Best Enlarging Lens?

google translator?

google translator?

That gives the rather unhelpful "love rating".

In fact, it was Meopta's 50mm f5.6 that won out as the best of them all, apo Rodagons included. That lens was discontinued even then, much to the annoyance of the writer. All lenses were tested at f8 and obviously that may not have been the optimum for all lenses.

PS. I meant to reply to arthur_gottschalk's post

Since writing about the Meogon, I have noticed on Photo Cornucopia that it is in fact a wide angle 6x6 cm lens rather than a standard 35mm lens. That may have something to do with the excellent results obtained using it for the smaller format.

I've been using Nikon enlarging lenses and they've seemed adequate, but lately I've been noticing prints that seem much sharper than what I've been getting. Aside from the quality of the negative itself, are some enlarging lenses much sharper?

 

It would be useful to the rest of us (me at least) if those offering opinions/anecdotes regarding lens performance would certify that their enlarger optics were properly aligned (with a bit of comment about how the alignment was done) and how the illumination system was properly centered.

I use an Opemus 6, which has no adjustments for aligning either the optics, negative stage or the illumination. All I can do is check that the projected image is square on the baseboard.

I use an Opemus 6, which has no adjustments for aligning either the optics, negative stage or the illumination. All I can do is check that the projected image is square on the baseboard.

You might try using a level to see if your negative stage is parallel to the baseboard (check in both dimensions).

You might try using a level to see if your negative stage is parallel to the baseboard (check in both dimensions).

I'm fairly happy with the alignment and I'm not posting my test results, but merely pointing out results published on a French website. Strangely enough a google search for the lens gives many French pages and very few English ones.

My own 35 mm enlarging lens is a Minolta 50 mm f2.8, which seems good enough for me.

Arthur,

To simply answer your question, yes, some enlarging lenses are sharper than others, and some are less sharp than others.

 

But you have to look at the entire environment from the film used, film development, to the printing process, as there are MANY variables which will affect the sharpness of the printed image.

Film and development

• IOW, can you even compare the negatives?
   
  
• What film is/are being compared?
  
• What is the scene and its light range?
   
  
• How was it exposed?
   
  
• Is the film and developer process the same?
  
  • That was the Microdol vs D76 vs HC110 discussion
    

  [*]etc.

Enlarger and printing

• Condenser or diffusion enlarger?
   
  
• Are the negative, lens and baseboard in alignment in both X and Y axis?
  

• Is the negative being held FLAT?
  
  • This gets into the glass vs. glassless negative carrier discussion.
    

• How accurately is the lens being focused?
  
  • IOW, are you using a good grain focuser, and using it properly.
    

  [*]Is there any light leak from the head, that could cause minute fogging of the paper?

  [*]Are the using a harder/higher grade MC filter than you, and printing to a higher contrast?

  [*]Are the paper used the same?

   

  [*]Enlarger movement?

  [*]What is the image magnification?

   

  [*]etc.

Viewing

• How far from the print are you standing?
  
• How much light is on the print?
  
• What time of day? Some peoples eyes get tired and do not focus as well at the end of the day.
  

If this is one person with one lens and a different person with the other lens, that is not a valid comparison, because as you can see above, there are too many variables that can change.

 

To do the compare properly, you need to use the SAME negative in the SAME enlarger.

The only thing to change is the enlarging lens.

And the prints have to be viewed side-by-side, in identical lighting.

IMO, almost nobody extracts maximum performance from their enlarging lens. You need perfect alignment and zero negative motion. Certainly zero vibration if you have a fan. I used to balance fans for cooling astro cameras and factory balance is almost never good enough. Even the lowly and much maligned 50 mm f/4 EL-Nikkor can manage an excellent print if it's not too large. Most lenses have an optimum magnification. Ctein had a very high opinion of a certain Computar that had an extra ring to adjust the correction to a specific distance, but I've never seen one in the wild. There's an alignment trick that works well. Get two long mirrors and drill a hole in one. Put a tape target on the other size. Put the plain mirror on the baseboard. Put the drilled mirror in the carrier slot. Look through the hole and align until the multiple fun-house images collapse. Then hole the drilled mirror on the enlarging lens front ring for the same check. Or buy the laser tool. Also, get a good focuser and make sure the focus agrees with the actual focus.

BTW, Ctein's Post Exposure can be downloaded for free and I highly recommend it- Ctein Online-- Post Exposure Sample

The number of people that swear by brand x, y or z would lead me to believe that there is no best enlarging lens. This may be due to several reasons, starting from there probably being some degree of quality variation among lenses of the same manufacturer, different levels of care of the lens, subjective opinions about what is good, enlarger set up etc.I'd hazard a guess that, as a general rule, most 3-4 element lenses are not as finely corrected as 5,6 or more element ones, though those of us who only enlarge to 8"x10" from 35mm would need a loupe to notice any difference if any. For those doing, say, 15-20x enlargements, the difference is probably noticeable.

In 1970 I bought a Leitz Focomat enlarger, and for an enlarging lens used a Summicron f/2.0 50mm. It unscrews and the lens part together with a Leitz adapter goes into the enlarger. I do remember years later some expert advising against using a camera lens as an enlarging lens as the heat of the lamp will damage the adhesives joining the lens elements together. "Except for Leitz lenses, they don't have that problem."

I would comment that that lens gave excellent results. F/2 for a nice bright image for framing etc. I usually used f/4 when exposing as the wider aperture gave exposure times too short to expose accurately, not because of lack of definition.

After 50 years it is still a very good enlarger, though I confess to being more digital these days.

Maybe people have cottoned on to using them as macro lenses.

I know I have.

 

When I actually had a darkroom. I did use some EL-Nikkors, but mostly I've been using them for macro/copy lenses on bellows where they work well.

I know I have.

 

When I actually had a darkroom. I did use some EL-Nikkors, but mostly I've been using them for macro/copy lenses on bellows where they work well.

Two years on and enlarging lens prices have pretty much doubled or tripled from their all-time low. More for popular focal lengths and famous brands. However, in the great scheme of things they're still a bargain as macro lenses used in conjunction with a bellows.

 

Do check the condition if you're shopping for one though. Darkrooms don't tend to be the friendliest environments for high quality optics, and I've recently seen a few samples with chemical-induced haze inside, or that have suffered from over-zealous cleaning (with what looks like emery paper in some cases!).

 

Glad I stocked up on them a few years back.

Two years on and enlarging lens prices have pretty much doubled or tripled from their all-time low. More for popular focal lengths and famous brands. However, in the great scheme of things they're still a bargain as macro lenses used in conjunction with a bellows.

 

Do check the condition if you're shopping for one though. Darkrooms don't tend to be the friendliest environments for high quality optics, and I've recently seen a few samples with chemical-induced haze inside, or that have suffered from over-zealous cleaning (with what looks like emery paper in some cases!).

 

Glad I stocked up on them a few years back.

 

Luckily I did also.

But unluckily, the darkroom is still a LONG way from completion.

Luckily I did also.

But unluckily, the darkroom is still a LONG way from completion.

C'mon Gary. Blackout blind material is easily found on the internet, as are roller-blind kits. You can also find vivarium heated mats that make great tray warmers. Get on with it mate!

C'mon Gary. Blackout blind material is easily found on the internet, as are roller-blind kits. You can also find vivarium heated mats that make great tray warmers. Get on with it mate!

 

Not so easy, this is under the house, where construction is needed.

Right now the "floor" is bare dirt.

Again several decades ago when I had a wet darkroom I used a Leica Focomat 1C enlarger. I tried the El Nikkor 50mm and it was too contrasty. I tried the Schneider Companion 50 mm and for me it was very sharp but less contrasty, certainly usable but I did not love the look. Then I got a Rodenstock Rodagon 50mm 2.8. I wanted a Leica Focotar 50mm 2.8 but it was too pricey for me at the time. I loved the look of the Rodagon. It's still in storage in my garage with the Focomat 1C. Will I ever use it again. Probably not.

I loved the look of the Rodagon.

 

Me, too. The prints were very sharp and had a sort of relaxed, effortless look. Mine is an 80/f4.

The prints were very sharp and had a sort of relaxed, effortless look.

Sorry, but I find it difficult to picture a 'relaxed, effortless look' to a print, let alone have that attributable to a particular make of enlarging lens.

 

BTW, I've worked in, and visited quite a few professional darkrooms in my time. The great majority of them used Schneider lenses, a lower number had Rodenstocks, and less still used El-Nikkors. However, if you were to put prints from those darkrooms in front of me, and I suspect anyone else, neither I nor they would reliably be able to pick which make of lens was used.

 

What exactly is a 'relaxed, effortless look' to a print anyway?

Same there. Through the miracle of used and surplus, I have a bunch of enlarging lenses, from the lowly Nikkor 50 mm f/4 to an Apo Rodagon to a Schneider and, for typical small prints (8x10), can't tell much difference between 'em. It's there, but enlarger alignment and eliminating negative pop contributes far more.

I’ve got several. They’re all good enough for me.

Sorry, but I find it difficult to picture ...

 

Probably not as difficult as it is to describe! Those are the best words I could think of without writing an essay. But it's there, and visible in both color and black and white. It's possible that the design tradeoffs were better suited to the types of things I did, but I have no numbers, sorry. Enlarger alignment is a non-issue, film pop is rather obvious and inconsistent.

 

I seem to recall that you have a fondness for the 80/5.6 Rodagon. Would you elaborate on that preference, may I ask, if enlarging lenses are all the same?

Can't agree about alignment and neg pop. They can both be subtle and you have to test/measure to be sure. OTOH, I suppose once the enlarger is aligned and if you use a glass carrier, you never have to worry about it again.

I seem to recall that you have a fondness for the 80/5.6 Rodagon. Would you elaborate on that preference, may I ask, if enlarging lenses are all the same?

I use it as a copying lens, and specifically for digitising film onto a digital camera. So it's used at close to a 1:1 or 3:2 reproduction ratio, where it would hardly ever get used on an enlarger.

 

I tried a number of enlarging lenses. Some showed slight field curvature, some showed more vignetting, others changed focus on stopping down. Of all the ones I tried, the best compromise(s) came down to a near-tie between the 80mm f/5.6 Rodagon, and a Durst Neonon - marked 'Made in Japan'. All of the differences were slight enough to be due to sample variation, and were only visible under pixel-peeping scrutiny. Stopping any of the lenses down to f/11 would have masked their differences in diffraction and depth-of-field/focus, but I wanted the best resolution I could possibly get.

 

My choice was additionally complicated by a distance and back-focus issue caused by the limited bellows range on my Illumitran copier. Otherwise I might have chosen one of the half-dozen 50mm enlarging lenses that I own.

 

The choice was also limited to the lenses I had to hand - namely Schneider Componons , Rodenstock Rodagons, Komuranons and Hoyas. I don't own a single El-Nikkor, although I've used them in a work environment and wasn't overly impressed.

 

FWIW, I also rejected an 80mm f/4 Rodagon P that showed a slight focus shift with aperture.

 

So as macro/copying lenses, yes I would recommend a Rodagon enlarging lens. For actual enlarging, I honestly don't think there's a hair's breadth of difference between any of the top makes of 6 element lens. Not enough to outweigh any sample variation at least. They'll all resolve the grain on a medium speed film without difficulty, and they're all equally subject to any enlarger light-source difference, vibration during exposure, diffraction effect, cleanliness, coating deterioration or level of user skill.

 

To attribute any gross effect like overall contrast or a certain 'look' is just wishful-thinking IMO.

Edited April 5, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1