a while when my enlarger was height limited. It was excellent. I now use the 150mm version as well as a 150mm f/5.6 Rodagon and both are also excellent and even with a loupe I can’t tell them apart. Just get a 6 element lens from the big manufacturers and you won’t go wrong. If you are height constrained go with a 135mm, otherwise 150mm is going to be more even.

For 35mm the 50mm f/2.8 lenses from Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock are all good. Avoid the f/4 versions.

[Pere Casals]

What are good enlarging lenses to get? Are most major lens makers fairly good or is there a difference? I'd like something for my 35mm and 4x5.

If you ask this, then right question is: What are the good darkroom techniques ?

All nikon, scheneider and rodenstock enlarging gear is crazy good, even that from the 1970s or even older.

It takes a long trip for a printer to take advantage of top lens performance, and always a good printer will make perfect prints with not the best lenses. Some jobs require special lenses, but you may spend years until you find any advantage from best lenses.


I bought old Rodenstocks 210 and a 240 that were as they had fall from an airplane in flight, and they are crazy good. I metered its performance and got amazed.

As enlarging lenses are now cheap you may get 6 element models. This is Rodagons instead Rogonars, or Componons instead Componars and Comparons. For 35mm the Nikon EL 50 2.8 is amazingly excellent, for LF I'd take Rodagons, but many have separations, avoid those having that problem. Componons are also good

It is nice if lens is mint, but some scratches in the glass doesn't matter at all. For the moment I'd pick relatively cheap glass, when you know what you want and why you may invest more.


In the future you may get a Rogadon N perhaps, but for sure I'd start with a plain Rodagon or a Componon, or late model Componon-S, it's very difficult to see any difference.

As noted by Larry, Ctein's book is a very good source, some advanced information on it is a bit controversial, as always, for example Rodagon N doesn't shine much over the plain Rodagon, but it is not told in what conditions the expensive version would shine, this is for monster prints requiring a large aperture to not have LIRF in the paper. You don't need an N until you are printing mural prints and you have lots of practice, a level me I don't have.

[Tin Can]

Wide angle for large enlargement from 35mm.

I have a shot made with and old Leica 35mm that was enlarged to poster size. Amazing at 5 ft. Made in 1983 by mail order, Had to be a good WA enlarging lens.

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/darkroombrgetting-most-enlarger-lenses

[Bob Salomon]

If you ask this, then right question is: What are the good darkroom techniques ?

All nikon, scheneider and rodenstock enlarging gear is crazy good, even that from the 1970s or even older.

It takes a long trip for a printer to take advantage of top lens performance, and always a good printer will make perfect prints with not the best lenses. Some jobs require special lenses, but you may spend years until you find any advantage from best lenses.


I bought old Rodenstocks 210 and a 240 that were as they had fall from an airplane in flight, and they are crazy good. I metered its performance and got amazed.

As enlarging lenses are now cheap you may get 6 element models. This is Rodagons instead Rogonars, or Componons instead Componars and Comparons. For 35mm the Nikon EL 50 2.8 is amazingly excellent, for LF I'd take Rodagons, but many have separations, avoid those having that problem. Componons are also good

It is nice if lens is mint, but some scratches in the glass doesn't matter at all. For the moment I'd pick relatively cheap glass, when you know what you want and why you may invest more.


In the future you may get a Rogadon N perhaps, but for sure I'd start with a plain Rodagon or a Componon, or late model Componon-S, it's very difficult to see any difference.

As noted by Larry, Ctein's book is a very good source, some advanced information on it is a bit controversial, as always, for example Rodagon N doesn't shine much over the plain Rodagon, but it is not told in what conditions the expensive version would shine, this is for monster prints requiring a large aperture to not have LIRF in the paper. You don't need an N until you are printing mural prints and you have lots of practice, a level me I don't have.

Rodagon G is for mural prints
Apo Rodagon N is best for everything else. Closely followed by Rodagon WA and the Rodagon.

[Pere Casals]

Rodagon G is for mural prints
Apo Rodagon N is best for everything else. Closely followed by Rodagon WA and the Rodagon.

Thanks for the correction. Anyway I can't imagine a LF negative outresolving a plain Rodagon. Bob, honestly, being the the plain Rodadon as good as it is I don't realize how Rodenstock was selling the more expensive lenses.

I state this after checking what a plain and old Rodagon is able.

191251

191252

The damn thing (the 210mm) was taking 145 lp/mm from the film plane... not a joke.

50cm prints are totally sharp even if inspected with a x4 loupe, I dindn't know what was a true sharp print until I started enlarging LF negatives.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for the correction. Anyway I can't imagine a LF negative outresoving a plain Rodagon. Bob, honestly, being the the plain Rodadon as good as it is I don't realize how Rodenstock was selling the more expensive lenses.

I state this after checking what a plain and old Rodagon is able.

Then try the Apo Rodagon N for most prints and the G for mural prints. With a properly aligned enlarger, glass carrier and optimal magnification and f stop you will see differences!

[Pere Casals]

Then try the Apo Rodagon N for most prints and the G for mural prints. With a properly aligned enlarger, glass carrier and optimal magnification and f stop you will see differences!

Sure the N/G have advantages, but if the plain Rodagon outresolves the sharpest negatives, what will be the benefit of using an N ? beyond having a faster lens...

Sure a Pro would want an N, the 1 stop faster max aperture allows for a more critical focusing and allows for shorter exposures for big prints... but regarding image quality, I don't realize how a better lens than the plain Rodagon would improve the print...

The advantage I see is the larger aperture for focus and at peak performance...

Perhaps for small formats the N advantage is easier to see, in fact N was made until 150mm only...

[bob carnie]

I use Apo Rodagon lenses for all my work, I found them to be superior to regular Rodagon lenses... for medium format negatives my favourite by far is the Apo Rodagon 90's.
If I can get away with it I prefer slightly larger focal length , it allows the negative to be covered better IMO.

80mm for 35mm negs though I do use Apo 50 for this as well

90mm for medium format

150mm for 4 x 5 but I have bought a 180mm Apo that covers nicely.


I think these are great lenses.

[Bob Salomon]

Sure the N/G have advantages, but if the plain Rodagon outresolves the sharpest negatives, what will be the benefit of using an N ? beyond having a faster lens...

Sure a Pro would want an N, the 1 stop faster max aperture allows for a more critical focusing and allows for shorter exposures for big prints... but regarding image quality, I don't realize how a better lens than the plain Rodagon would improve the print...

The advantage I see is the larger aperture for focus and at peak performance...

Perhaps for small formats the N advantage is easier to see, in fact N was made until 150mm only...

Don’t imagine, try it. Buy a used N and see for yourself.

[Pere Casals]

I use Apo Rodagon lenses for all my work, I found them to be superior to regular Rodagon lenses... .

Becasue of the coating ? More contrasty ?

[Leigh]

I standardized on the Schneider APO-Componon-HM series some years ago after using other good lenses.
So I bought all available focal lengths from 45mm up.

With high-quality transparencies printed on Cibachrome, I could see a difference.

Of course if you're printing black&white, the APO lenses have optimizations that are not needed.

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

Becasue of the coating ? More contrasty ?

More everything! Go try one!

[bob carnie]

Becasue of the coating ? More contrasty ?

speed, tonal quality , apparent sharpness pick any one

I completely switched back in the day when silver printing on an enlarger was a daily thing..

[bob carnie]

speed, tonal quality , apparent sharpness pick any one

I completely switched back in the day when silver printing on an enlarger was a daily thing..

I should also note I was doing Cibas and RA4 optically as well as BW silver

[bob carnie]

I should also point out that I use glass carriers and have a laser aligner to make sure everything is in alignment.... with out this the best lenses in the world will not help.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I bought a complete set of the old silver Schneider Componons, I like them and Ken Ruth encouraged me to get all of them. Not expensive and plentiful. If they have milky fog inside them, take the elements out and wash them in your sink with dish washing soap. Not difficult and easy to do.

Since I am renovating my darkroom, I wanted to add some new glass to try. I have always had a 180mm 90s vintage Rodenstock Rodagon I used for printing large and small. Just recently I have added the 150mm F.6 Rodagon, also the 105mm Rodagon, and I just bought an 80mm Rodagon. And I also just added a 120mm WA Rodagon that called my name at a very low price.

Lots of new things to try.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I should also point out that I use glass carriers and have a laser aligner to make sure everything is in alignment.... with out this the best lenses in the world will not help.

I've had one for years, just tried it for the first time, and it's amazing and works as promised. VERY worthwhile.

[Mark Crabtree]

"New" Nikkor, which are now mostly very old. The earlier models are fine, but the redesigned versions are really great (see the Ctein mention earlier). 50/2.8, 63/28, and 80mm (5.6 I think) are easy to ID by the illuminated fstops, but longer ones are likely different at some point. My new style 150 is plain barrel without the illumination. 63/2.8 is particularly nice for 35mm, but needs a bit more column and goes for more money than the perfectly fine 50/2.8.

I'm not saying there is nothing better, but these are truly great lenses that often go for very low prices. Your title said "best", but your OP said "good". These are great. If you really are chasing after the very best then I'd be likely to take the advice of bob and Bob.

[bob carnie]

One could adapt a coke bottle to make a lens I would thing a great image can be made....

For me I was taught try to use the best quality lens , you can always soften the image with tissue , filters to create a mood. But its hard to make a lower quality lens perform like a great one.

Glass is very important in what we do.

[Tin Can]

For 35mm nothing beats this in good condition. Best with all original everything. Including the stock 40mm lens.

https://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/v35.htm

I have #10 of 18 from a college in Nebraska.

They are still expensive.

[Bernice Loui]

Yet APO process lenses used for B&W print making does make a difference. Been there, done this.

Settled on using a 180mm APO Nikkor for 4x5 and 9-1/2" APO Artar for 5x7. Tried 135mm to 210mm EL Nikkor, Rodagon (APO Rodagons work good), variety of Componon both S and non S versions, the APO process lenses does best. Using APO process lenses with sheet film demands power from the light source as working apertures of f16 to f22 is common. Adding printing filters can increase print exposure times. Most f5.6 enlarging lenses are good enough at f8 to f11. This affects print exposure times.

Exceptions being (previously mentioned numerous times) Goerz 6" Magnar which produces FAR more modulation than the print paper can ever hope to resolve.

Print size is only one consideration, working aperture, tonal qualities and more all figure into what enlarging lens does good for a given print maker.


Bernice







I standardized on the Schneider APO-Componon-HM series some years ago after using other good lenses.
So I bought all available focal lengths from 45mm up.

With high-quality transparencies printed on Cibachrome, I could see a difference.

Of course if you're printing black&white, the APO lenses have optimizations that are not needed.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

Hi Bernice,

APO enlarging lenses are VERY different from APO process lenses.

My comments applied to APO enlarging lenses.

- Leigh



Yet APO process lenses used for B&W print making does make a difference. Been there, done this.

Settled on using a 180mm APO Nikkor for 4x5 and 9-1/2" APO Artar for 5x7. Tried 135mm to 210mm EL Nikkor, Rodagon (APO Rodagons work good), variety of Componon both S and non S versions, the APO process lenses does best. Using APO process lenses with sheet film demands power from the light source as working apertures of f16 to f22 is common. Adding printing filters can increase print exposure times. Most f5.6 enlarging lenses are good enough at f8 to f11. This affects print exposure times.

[ruilourosa]

gona give a go to the 240 repromaster... how could it compare to 240 rodagon...

[Michael Wellman]

Thank you all for the response. Sorry I should have been more specific. 90-95% of my work is B&W. Most printing will be 8x10 to 11x14 but I am planning on doing 16x20 and maybe 20x24

[Tin Can]

Which?


What are good enlarging lenses to get? Are most major lens makers fairly good or is there a difference? I'd like something for my 35mm and 4x5.

Michael

[Ted R]

there are lenses with three, four, six, seven and more elements

in any focal length some of the quality factors that matter are:

maximum aperture (faster lenses can be used with shorter exposure times, also they are brighter wide open and easier to focus)
corner darkening (all lenses suffer from this to a certain extent, it makes the corners of a the print lighter than the center which is often aesthetically displeasing)
flatness of field (are the corners and the center of the negative in focus at the same time at all apertures?)
chromatic aberration (how much red and blue blur is there? regular achromat lenses are corrected for two wavelengths red and blue, apo-chromatic lenses are corrected for three wavelengths)
range of enlargement factors it was designed for (for example 2x - 6x, outside this range results may be slightly inferior)

most lenses improve with closing the aperture

Better quality lenses are a pleasure to use and hold their value better. These three brands make excellent lenses at all price points Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock.

[Drew Wiley]

I've used a lot of enlarging lenses, and still have quite a selection. The very best aren't even officially enlarging lenses, but 4-element Apo Nikkor process lenses. But these aren't available in shorter focal lengths typical of the poster's needs. So that leaves me squarely in the camp of Bob and Bob, recommending Apo Rodagon N's; and yes, you can see a difference in actual prints. But most later ordinary EL Nikkors, Rodagons, and similar offerings from Schneider and Fuji are going to do a fine job for most purposes and be a lot more affordable. I'd avoid old silver Componons and 3-element student lenses, though many of these were certainly decent within their own era.

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed. Roganars etc tended to be 3-element student lenses, but were often privately labeled, like for Beseler. But I failed to mention the Rolls Royce of enlarging lenses because they're now rare, very expensive, and frankly, too big and heavy for many enlargers and therefore might deflect the mounting platform out of square. These are the Apo EL Nikkors (distinct from both El Nikkor enlarging lenses and Apo Nikkor process lenses).

[SParis]

Old thread now, but nobody mentioned the Fujinon EX series.
They come in 50mm, 75, 90, 105 and 135. They're superb; I found them better than the higher end big-three lenses, although I never tried any of the APO ones.
Fujinars are the lower-end Tessar types, and other suffixes, ES and EP are good, but not remarkable.

[Pere Casals]

They come in 50mm, 75, 90, 105 and 135.

Yes... but these are not LF lenses. The 135 may see some usage, for 4x5", to compensate fall-off or to overcome enlarger limitations, even shorter focals may be suitable for enlarging a crop, but EX series are for MF and 35mm format.

[SParis]

I mentioned the shorter Fujinons only for completeness, and to demonstrate that Fuji made a full line of top quality enlarging lenses. Of course the 90 and shorter lenses are not intended for large format.

I didn't mention Fuji's other 135mm lenses, the Fujinar-E, Fujinon-Es, and Fujinon-EP, all of which, as well as the EX, are intended for 4x5 enlarging. 135mm is a pretty standard focal length for 4x5.

I use a Fujinon-EX for all my 4x5 enlarging; I did some considerable testing before settling on it, and found it better than the Componon, Rodagon and El-Nikkor equivalents. As I said, I did not compare it to any of the ultra-high-end APO lenses.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/enlarge.htm

[Pere Casals]

135mm is a pretty standard focal length for 4x5.

IMHO it is pretty standard for amateur usage to overcome enlarger's limitations, and it's also suitable for small prints, and for crops. It's fall-off may also compensate the taking lens fall-off. ...But Pro/Advanced printer having a solid/big enlarger will usually/always prefer a 150mm or a 180mm for 4x5.

Absolutely no problem with a 8x10" print, because as you give bellows to focus (the small print) the circle grows and you take the center, but as you stress the lens for a large print then rays going to the corner are very inclinated, generating fall-off and lowering optical performance.





I did some considerable testing before settling on it, and found it better than the Componon, Rodagon and El-Nikkor equivalents. As I said, I did not compare it to any of the ultra-high-end APO lenses.

I've made some informal tests, I spent and afternoon testing, but I placed a USAF 1951 glass slide and I took the projection with a DSLR without the lens, projecting on sensor:

197266

197267

197268

197269

I also sandwiched the resolution target with a crazy sharp negatives, to see the resolving power margin, and I've also inspected that projection on photopaper under microscope.


Let me say what I found: What requires to be checked is the printer, much more than the lenses. My old&beaten rodagon 210 (serial 8,700,000, year 1973) was casting (at least) 145 lp/mm from the negative plane, outresolving by a fair amount what LF taking lenses take from scene.


All manufacturers make very good enlarging lenses, sporting a performance level that's beyond what negatives have, what most of the jobs may require and what most printers are able to handle, but there is a manufacturer, Rodenstock, that made specialized lenses for each magnification range, not speaking about cheap entry level, but about the Rodagon Pro range, they offered the Plain (no letter) Rodagon, the R and D (reproduction - duplication) , the N and the G. Making a lens optimal for a certain magnification ranges allows great prformance in demanding situations

A particular demanding situation is mural prints, you need performance at large aperture to have shorter exposure times, this is what a G does.

Sadly, many Rodagons found around have separations in the cementations.


:) There are 3 kinds of enlarger lenses: bad, regular and good, depending on the printer owning the lenses !

[jose angel]

Sadly, many Rodagons found around have separations in the cementations.



I do not want to contradict that statement but to share my opposite brand experience; I have stopped looking for Schneiders because I find few without fungi or coating issues (and the vast majority with schneideritis). So I think lenses are definitely showing their age.
---
Time ago I did test prints to compare several Schneiders, Rodenstocks and others I had, enlarger and process lenses, at 8x10" print size. I try to remember that almost all of the german 6 element lenses performed quite well, the older the lens the lower corner performance/ softer image wide open. On 8x10" print size and working apertures, differences were hard to be noticed, if any. Generally speaking, they were all usable to my standards. I was surprised that one of them I considered amongst the best I have (a very late version!), had to be quite closed down for field flatness. My reference lenses were Apo Rodagon N in different focal lengths.

Cheap lenses (Hansa, triplets, russian?, etc.), were average to poor performers, with slightly lower resolution and worst corner performance, some even difficult to achieve focus wide open. As said, old Componons were cheap and good (I tested some small mount 50 and 85mm versions).

And as Pere says, the operator must know how to achieve maximum sharpness. A second row cheap lens will provide perfectly good results on skilled hands, better than an astronomically priced top of the line lens in a beginner`s darkroom... so I'd say it's more important to get the most of it than to have the very best one.
---
Ooops, I just realizad it is an old thread... :eek:

[Greg]

In the late 1990s we were starting to work on a project that involved enlarging a collection of B&W EM glass plates. Acquiring a specialized enlarger for enlarging the glass plates, think it had a point light source but could be wrong, was not within the budget. But we were able to borrow and compare several brands of enlarging lenses. El Nikkor, Componon, V-Elmar, Apo, etc. Initially used an Omega D2V, but soon found that the alignment of the negative carrier, lens, and baseboard left much to be desired when moving the enlarger head up and down. Fortunately we were able to get a 4x5 Durst Laborator Ce 1000 which had excellent alignment characteristics. Of all the lenses we tried, an older all metal (135mm or 150mm can't remember which) El-Nikkor came out on top, all thought just barely. But then we were able to borrow a 120mm f/6.3 Macro Nikkor off a Nikon Multiphot and it blew out all of the "enlarging" lenses. Vaguely remember having to reverse the 120mm lens on the enlarger to match its configuration when used on the Multiphot. Biggest thing that we learned at the time was never to assume that all the components of an enlarger are in alignment, even when new out of the box.

[Bernice Loui]

Focusing on the "quality or performance" of the enlarge lens alone often discounts the rest of the optical enlargement system that can have extreme effects on the overall system results. This is why using the very best enlarger available properly set up can make a HUGE difference in the results.

As for the lens, that depends on image quality on the film to be enlarged-magnified and the ability of the material that image is projected on to receive and process the information in the image projected on it. B&W print paper does not have the same information handling abilities as film, using the very best optics possible projecting from a sheet of film with extreme amounts of information on to a print material that has no ability to properly receive and process all that information to be processed in the visual print.


Bernice





Initially used an Omega D2V, but soon found that the alignment of the negative carrier, lens, and baseboard left much to be desired when moving the enlarger head up and down. Fortunately we were able to get a 4x5 Durst Laborator Ce 1000 which had excellent alignment characteristics. Of all the lenses we tried, an older all metal (135mm or 150mm can't remember which) El-Nikkor came out on top, all thought just barely. But then we were able to borrow a 120mm f/6.3 Macro Nikkor off a Nikon Multiphot and it blew out all of the "enlarging" lenses. Vaguely remember having to reverse the 120mm lens on the enlarger to match its configuration when used on the Multiphot.

**Biggest thing that we learned at the time was never to assume that all the components of an enlarger are in alignment, even when new out of the box.**

[Tin Can]

If B&W paper is lower resolution than some film, what final product could be better?

Emulsion on glass?


Focusing on the "quality or performance" of the enlarge lens alone often discounts the rest of the optical enlargement system that can have extreme effects on the overall system results. This is why using the very best enlarger available properly set up can make a HUGE difference in the results.

As for the lens, that depends on image quality on the film to be enlarged-magnified and the ability of the material that image is projected on to receive and process the information in the image projected on it. B&W print paper does not have the same information handling abilities as film, using the very best optics possible projecting from a sheet of film with extreme amounts of information on to a print material that has no ability to properly receive and process all that information to be processed in the visual print.


Bernice

[Greg]

Forgot to mention that I once took a workshop in which George Tice was a guest lecturer. He did some enlarging demos. Remember that he did not like to use glass carriers for various reasons. He said that the negative would "pop" in a glassless carrier after being heated up by the enlarger lamp, so he would turn on the enlarger and wait maybe 30 seconds before checking the focus. When making the enlargement, he would turn on the enlarger and hold a cardboard card under the lens for 30 seconds before actually exposing the paper. He did two prints, one with and one without letting the negative pop before exposing the enlarging paper. Side by side there was a difference, all be it minimal as my memory serves me. He equated the difference as being equal to the difference between using a very good enlarging lens and an excellent one.

[Bernice Loui]

Curious that a sheet of film would "pop" in a glass carrier. Never in all the years of printing on a Durst 138 condenser enlarger with glass carriers has this happened. Problems with dust_absolutely, problems with newton rings_absolutely if anti-newton ring glass was not used, negative popping_never.

What I'll say about Durst 138 & 184 glass carriers for sheet film, they work, work really well if in good condition and properly set up. These Durst carriers essentially flatten any sheet of film put into them and holds then flat, no ifs, buts or questions. The routine would be to work like the dickens to remove all possible dust from All the surfaces involved (film, glass carrier), the set it up in the 138. Once it is set up that sheet of film could stay in the 138 for hours, projection illumination on for many minutes at a time to set up, make test prints and more. If that negative popped or shifted or other mechanical issues with the film carrier or enlarger, there would be extreme dis-content and dis-satisfaction with the whole system. This rarely happened_if ever. This why I'm so fond of the Durst 138, system and it's glass film carrier system. The thing simply works and is stable.

Used non-glass carriers in the 138, Bessler and other enlargers, the film DOES pop causing great grief resulting in writing them off as usable.

This is also a question of printing style, printer folks might not want to work for hours on a single sheet of film trying to achieve the print result in mind.


Bernice



Forgot to mention that I once took a workshop in which George Tice was a guest lecturer. He did some enlarging demos. Remember that he did not like to use glass carriers for various reasons. He said that the negative would "pop" in a glassless carrier after being heated up by the enlarger lamp, so he would turn on the enlarger and wait maybe 30 seconds before checking the focus. When making the enlargement, he would turn on the enlarger and hold a cardboard card under the lens for 30 seconds before actually exposing the paper. He did two prints, one with and one without letting the negative pop before exposing the enlarging paper. Side by side there was a difference, all be it minimal as my memory serves me. He equated the difference as being equal to the difference between using a very good enlarging lens and an excellent one.

[Bernice Loui]

If making prints on B&W paper, absolute highest performance enlarger lens is not that important as the print paper simply cannot present in the finished print all the information projected on to it. This is why enlarging lens manufactures do not put extreme optical performance into the majority of their enlarging lenses. Color balance is a whole different aspect of enlarger lens performance.

If projecting high res film to high res film, that is an entirely different kettle of image. This is where lenses like a APO EL Nikkor can and will make a difference over lesser enlarger lenses. This also places extreme demands on the projection system's precision, alignment, illumination quality and more.

Example that comes to mind is the enlargement system used for cold war aero-recon film that was done in 5"x5" rolls then projected to 10"x10" roll film or 2x. Absolute image quality was a must. This resulted in lenses and projection systems and films that were very high performance but highly specialized.

Know image quality alone does not define a good-expressive print as this is just one aspect of what makes a "Fine" artistic expressive print.



Bernice


If B&W paper is lower resolution than some film, what final product could be better?

Emulsion on glass?

[Greg]

Curious that a sheet of film would "pop" in a glass carrier.

Bernice

The enlarger Tice was using had a glassless negative carrier.

On my Durst enlarger I use a 4x5 carrier with anti-Newton ring glass. Brand of carrier I don't know but is stamped with the word "JAPAN", so I don't think that it is a Durst carrier. Also the quality of the carrier is better than my glassless OEM Durst carriers. Brand of the Anti Newton ring glass also I don't know, but it comes in a jet-pak envelope with the word "GLASS" stamped on it and the numbers "473427".

[Bernice Loui]

Glass carrier alone means much of zero as the actual performance of the specific glass film carrier can vary from horrid to excellent with many factors involved.

Consider the Hasselblad Lunar cameras that were made with a Reseau plate, or register glass in front of the film to assure a degree of film flatness. The temperature changes film in camera are forced to endure under these non-Earthy conditions are extreme, yet the folks at NASA and others involved decided to put film between glass and film carrier to force the film to be "flat".

https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html


Bernice



The enlarger Tice was using had a glassless negative carrier.

On my Durst enlarger I use a 4x5 carrier with anti-Newton ring glass. Brand of carrier I don't know but is stamped with the word "JAPAN", so I don't think that it is a Durst carrier. Also the quality of the carrier is better than my glassless OEM Durst carriers. Brand of the Anti Newton ring glass also I don't know, but it comes in a jet-pak envelope with the word "GLASS" stamped on it and the numbers "473427".

[Tin Can]

Thank you Bernice

Occasionally I do make enlarged internegs for 'negative prints'

My lenses are good enough






Example that comes to mind is the enlargement system used for cold war aero-recon film that was done in 5"x5" rolls then projected to 10"x10" roll film or 2x. Absolute image quality was a must. This resulted in lenses and projection systems and films that were very high performance but highly specialized.

Bernice

[Tin Can]

Those were exciting days here on Earth

I clearly remember Sputnik and how my 5 grade schools adapted or not. New Math, old math, new, old, new, I got pissed and just gave the answer, like it or not.


Glass carrier alone means much of zero as the actual performance of the specific glass film carrier can vary from horrid to excellent with many factors involved.

Consider the Hasselblad Lunar cameras that were made with a Reseau plate, or register glass in front of the film to assure a degree of film flatness. The temperature changes film in camera are forced to endure under these non-Earthy conditions are extreme, yet the folks at NASA and others involved decided to put film between glass and film carrier to force the film to be "flat".

https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html


Bernice

[Bob Salomon]

Glass carrier alone means much of zero as the actual performance of the specific glass film carrier can vary from horrid to excellent with many factors involved.

Consider the Hasselblad Lunar cameras that were made with a Reseau plate, or register glass in front of the film to assure a degree of film flatness. The temperature changes film in camera are forced to endure under these non-Earthy conditions are extreme, yet the folks at NASA and others involved decided to put film between glass and film carrier to force the film to be "flat".

https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html


Bernice

Reseau plates were used in lots of cameras from 35mm through 810. The plates held film flat as you mentioned but the crosses on the plate were used for photogrammetry to measure points in space through non contact measurement. This was used in place of cruder photogrammetric targets that had to be placed on the subject to be measured.
I sold Rollei 6008, 3003 and 810 photogrammetric cameras to NASA to, for instance, measure precisely where the Space Shuttle touched down on the runway on their return from space (6008 version). To AirBus to accurately measure the completed parts like wings, tails, fuselage, etc. that were all made in different factories in different countries and were shipped for final assembly at other factories (810 version).
Also Linhof 45 photogrammetric cameras. One use for this camera were the first accurate measurements of Ötzi, the Iceman, once he had been placed in his controlled case.

As for just a plain glass plate in the film plane that was done on the Rollei 2.8F as an option. It was also used on Hasselblad Polaroid Pack backs to adjust the focus since pack film was positioned behind the film plan of the Hasselblad.
Both of these uses predated the Hasselblad used in space.
Interestingly the Rollei 6008 cameras and the 45 Linhof Aero Technika EL cameras used on the Space Shuttle did not use glass plates or reseau plates.

[Bob Salomon]

Those were exciting days here on Earth

I clearly remember Sputnik and how my 5 grade schools adapted or not. New Math, old math, new, old, new, I got pissed and just gave the answer, like it or not.

At least in 5th grade you experienced Sputnik.

When I was in 6th grade someone read a science fiction book for a book report and our teacher, Ms Vetter, then spent the entire afternoon explaining to us why it is impossible to ever put a satellite in orbit or for humans to ever go into space!
She left quite an impression on us in 1953!

[Drew Wiley]

I don't buy some of this. Some of those early Apollo moon trip shots might have been extremely historically valuable, but weren't necessarily technically ideal. It was a learning curve. Every informed astrophotographer using film today probably uses distinctly tighter flatness tolerances. ... Making quality internegs is impossible without a precision glass carrier, glass both sides! For one thing, you can't control tonality even doo-doo without having an aligned contrast mask. Old style interneg and duping sheet films are no longer made, and even when they were, masking was nearly always necessary for ideal results. What commercial labs did, I could care less. If I wanted so-so quality, I could have contracted with any number of big labs back then, instead of, "If you want to do it right, do it yourself". Nor do I give a hoot how Tice or Ansel or Gomer Pyle did it back in the Pleistocene. And right now I'm waiting for the first real rains to clear up the air and temper the humidity a bit so I can do another round of 8x10 internegs. If I don't use AN glass both sides in the carrier, I'd be wasting every bit of that time and money. However, all this applies to ENLARGED internegs. In such cases, I generally use a 240 Apo Nikkor process lens for 4x5 and smaller originals projected onto 8x10 film. It's better for dupe and interneg purposes than ordinary enlarging lenses, even apo ones. Most of my dupe and interneg work, however, is done 8x10 contact. I have just one 4x5 enlarged to 8x10 subject in this upcoming interneg project.

[MarkWelsh]

There is finally an answer. From 220 tested lenses, including a meta-survey of all previous tests . . . it depends . . .
. . . on whether you factor in wide aperture performance, or just 'working apertures'. The wider apertures reveal the greatest differences but may be less relevant to your workflow.

However, if we inspect frame-averaged performance at f5.6-f8, the only lenses given 'Gold' awards are – in descending order of excellence:

Tomioka E36 MC 51mm f4
Fujinon EX 50mm f2.8
Nikon EL-Nikkor N 50mm f2.8
Leitz Focotar-2 50mm f4.5
Tomioka E36 MC 58mm f4
Schneider Componon-S 50mm f2.8 [16828 version only]
Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 105mm f4
Minolta CE Rokkor 50mm f2.8
Tomioka E36 86mm f4
Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 50mm f2.8
Nikon EL-Nikkor N 80mm f5.6
Schneider Componon-S HM 50mm f2.8
Meopta Meogon 80mm f2.8
Meopta Meogon-S 50mm f2.8
Kowa/Computar dL 50mm f2.8
Durst [Pentax] Neonon 50mm f2.8
Meopta Meogon 50mm f5.6
Schneider Apo-Componon 60mm f4 (all versions)
Schneider Apo-Componon 90mm f4.5 (all versions)
Agfa Color-Solagon DI 70mm f4.5
Fujinon EX 75mm f4
Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 45mm f2.8
Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 80m f4
Agfa Color-Solagon DII 80mm f4.5
Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 50mm f2.8
Nikon EL-Nikkor N 63mm f2.8
Beseler HD / Rodenstock Rodagon [V3] 50mm f2.8
Fujinon EX 90mm f5.6
Minolta CE Rokkor 80mm f5.6
Copal E90C 105mm f5.6

The Meopta Meogon-S 80mm f4 so nearly qualified for a Gold award, you might want to include it. Also assume the Apo-EL-Nikkor makes the list - I've not yet laid hands on a copy. If you have a copy you'd like to loan, or permit to be tested, please get in touch.

Many of these offer very similar performance, and are separated by only 1.6% in Delta's grading scheme.

If any other lenses qualify for Gold rating, I'll add them here. For full details see Delta Lenses > (http://www.deltalenses.com)

[Eric Woodbury]

I only print B&W. Never tried an APO. I usually use a lens that is one size longer than usual, such as a 135mm for 6x7 work, or an 80mm for 35mm. I've tried Nikkor and Rodenstock directly comparing their 180mm. And tried the Nikkor Macro lens (different focal length) for 4x5, too. No performance difference that I could tell. I prefer the Nikkor enlarging lenses (for a silly reason) because the f/# writing on the lens is big and easy to read. Also, I don't see any difference between the versions that have chrome rings and the more modern versions that are all black. I think the chrome models feel better -- more solid perhaps.

[Drew Wiley]

Mark - that is sure one half-baked list, ridiculous really, if one puts a pedestrian quality Componon S ahead of an Apo Rodagon, for example (I've owned both, and there is a tremendous difference). But it's all mixed up apples with oranges otherwise too, regarding mixed together dissimilar focal lengths. Red flags everywhere. The listing looks almost random. What was the methodology behind it? Are you aiming at just 35mm enlargement or what? And why would anyone loan you an Apo El Nikkor for an unscientific test, or really for any reason?

Besides, this is a large format forum, where acceptable enlarging lenses start around 135mm and work their way much longer.

[patfahey]

APO Rodagon N lenses are hard to beat. Many years ago when the line came out I got a hold of a 105mm to try out. After a few weeks I sold the Nikkor APO-EL 105 I'd been using and kept the APO Rodagon N.

I still use an APO Rodagon N 105mm for MF. For 4x5 I use an APO-Componon HM 150mm. Those are the lenses that work best for me, and I'll be the first to admit that nearly everything about photography is subjective.

I'd like to try an APO Rodagon N 150mm for 4x5 but I've never seen one (except the one perpetually for sale on eBay that looks like it fell out of the lens board and crashed into the base board).

A couple of years ago I stumbled onto a Fuji EX 50mm and have been amazed how well that lens performs for 35mm. I believe many Fuji lenses are underrated.

[Drew Wiley]

I use an Apo Rodagon N 150 for 6x7 and 6X9 when I want more evenness of field than the 105 Apo N provides (no need to corner and edge burn with the 150, even at apertures as wide as f/5.6). It's also a fast lens for 4x5, but in that case, you do have to contend with an amount of illuminance falloff unless you have an exceptionally efficient mirror box above, and stop the lens down to f/16. The 12X12 mirror box on my Durst 184 permits that kind of angle of incidence. Nonetheless, the 150 Apo N provides excellent contrast and micro-textural rendering even wide open. Otherwise, I prefer using the regular Rodagon 180 instead for 4x5, due to its own evenness of field. In general, I prefer longer than "normal" enlarging lenses, regardless of film format, as long as there is enough headroom (column height) to comfortably work with them.

I've never had an Apo Componon HM; but it appears that is Schneider's answer to Rodenstock's Apo Rodagon N series. I have worked with Componon S lenses, and even old chrome barrel Componons.

[tundra]

What are good enlarging lenses to get? Are most major lens makers fairly good or is there a difference? I'd like something for my 35mm and 4x5.

Michael

I use an El-Nikkor for some 35mm enlarging and Schneider Componons for everything else. My Componons range from ancient to 30-ish years old and they are consistently excellent.

I would say that if you stick to the high end of any of the major brands you'll be happy.

For 4x5, you can also use old process lenses like the Artars. The bonus there is that you can also shoot with them.

[Chauncey Walden]

When I set up a new darkroom after many years with an old one, I went empirical on lenses. Many lenses of all brands and models were available used for reasonable prices. I carefully aligned my 6x6 enlarger and my 5x7 enlarger and followed Ctein's recommendation for testing lenses with high quality graphic sheets. I purchased many examples of many models of many brands of lenses in lengths appropriate for different formats from 16mm through 5x7. I found that there could be more differences between different examples of the same lens than between different brands of lenses. After many iterations I arrived with a mix of lenses I deemed most suitable for the formats I used. I won't tell you what that mix was because you have to do the tests for yourself. You may be surprised at the results.

[Drew Wiley]

Chauncey - It seems your "methodology" was subjective at best. Do you own an optical table? How were you viewing the projected image? A lot of what you claim to be sample to sample variation might just be an inconsistency in your own methods. Most of that kind of alleged issue was ironed out by the 70's or even earlier due to modern manufacturing methods; but price also had something to do with it. My own "tests" involve a considerable number of big Cibachrome and Fujiflex prints which hold almost as much detail as sheet film itself. For some of that work I used a pin-registered 30 X 40 inch vacuum easel so well built that I could stand on it without deflecting the surface. I also have pin registered vac boards and special sheet film holders for film sizes up to 8x10. My set of Apo Nikkors runs clear up to 760mm. But really, there have been published performance graphs and specs by the major manufacturers which were done more scientifically than our own DIY methods. I've seen Ctein's setup in person. It's a lot more primitive than you might imagine.

I am glad to see certain lesser known good enlarging lenses coming to light, like the Fuji EX series. And just how high a quality or modern a lens a person needs all depends on their own expectations. But I don't know why anyone would go out and spend 10 to 15 thousand dollars trying to bag one of the very few 360mm Apo El Nikkor lenses in the world when they can get a relatively common 360/9 Apo Nikkor process lens which will do essentially the same thing at one stop smaller. The 360/5.6 El Nikkor is itself a rare huge beast, and solid performer in its own right; I sold mine to another forum member. Some of these faster long lenses are so heavy that they would deflect the end of most typical enlargers, even a 5x7 Durst 138.

[neil poulsen]

As digital took over, I purchased all Apo-Rodagon lenses at substantial discounts. This includes a 50mm f5.6, a 105 f5.6, a 180mm f5.6 designed for 4x5, and a 240mm for 8x10.) But, I'm not sure that I get the entire Apo advantage, because I'm not using glass carriers. Still, I keep them non-the-less.

[Drew Wiley]

Good timing. Most of these Apo R N's are no longer made, and prices on used ones have gone way up. It's hard to find a 150. They never made anything longer than 150 in the Apo N series; the 180 and 240 would have come from some different series, like their apo process lenses or regular Rodagon line. And you are indeed losing some of their performance advantage by not keeping negs totally flat between glass.

[xkaes]

I won't tell you what that mix was because you have to do the tests for yourself.

Them's FIGHIN' words around here!

[Drew Wiley]

I done did plenty nuff of them thar tests anyhoo. No need fer n'nuther OK Corral inceedent. Regarding his observation or perhaps presumption that lenses vary quite a bit one to another even within the same model number, Bob S, who formerly was a mfg Rep for two of these brands, pointed out the flaws in methodology that often lead to such an assumption, on a similar thread a number of years ago. It's not like all the lenses submitted for casual testing are new right out of the box; and after staring at test targets long enough, the eyes simply get bleary. There are numerous other potential measuring variables which also skew results - so much so in this particular case that I don't regret stating that the conclusions drawn seem almost random.

But one fact which is known is that Schneider was not fully up to speed with Rodenstock and Fuji at a certain point in time, as far as full modernization of their quality control was concerned. For example, most of the mfg of Componon S enlarging lenses and Symmar S taking lenses transpired prior to the catch-up juncture.

[nolindan]

Them's FIGHIN' words around here!

Hmmm. Depending on how you correct the spelling this could be:

Them's FIGHTIN' words around here!
- or -
Them's SIGHIN' words around here!

Either would work, I guess

[phdgent]

To my humble and very personal experience, and after using Rodenstock Rodagon lenses for over 20 years, I found out that the aperture setting had some influence on the print's sharpness too.

Then, after some rudimentary testing I settled on F1:8 for all my Rodagon's, whether they be 50mm, 80mm, 105mm, 150mm and 210mm. And use different ND filters above the condensers, besides a 75W bulb instead of a 150W, to trim even more the enlarger's light output.

Anyway, I like long (printing-) exposure times as it lets me take the time for some easy dodging and burning, hence the ND filters (ND 0.3 and 0.6 in different combinations)...