Enlarger lens for 8x10

[cowanw]

My 8x10 enlarger came with a 240mm lens as well as a Nikkor 210.
I wonder if anyone can tell me what advantages a 300 mm enlarger lens might have other than column height.
thanks
Bill

[Drew Wiley]

Much more even field of illumination, probably better sharpness toward the edges. I prefer a 360 to all of the above.

[neil poulsen]

Which 240mm lens?

[cowanw]

Which 240mm lens?
The gentleman who sold me my enlarger was kind enough to give me both a Rodagon and Companon 5.6.
I usually use the Companon.

[IanG]

I've recently bought a 240mm Componon S for my De Vere 5108. I have a 300mm but find it a touch awkward when I'm working close to 1:1 and I've always been happy with a 135mm Componon for 5x4 no coverage issues, sharp right to the corners, and I'm confidant the 240mm will be similar. After all Schneider designed the 240mm Componons to be used for 10x8 work.

Ian

[bob carnie]

I use a 300 and a 360 on my 8x10 negative work, rarely would I use my 240mm ., If there was a significant crop I would then use the 240mm but I rarely crop the image.
I agree with the poster about coverage btw.

[ic-racer]

For 8x10 projection printing I use my lenses as follows:
300mm everything except,
210mm when doing 1:1 proofs, saves having to extend the bellows to 600mm
240mm when the head is hitting the rafters and the table is all the way down and I need 40" across (300mm only gets me 30" under those conditions)
360mm when projecting on the wall for some extra standing room between the lens and the wall

[cowanw]

Thanks everybody

[jeroldharter]

I had a 240 mm Rodagon. It was outstanding. That is all I ever used but had no complaints. I suspect that you might need long arms to focus a 300-360 for significant enlargements.

[Ginette]

Aother factor to take in account is the lens optimization range. As I remember for the regular Rodagon, the 240 and 300mm is 4x enlargement and the 360mm is 2.5x. The Rodagon-G are for larger enlargements. I don't know for others brand as I'm settle in Rodagon line. So take a look on the lens specifications in regards of your own habit.

[bob carnie]

A friend of mine is moving to Hamilton Ont, and has a 360 apo enlarging lens for sale.

[evan clarke]

I use a Nikon 180 on mine, and all is good.

[Luis-F-S]

My 8x10 enlarger came with a 240mm lens as well as a Nikkor 210.
I wonder if anyone can tell me what advantages a 300 mm enlarger lens might have other than column height.
thanks
Bill

Arm exercise. You'll stretch your arm a lot more with a 300 than a 240, although I'm sure there are those on this forum that will tell you that the image quality improvement can be noted even in the dark! L

[Kevin Crisp]

The 210 Nikkor works fine for prints in the 16X20 range from 8X10 negatives, at least on the column mount Beseler. Surprised me when I tried it, but it does.

[John Jarosz]

Since the information exchange of this thread seems to be completed, I'd like to ask why would an enlarger be used for 1:1 in place of contact printing?

[ic-racer]

Since the information exchange of this thread seems to be completed, I'd like to ask why would an enlarger be used for 1:1 in place of contact printing?

In my darkroom the main reason is dust. Once the negative is dusted free and in the carrier, multiple exposures can be made without introducing dust. Other advantages for me include, easier dodging, and burning, ability to include rebate and a white protective print border on prints, lack of a quality contact printing frame, ease in placing test chips of paper on exact locations of the image, improved sharpness when using double weight paper compared to my 3/8" contact glass which does not even come close to flattening the paper.

[Drew Wiley]

Not all enlarging lenses are going to work well at 1:1. In fact, most won't. And a contact print will still look different in terms of subtle tonality. But no harm in
trying. You'll need a long bellows, unless of course.... well... I am one of those people who believes that any correct 8x10 englarging lens is LONGER than a mere 300mm.

[John Kasaian]

I've got a 229mm Copy Paragon on my beast. It works just fine.

[neil poulsen]

I haven't yet used it, but I have a 240mm Apo-Rodagon that I think is interesting for 8x10. Contrary to what the name implies, it's a process lens. It's my understanding that it was an upgrade to the Ronar process lens, except it was designed to have a wider field and a faster optimum aperture of f16. (Versus the standard f22 like most process lenses.) Its sweet spot for enlargement is between 3:1 and 1:3. (No observable difference between these to rations.) In addition to the 240mm Apo-Rodagon, they also made a 300mm and a 360mm.

[cowanw]

Well I usually leave a bit of room around the subject , so that I am really not 1:1 but close. The other bigger reason is the ability to easily dodge and burn in different grades, with hands and tools at different distances between the negative and the print. Which I am sure can be done other ways.

Since the information exchange of this thread seems to be completed, I'd like to ask why would an enlarger be used for 1:1 in place of contact printing?

[cowanw]

I am fascinated that the usual relationships of focal length just seem to vary here, in practical use.

[Drew Wiley]

Optical characteristics are one factor, available vertical space another, print size needed another, and expected quality of reproduction yet another. Just depends on your specific combination of these priorities. One of my 8x10 enlargers is fourteen feet tall, and I load the neg carrier from a roller platform ladder, so I can kinda have my cake and eat it too. Same options as with a rolling horizontal enlarger, but needs much less floor footprint, but obviously a high ceiling. I have a smaller 8x10 unit too with a coldlight on it for ordinary black and white printing. Since that room only has an 8 ft ceiling, and I commonly make 20x24 prints there, I generally
use a 305 Apo Nikkor instead of my preferred 360's.

[Luis-F-S]

I haven't yet used it, but I have a 240mm Apo-Rodagon that I think is interesting for 8x10. Contrary to what the name implies, it's a process lens. It's my understanding that it was an upgrade to the Ronar process lens, except it was designed to have a wider field and a faster optimum aperture of f16. (Versus the standard f22 like most process lenses.) Its sweet spot for enlargement is between 3:1 and 1:3. (No observable difference between these to rations.) In addition to the 240mm Apo-Rodagon, they also made a 300mm and a 360mm.
Yup I have the 300 Apo Rodagon which I will be listing in the For Sale section soon. Don't use it as I use the 240 Rodagon!