Nikkor Enlarging Lens

darryn_richter · July 1, 2002

I have the opportunity to replace my current emlarger lens (a 50mm

HAMA) with a Nikkor 80/5.6. It appears to be in very good condition.

From some of the previous threads, the Nikkor range appear to be of

good quality. What is reasonable amount to pay for a second hand

example in good condition??

A second question - I have an Durst Graduate enlarger. I recently

noticed a line appearing on my prints, at first thinking it was the

film, however upon inspection of the condenser, I found a scratch on

the underside surface.

Being plastic, i decided to use some cutting wax to "cut" the scratch

out. This has alleviated the problem, at least to the naked eye.

However is it possible to have this component replaced. I don't seem

to be able to find a supplier here in Australia for Durst. The

enlarger was bought second hand.

Appreciate any help in either of the above questions.

michael_briggs2 · July 1, 2002

The Durst corporate site (http://www.durst.it/uk/unternehmen.htm) has a list of distributers ("Sales Partners") by region. Under "Products" -- "Prod. Service" you will a table that will inform you whether your enlarger is still serviced, i.e., whether you should expect that parts are available. However, you might be shocked by the cost of a Durst replacement part. Are you saying that the condenser is plastic rather than glass? If so, and the part is unavailable or too expensive, you could visit a plastics shop and see whether they can buff the scratch out.

The 80 mm El-Nikkor is a fine lens, but the longer focal length might restrict the largest size print you can make. You might want to look for the 63 mm f2.8 or 50 mm f2.8 El-Nikkors. These would have the further advantages compared to the 80 mm f5.6 of easier focusing and shorter exposure times.

nige_buddy · July 1, 2002

As already mentioned, a 80mm lens will limit the size of enlargements you can make. You probably really should look for a 50mm (Schnieder/Nikkor/Rodenstock). I can't remember the Ozzie distributor for Durst (I rang them once many years ago) but I think Masdens in Sydney (?) advertise new Dursts in the Photographic Trader... hang on I'll look :) try www.darkroomshop.com.au they seem to be in Wollongong and are part of Masdens!. Never shopped with them so, cavet emptor!

kelly_flanigan1 · July 1, 2002

The 80mm lens will yield a sharper print that a 50mm lens of the same type lens design...; when used at the same f stop...The lens is using less angular coverage; which is using the better part of the lens.....Another plus is better more uniforn illumination too The drawback is the amount of magnification allowed is reduced ...

pete_andrews · July 1, 2002

If you're only using 35mm, then get a good 50mm lens. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by using a longer lens. Decent lenses just don't have that much of a 'sweet spot' in the centre! (I've been printing both professionally and for my own pleasure for over 35 years, so I think I know what I'm talking about.) Using an 80mm lens will mean that the maximum magnification of your enlarger will be reduced drastically, and you'll probably find that the illumination is actually less even, because the condenser won't be matched to the focal length of the lens. Anyway, whatever you do, replace that awful Hama lens as soon as possible, and start making some decent prints.

ryuji_suzuki · July 1, 2002

> The lens is using less angular coverage; which is using the better part of the lens.....

I've seen this sort of statement in photography books but this is not quite the case. You may get slightly improved evenness in terms of illumination but you are more likely to lose a bit of resolution and possibly contrast by using lens designed for larger format with smaller negative size. It is best to use the lens in the range of conditions that the lens designer intended for.

People speak bad of three-element enlarging lenses, but many of them actually perform decent as long as you are making enlargement of reasonable sizes (5x7 to 8x10). But it is best to use quality lens from good lens manufacturers. The companies mentioned above also make lesser quality products at lower price tags, so be careful. At the same time, I'd add that Fujinon is worth considering.

If I am to add a bit more, lens is not all. You also have to worry about enlarger alignment, negative flatness, accuracy of focusing aid, etc.

lex_jenkins · July 1, 2002

I shoot 35mm and 6x6cm and probably will use my 80/5.6 EL-Nikkor N for both. I rarely enlarge much from 35mm so it's easier to just leave the 80mm in place. And my Durst M605 has an extension in case I need it. Even without the extension I can print up to full-frame 11" wide prints from 35mm using the 80mm lens.

Just make sure the EL-Nikkor is the "N" version. On the box it'll be a circled N. If you don't get the box, the lens itself will have a window for light from the enlarger to pass through and illuminate the selected aperture - the older version EL-Nikkors do not. Also the "N" version has the distinctive greenish Nikkor multicoating - older EL-Nikkors don't.

I have an older EL-Nikkor 50/4 - it's not a bad lens, it's just not up to the quality of the 80/5.6. Surprisingly, the 80/5.6 is also a bit brighter wide open than the 50/4 - just an indication of superior optics and coatings.

I paid a bit over $100 for mine in like new condition, plastic bubble, box and all. That seems reasonable. For a bit more - perhaps $125-150 if you're lucky - you can buy a Schneider Componon S 80/4 on e*bay. I got tired of losing out at the last minute on auctions for that lens so I bought my EL-Nikkor locally.

As for assertions that a slightly longer than normal equivalent lens for a given format produces superior results (e.g., a 75-80mm enlarging lens for 35mm film; 105mm for 6x6; etc.), that was true many decades ago but has been disproven when modern lenses are used. If I use an 80mm lens for 35mm film, it's just because I'm too lazy to swap, not because it's better.

Another advantage, at least with my enlarger: the 80mm lens extends far enough to make it easy to access the aperture ring; with the 50 and the recessed board I'm fumbling around up in there trying to get hold of the ring without sticking a thumbprint on the glass. Worse than trying to change the oil filter on some cars.

walter_glover · July 1, 2002

Darryn,

The Australian agent for Durst is Adeal in Melbourne.

WG

kelly_flanigan1 · July 1, 2002

<H3>EVERY properly centered lens I have tested on an optical bench , enlarger, microfilm camera on check sorters has their peak optical performance on axis...</H3> Lens Aberrations grow when moving off the center axis........This goes back several centuries; and is old science....... Miss-centered ill-produced lens may have their best performance off axis; but their overall performance is worse.. Better quality lenses have a broader "sweeter" area; where the performance holds up better than lower quality lenses.... The 4 element Tessar design is 100 years old; it is great in the center; and degrades off axis...Alot of lenses today are still based on this design.... many mid grade enlarging lense today are 4 element designs; using a longer focal length allows the lens to use less angle.....This is not rocket science; but basic optics.... Buy some basic optics books ; and if inclined buy "Optical Design" by Smith; and also some of Kingslake's excellent textbooks...... get a good magnifer; and do some actual testing and printing......... When engineers make statements that there is no "sweet spot" of best performance in a lens; we label them as a rookie if young; and as untrainable if middleaged....; and senile if old............... For a give 4 element design; one can see the degradation grow off axis when printing a glass resolution test plate... Remember that ones camera is also not as sharp at the edges; Scoot a super sharp negative over so the enter portion of the frame is at the edge of the negative holder...I learned this 35 years ago; and found that my 75mm was sharper than my 50mm lens on 35mm negatives....; Just like the pre world war graphics photo books said...... The Japanese Optical Enginners I worked with showed us the resolution versus off axis angle for the various lenses we were considering for our microfilm scanner.....Moving the Film away from the document more allows a longer focal length lens to be used; which uses less angle; and has better resolution.. Maybe others on this thread have lower standards for sharpness; and such dont ever see any off axis degradation.. Our neighbor in Michigan showed me glossy 16x20's enlarged from 6x6 Blad 80mm F2.8 Planar negatives The photos done with the 80mm had worse edge performance than ones done with the 105mm enlarging lens.....; this was 40 years ago.. Click for entire article> <A HREF=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-234.jpg target = "_blank">

kelly_flanigan1 · July 1, 2002

Lex; re I have an older EL-Nikkor 50/4 - it's not a bad lens, it's just not up to the quality of the 80/5.6. Surprisingly, the 80/5.6 is also a bit brighter wide open than the 50/4 - just an indication of superior optics and coatings. I have both lenes too; Your/my 50mm F4 Nikkor is a 4 element...My 80mm F5.6 Rodagon is a 4 element...... My 80mm is better/sharper at the edge of a print than my 50mm F4 lens......The drawback is a long column is needed My 60mm F5.6 Schneider Componon is a gem; it is great for 35mm work,,,; We also used this on our microfilm blowback camera.... In the 1970's I would enlarge 35mm film frames of frogs, people, the moon to 36" x 54"........Enlargements like this really tax the quality of the negative and enlarging lens system....; With these Giant enlargments the 60mm Componon was better than the 50mm Componon at the edges...Maybe my experience with giant enlargements is the reason I want to use the sharpest lens combination possible..It really shows up in big enlargements.....No magnifiying glasses required! ...Developing photos like this in a 3x4 foot sets of trays is exciting...!!!! We used Kodak Super-K paper; which is sort of like an RC paper ,,

bob_finley · July 2, 2002

Kelly - Have you ever read Post Exposure by Ctein. His extensive investigation and experimentation on enlarger lenses indicate that using a longer than needed lense is counter productive with modern lenses. He was looking at 6 element lenses but I find his points very persuasive and would expect that it holds true for 4 element also. But I could be wrong. At any rate it is the only place I am aware of where this common advice of use a longer lens has actually been investigated.

Excellent book that is worth having in your library. The pertinent part starts on page 80.

pete_andrews · July 2, 2002

Kelly: I'm neither a rookie, stupid, nor senile, and I've read a great many books on optical theory, and used and tested a great many lenses. I've also produced some demanding photolithography work for the microelectronics industry. So I do know the meaning of the word "sharp".Anyway. By a GOOD enlarging lens, I mean a 6 element one, not a cheap 4 element job. Comparing a 6 element 80mm Rodogon with a 4 element 50mm lens is just silly. There can be no comparison. And I'd also take little or no notice of space-filling articles in cheap photo magazines, written by so-called technical journalists who simply repeat rumour and the ramblings of other journalists ad infinitum. I've seen total nonsense pass for 'technical articles' in a great many photo magazines recently.Let's get practical: If a print of a reasonable size is sharp right into the corners, (ie. clearly shows sharply defined grain, with no sign of smearing even under a magnifier) then what more could you wish for? My 50mm Componon-S produces such prints at sizes up 20x16 from the full 35mm frame, as does a somewhat cheaper 6 element Komuranon E, and also a Hoya 40mm wideangle enlarging lens that I occasionally use. Larger print sizes are pushing any of those lenses beyond their design parameters, and specialist lenses like the G-Componon range should really be used for higher magnifications."If the print is good enough, then the lens must be good enough." - to paraphrase Henri Cartier-Bresson.

don_sigl · July 2, 2002

If you are only enlarging 35MM, the 80 may be too long for you. After reading through the thread, my experience is unless you fork over the money for an APO lens, you are going to get fall off at the outside of the lense. I own a beautiful componon s that i used for 6x7 and wide open, the lens will exhibit some fall off around the edges. APO lenses not only focus all wavelengths on a single plane, they also provide even illumination at wider f-stops.

An el-Nikkor N will be an improvement to what you are currently using, but the 50MM would probably be a better choice. A six element lens will almost always provide better contrast, eveness of illumination and sharpness than a a 3 or 4 element lens.

Besides the el nikkor N, you could look for a schneider componon S or a Rodenstock Rodagon.

Don

kelly_flanigan1 · July 4, 2002

The usage of a longer lens being better is for one who have two lens of the same optical type; and quality level.....Thus a four element tessar in 75mm beats a 50mm tessar on 35mm usage...The rule is for lenses of the same qualtiy construction; comparing a Schneider 4 element tessar type to a another 4 element Schneider tessar type.... The off axis degradation of the tessar has been researched for 100 years now.....All the MTF curves I have seen show the peak performance is at the center...In many Top brand names the 4 element tessar lenses are a tad bit sharper in the very close center than the more wide coverage 5 and 6 element lenses; and their MTFs show this......In microfilm cameras we used the longer focal length 4 element tessars to take advantge of this property.; and designed the optic path to use the narrower angle tessar's better performance ..I dont believe the Nikon engineers cooked their MTF data any bit...... I am not a marketing person; but an Engineer..; The marketing guys cannot admit that the tessar might be slightly sharper in the center than a more expensive 5 or 6 element "more high quality" lenses..... The 5 and 6 element lenses are better way off axis; this is well documented also..... Instead of just reading other peoples tests; one should actually run ones own tests also........We did this on our microfilm camera for checks; and tested a 6 element normal lens versus a longer focal length 4 element tessar design......After alot of exhaustive testing the 4 element tessar was choosen because it was sharper across the entire image; had more even illumination (better for high contrast copy film) ; and cost less too........When designing production optical devices we must hang up our egos and do real tests, and reports....and back this up with cost analysis of design A versus B......To place the inferior performing 6 element lens in our check sorters would have been wrong; and cost the company more money......This would be passed on to the general public as poorer images of ones checks; and increased ones monthly banking fees.... In the example above the 4 element design was better; because we had the design freedom to use the tessars better center sharpness; and less lens flare due to less elements.. In one has the bucks; using the more expensive 6 element 50mm lens for 35mm work is the way to go...... The rule of using the longer focal length lens to get better performance is for lenses whose performance drops alot at the edges; such as the 4 element tessar......the usage of a longer focal length 4 element lens versus the standard focal length 4 element lens goes back to when people worked harder ; and had less money...and spent more time actually experimenting and testing........ It is an old rule that works and has been used for about 70 years..... If one has the bucks to burn; and can afford it; get a whazoo 6 element 50mm enlarging lens; then one can get full magnification; and not achievable with a 75/80mm lens...... The rule is meant to help the average guy with a mid grade 4 element lenses get better results....I did this for a decade plus.....Alot of people on this board may actually watch their money; and want tips on getting better performance with midgrade equipment...It is wrong to attack decades old proven methods; just because one has alot of money and little willing to learn genes..... Alot of the production printers today use still use the longer focal length 4 elements lenses to print ones photos......... On my Rollei's the 75mm F3.5 Xenar 4 element is slightly sharper than my 5 element Xenotar 80mm F2.8..in the dead center ..The Xenotar is way sharper at the far edges......Some people prefer to use the Rolleikin 35mm adapter on the Rolleicord versus the Rolleiflex to use the slightly sharper lens..;

kelly_flanigan1 · July 4, 2002

Bob; I fully agree that using a longer 6 element lens would be at best equal; and maybe worse.. The longer is better is more noticeable with mid grade 4 element lenses; and really noticeable with my 3 element freebie lenses that came with several of my enlarger packages... Without knowing what class of lens is being compared; all of us will side with different viewpoints..... Another murky point is that enlarging lenses resolution varies with magnification; for giant 36" x54" prints from 35mm; sometimes a camera lens will yield sharper results; but may have distortion.... Pete Re; By a GOOD enlarging lens, I mean a 6 element one, not a cheap 4 element job.

Comparing a 6 element 80mm Rodogon with a 4 element 50mm lens is just silly. There can be no comparison. Darryn's is the person who asked "I have the opportunity to replace my current emlarger lens (a 50mm HAMA) with a Nikkor 80/5.6. It appears to be in very good condition. From some of the previous threads, the Nikkor range appear to be of good quality His question is not silly; but a reasonable one......Notice I answered his question and got attacked; and many others skirted the issue by saying get a better quality 50mm lens.......That is the way to go if one has the funds; but it does not answer his question.... There is no contest; a 80mm F5.6 4 element midgrade lens will beat a 3 element 50mm cheapie triplet for 35mm work..........

nige_buddy · July 4, 2002

Since he hadn't purchased the 80mm yet, suggesting a alternative 50mm is a valid suggestion since there are more issues than pure sharpness. Not much good buying a super sharp 80mm if he can no longer make a large enough print. Also, no $$$ was mentioned, and since he's in my country, I know the 80/5.6 is probably priced similar to a 50/2.8 unless the seller is giving him a bargain or has no clue.Darryn, have you learnt anything for all this?

kelly_flanigan1 · July 4, 2002

Nige; you are correct in the sense we do not know if Darryn is considering getting the 80mm lens for 10 dollars (ie a great deal!) or 150 dollars (not such a deal!) ; thus it looks like everyone; including me never answered what a reasonable price is for a used 80mm F5.6 Nikkor......On <a href="http://search-completed.ebay.com/search/search.dll?ht=1&query=80mm+enlarging+lens&SortProperty=MetaEndSorte">E bay alot of the auctions for "80mm enlarging lens" never hit the buyers reserves..</a> ...I would guess that one could fetch 80 bucks for a 80mm F5.6 Nikkor....... <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1362181764">In this auction a buyer bought a used 80mm Schneider Componon for only 10 dollars plus 7 dollars shipping........this is an excellent lens!!! </a> Many times at garage sales entire enlarger/lenses/trays/timers go for 20 to 50 dollars; because of the "film is dead" attitude...... His enlarger is a Durst Graduate Enlarger; which allows Floor projections to produce giant enlargements ; but this maybe not his cup of tea.......and maybe not required when using the 80mm for 8x10's Darryn; do you print 11x14's? My first enlarger had only 3 element 50mm and 75mm lenses; ..its column was tall enough for 8x10's when using the 75mm lens Later we got a better enlarger; but it came free with omega 50mm and 75mm 3 element lenses... Later 1 bought a 4 element 50mm F4 EL nikkor and a 4 element 80mm F5.6 Rodagon... I have always had the useage of our 60mm F5.6 schneider componon; and once a 50mm componon..... The 4 element ektar 113mm F4.5 ektar with T stop at F9 yields fantastic 6x6 prints; it is surplus from a kodak printer....Besides theses we have a 17 foot long camera at work that has a 360mm, 600mm, and 890mm APO Ronar process lenses; It makes enlargements up to 42" by 96" long...Our old camera used a 210mm Componon; and was only a 5x7 camera....<img src="http://www.photographyreview.com/Channels/PhotographyReview/images/products/product_84839.jpg"><img src="http://ebay0.ipixmedia.com/abc/M28/_EBAY_73d5bda2b03eb3548fe73669b5ed16eb/i-1.JPG">

kelly_flanigan1 · July 4, 2002

Nige; Our older microfilm camera <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1364459246">had the commercial printers version of this lens; Schneider 60/5.6W Componon </a> lens; it was used with 35mm aperture cards....I use it at home on my enlarger; and ran tests of 11x14 prints with it and every lens I own and could borrow..... For 35mm work 24x36mm; it is the best across the entire frame; super sharp at the very edges Second tier was the 80mm F5.6 Rodagon and 113mm F9 Ektar (4 elements)...**these are almost unnoticeably slightly less sharp at the very edges......The ektar was 7 dollars off of e bay; but this lens requires one to rotate the column by 180 degrees for 11x14 on my enlarger...; BUT a low bucks person might want this tip... Third tier was the 50mm F4 Nikkor (4 element lens) Fourth tier was the 75mm F3.5 Omega and F4.5 Testrite (3 element), Fifth tier was the lowly 50mm F3.5 Omega and 50mm F3.5 Testrite; (3 element lenses); which had the poorest edge sharpness.. The center sharpeness quality is not all that bad in the 3 element cheapies; but the edges really are much much poorer.. In each lens quality class (ie 4 element versus 4 element);(or 3 element versus 3 element) the longer lens was better....at the edges..

darryn_richter · July 5, 2002

I made a small mistake in my original question, it was a Hansa, not a Hama lens. Apologies.

I purchsed the EL Nikkor 80/5.6 for AU$60 (about 35USD) I can see visible improvement in sharpness and detail. I actually reprinted a few frames with the new lens so I could make a direct comparison. The printing sessions were only two days apart, using same chemicals, paper and filter. Overall the image was sharper, had more contrast, and seemed to be a "punchier" photograph.

90% of my prints are 5 x 7. 10% are 10 x 8

I actually enjoyed using the enlarger at a greater height than usual, it seems to give me more room to move. Thanks to all who contributed.

lex_jenkins · July 6, 2002

Ctein told me to watch out for inadequate coverage using the 80/5.6 EL-Nikkor N for my 6x6 work (which I print without cropping). He said his tests show the lens has inadequate coverage for 6x6.

Until a couple of nights ago I didn't detect any problems. But one particular negative has given me fits and does indeed reveal a coverage problem that's manifested as light falloff (shown as corner lightness on the print) and softness.

What's odd is that it's noticeable only in one corner. I'm checking to see whether it's a problem of enlarger alignment or another physical problem.

At least where this Nikkor is concerned, Kelly's assertions regarding the advantages of longer-than-normal lenses is borne out.

However, Ctein assured me the Schneider Componon S does not suffer from this problem and has adequate coverage for 6x6 negatives.

I'll keep testing my Nikkor/enlarger setup to see whether I can repeat this phenomenon with other negatives. Interestingly, so far, it simply hasn't shown up in negatives that I'd consider more difficult to print. (And I'm not doing any burning in that might compensate.)

Regardless, the 80/5.6 is excellent for 35mm - per my observations and Ctein's tests.

lex_jenkins · July 6, 2002

My older, pre-"N" 50/4 EL-Nikkor is also very slightly inferior to the 80/5.6 EL-Nikkor N when printing full frame 35mm negatives.

I notice two things:

1. Very slightly softer edges, which would be noticeable only with very critical photos of hard edged, linear or highly detailed objects;

2. An even slighter difference in contrast. The 80/5.6 has ever so slightly more "snap" that is visible under a 10x loupe on prints at the grain level, and would be noticed only by the most discerning viewer. This may be attributable to the multicoating on the 80/5.6, compared with single coating on the 50/4.

These observations related only to b&w photos on Ilford Multigrade IV RC, pearl finish. I suspect differences would be enhanced on glossy paper.

robert_davis2 · July 6, 2002

Isn't the 50mm/F4.0 a different series of lens from the 80mm/5.6? I think the 50mm/2.8 is the same type of lens that the 80mm/5.6 is. At least thats my understanding of apples to apples. Well closer to apples to apples.

kelly_flanigan1 · July 6, 2002

Lex & Robert; my 50mm F4 EL Nikkor from the mid early 1970's is a 4 element design; tessar approx....The 50mm F2.8 of that era is a 6 element design; the newer 50mm F2.8 El Nikkor -N has a larger exit pupil; which yields better illumiation at the edges......I have not seen any actual data showing if the corners have any better sharpness; versus the older F2.8 <a href=" http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000lQK">see the bottom of this El Nikkor thread for the f2.8 diagrams</a>

lex_jenkins · July 7, 2002

Yes, indeed, the newer "N" (new?) EL-Nikkors are considered better. The current 50/2.8 is of at least a similar physical design to the 80/5.6 - window to illuminate the aperture ring, etc. No idea about any differences in the optical formula tho'. The "N" EL-Nikkors do have the distinctive Nikkor greenish multicoating, lacking in the earlier versions.

gene_crumpler8 · July 8, 2002

I have and ocassionally use a 50mm f4 el nikkor, early 70's vintage.

A while back I was thinking about getting a 50mm f2.8. I ran a critical test print at 11x14 with a glass carrier. It was an old Tri-x negative with lots of grain. After critical examination of the corners of the print, I concluded that the old f4 was just fine for prints up to that size if it is stopped down at least 2 stops. I've also stopped making any thing larger than about 8 1/2x 11 inches from 35mm.

I no longer shoot 35mm B&W, so I purchased a new 80mm f5.6 El nikkor about 5 years ago that I'm using for 6x6 and 6x7 enlargements, ALWAYS with a glass carrier.

Point: Be sure that the enlarger is aligned and the negative is flat, before buying a new enlarger lens.

Sign In

Nikkor Enlarging Lens

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in