Durst 138s laborator light bulb

[volumniv]

Hello,

So I'm going to go look at a Durst 138s for my first enlarger, I only shoot 35mm right now but I'm looking to expand to large format and I only want to buy one enlarger, so why not get a big one :) ..anyways people really seem to be complaining about finding replacement bulbs for the Durst enlargers..B&H sells a 150w enlarger bulb, though it is a different shape I think than the Durst original bulb. Here is a link to the bulb i'm referring to: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/74801-REG/Wiko_PH212_Lamp_150.html - will this work? Or does it have to look like one of those G40 bulbs I've seen people write about?
I just don't want to buy an enlarger and not be able to find a light for it... Anyone know if this light would work?

Also, anyone ever try this light for the Durst? It's sold/marketed as a replacement - https://www.interlight.biz/light-bulb/DURST-LABORATOR-138

Thanks guys, really appreciate the expertise.

[Don Dudenbostel]

It's too small to work with large format. It might work up to 6x6 but not sure. The closest thing to the original bulb is the G40 150w that's about 5" in diameter. My problem trying it is it's not bright enough. Some fks get away with it but my exposures on the paper I use were too long. If you're goi g up to 4x5 then there's a large Sylvania or Philips bulb that's 300w and will do. I converted my 138 too LED and it works great with no heat. I have a recent thread on it. That's my suggestion.

As good as the 138 is I wouldn't use it for 35mm. It certainly can be done but it's a bit awkward having to use the recesses board and the general operation of the 138 is slow. I mainly print 5x7 on mine and occasionally 4x5 if I want the full frame. I have printed medium format but prefer my Omega D5XL for that and 4x5. I have an Ilford veritable contrast head on the Omega and it's a much better way to print small negs. It's simply faster to use and less awkward. I've used 138's since the early 70's and love them and you can use them for everything but imo it's the slow way to go.

[volumniv]

Thanks Don, would you mind sending me a link to the G40 150w that you're talking about? Why is it awkward to use for 35mm? I don't mind a slow operation...in fact I would almost prefer it at this point..I got so fed up with things being done so quickly with digital, which played a big role in my switch to film a few years back. From what I have read the Durst 138s laborator is known as a great enlarger, which is why I thought I would look for one...do you think it would work well enough for a beginner in the dark room? of course I plan on reading the manual too...

[Luis-F-S]

It's a lot of enlarger for 35. Not exactly a great first enlarger. You would do a lot better with an LPL enlarger with a VCCE head. Get the 4x5 version if you want a big one. Sort of like trying to kill a fly with a bazooka. You can get a G 40 bulb at Home Depot. Plenty bright for my needs.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I bought a case of the G40 bulbs at a big-box store... http://www.lowes.com/pd_91755-3-15795_0__?productId=1266431

[Luis-F-S]

While the Durst L-138 is a great enlarger, it's not a great "first enlarger": My first enlarger some 40 plus years ago was an Omega B-22. My second enlarger a few years later was a Beseler MXII. My third enlarger some 10 years later was an Omega F. My fourth enlarger was a Leitz Valloy II. My fifth and sixth enlargers 20 years ago were Zone VI's 5x7's. My seventh enlarger was a Durst SM-183 (a Durst L-138s on an 8x10 base). My eight enlarger was an LPL 4500-II. My ninth enlarger was a DeVere 5108. I presently have the last 3 I've bought and the Valloy.

The main reason to get a 5x7 enlarger is if you're going to print 5x7. 4x5 enlargers are much more "user friendly", much more plentiful and "forgiving". Going from 35 to 5x7 is quite a stretch. I routinely shoot and print 35, 6x6, 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10 formats so I have an 8x10 & a 4x5 enlargers set up. The 4x5 enlarger is used for 135 up to 4x5, and the 8x10 for sheet film. I also have some 40 years experience in the darkroom and have taught B&W photography & B&W darkroom at the college level. Starting off learning to print with a 5x7 enlarger is sort of like trying to learn how to drive using a Greyhound bus. Yes, it can be done, but there are easier ways to achieve the same end. Do yourself a favor and start off with a smaller enlarger.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I would agree the 138 isn't the best beginner enlarger.

For 35mm you have to use a deep recesses lens board. It's so deep you can't even see the lens aperture scale. I seem to remember some lenses required an extension to set the aperture. With a receded board in place you have to remove it from the enlarger to rotate the lens turret. Medium format is ok but it's 4x5 and larger where it really excells.

If you're only going up to 4x5 negs I'd suggest as above an LPL, Omega D5XL with Ilford or even a color head or Beseler 4x5. They're cheaper, super good construction and parts and accesories are cheap and readily available. No fussing over bulbs.

Google G40 150w and you'll find many sources. You shouldn't have to pay more than $4-6 dollars each. I'd buy a supply if that's what you settle on. I however find the LED solution has more even illumination and no heat plus brighter.

[volumniv]

hmm I clicked, reply to thread and I thought it would send what I wrote but it seems to have just deleted it, so my apologies if this gets posted twice..

I wrote:

I wouldn't mind buying a new Beseler that can go up to 4x5, but Iv'e just heard so many people complain about the quality of Beseler, everyone says their quality has gone down the drain...is that true? Thats why when I saw this used Durst enlarger set up for 35mm near me, i thought Id jump on it..Any thoughts on new Beselers?

[Don Dudenbostel]

I've not seen a new Beseler but why buy new. There are so many excellent used ones for cheap. If you bought a Durst it wouldn't be new. They've not been made in several decades. Beseler and Omega D series are built like tanks and will last a lifetime or more. Both Beseler and omega were the backbone of custom labs.

[volumniv]

Yeah, I suppose I could wait a bit longer to find one, the ones I have seen so far locally that were older were "too old"...or just not well maintained. So even if the Durst has all the lens extension tubes, I would still not have access to the aperture? I'll probably still go look at it, I'm going on Wednesday, so I'm just trying to get an idea of what I should be looking for so I don't have to "take the guys word" on everything. I feel like I'll have a much better sense of the thing, and of what you guys are talking about, when I see it in person..I do really appreciate all the advice

[Luis-F-S]

Look for LPL enlargers on Craig's list. I bought my second one there for 1/4 what I paid for my first one. You should be able to find a complete 4x5 one for under $500. You can print 35mm on the Durst with a longer lens on a flat board (105 or 135 mm lens). Otherwise U need a Laratub N so you can see the aperture ring. Good luck finding one they don't come up very often. Regardless, make sure the Durst is complete with lens boards, carriers, carrier plates, condensers and all the other goodies that are necessary. Otherwise, you'll spend a whole lot more trying to find them used. There are a bunch of threads on Durst enlargers on this site, so you can try and figure out what you're supposed to be looking at. Or you could just get an LPL which still has all the parts available new or used.

http://www.khbphotografix.com/LPL/

[Drew Wiley]

Unless it's utterly trashed, a fifty year old Durst will last another hundred. In a whole different league than Beseler, Omega, etc. You can still buy new Durst if you know where to look. But then you won't be able to afford your stay in the ICU after the heart attack, when you see the price tag. But the true commercial Dursts were largely machined versus aluminum extrusions, hence can be reburbished more successfully. Recalibration was built into them. So spending a few hundred to recondition something that could have cost anywhere from 15K to 75K when it was new isn't unrealistic at all, since even these machines can be found free these days. I'm not criticizing brands like the Omega, which did hold up well. But those of us who use a variety of enlargers certainly know the difference. And I must apologize to my trusty old Omega, since I didn't have space for both it and another Durst. It will just have to be reincarnated after its transition through the scrapyard.

[Don Dudenbostel]

If you buy any of the above in nice clean shape you'll never wear any of them out. All are professional grade and built to run for a lifetime or more. I've used Omega D series and some E since the late 50's and Beseler off and on since the mid 60's. Durst 138's have been a part of my work since the early 70's. In the day of film I used them in my commercial studio darkroom and never had to replace more than a spring or bulb. Enlargers if maintained will never give any problems and theres not much to maintain. You have to abuse them to have a problem and all will break if abused. Back in the late 70's I figured I'd made more than 100,000 prints and most were made on an Omega D. I can't even guess how many I've made by now and I'm still using my D5 most of the time. Other than a spring or bulb I've never seen anything break.

After you've printed for a few years you get preferences for specific designs. I like the way the Omega machines work but others like the Beseler and others like the Durst. I've never used an LPL. I like the focus mechanism on the omega better than any and really don't like the geared focus on the Beseler. There's alway play in it but that's my personal preference. I don't like the motor lift on the Beseler and like the crank on the Omega. I do however like the way the Beseler flips to a horizontal position for mural printing. I used that feature often where I worked in the early 70's. Omega has a superior color head IMO but Beseler had the best condenser design. Durst is big and awkward IMO but it's precision and does the job very well. I'm tall and have long arms but the Durst seems everything is just beyond arms length from in front of the enlarger. Working from the front when printing I have to stretch to reach the locks on the enlarger to raise and lower it. Everything like focus requires locking down or risk drift. I've not had that happen but I feel everything is more secure if you lock the head in position / at height and the focus. On the other hand the Durst is versatile and has a ton of bellows if needed. Everything for the Durst is expensive and some items are very hard to find. Many of the 138's have no negative carrier which can easily cost $700 or more plus glass at $100 a piece to fit it. Many of the negative carries have broken fingers that hold the glass in place. My previous 138 had about half of the fingers missing but the one I have now has all but one. Condensers are available except the ones you need. I finally found a 160. Condensers can get expensive. Lens boards aren't a problem if you're looking for a 39mm thread but an extended board they're out there but can cost you hundreds of dollars.

Don't get the idea Omega or Beseler are inferior because they aren't. Either will do the job just as well as a Durst and you're unlikely to every wear any of them out.

[Luis-F-S]

I've used Omega, Beseler Durst, LPL & DeVere. My favorite is the DeVere, followed by the LPL and then the Durst. I bought my Durst complete 20 years ago, and then bought a cold light head for it, extra lens boards and condensers. I HATE condenser printing, but do have all 7 that are made. That's why I recommend the LPL to anyone new to printing, but again, I've made my living as a professional photographer for the past 40 years, so WTH do I know. L

[Drew Wiley]

Durst had more light source options than anyone else; and you can always adapt still more. What on earth makes you think you're stuck with condensers? At least you used a cold light. But go ask some dude working on a shiny old Indian or Harley motorcyle if he'd want something equivalent made out of anodized aluminum. I've used most of these same enlargers; pick what you like. But honestly, build quality and sheer ingredients, postwar machining like you'll never see again. Same reason I like my Norma camera. It was built to last and be fine-tuned over the long haul. Nothing ever came close in Omega. The carriers and lensboards were a joke unless I machined my own. Sure, you can shim things and this n' that, and make it all work correctly. But no way, Jose, out the gate.

[Don Dudenbostel]

How did I ever satisfy my clients for almost fifty years with that inferior omega. If they'd known what I printed on they'd probably fired me.

Seriously I still have my Norma I bought new in 1969. I found the book and receipt the other night and new they were $465 for the basic camera. It served me well through my career and I still use it. My Norma, Master Technika I bought in 1974 and my 8x10 Deardorff were the workhorses of my studio for many years.

We all have personal likes and dislikes. I know other pros that hated the Norma because of the base tilts. I apprenticed under a master many decades ago and he used Calumet monorails and a calumet 8x10 with Ilex lenses. They worked great but of course not as versatile as a Norma but they produced images that satisfied national clients. Many of my accounts were Fortune 500 corporations. I Shuttet to think what they would have done if they'd known what I was printing on ;-)

[Luis-F-S]

I think we're forgetting that OP is someone who shoots 35, is thinking about large format and has never set foot inside a darkroom. All he asked about was a light bulb, for a 300 lb enlarger because he read it was a good one. Some of our responses are a little unrealistic, don't you think?

[Drew Wiley]

What is a 300 lb Durst? Wish I could find one of those instead of the 600-pounder we had to carry up two flights of stairs out of an industrial basement last month.
But I prefer them even for 35mm because of the precision carriers. But honestly, I generally used my Omega for small black and white work simply because the
smaller Durst (138) was dedicated to color work. Yes, my Omega wore out. I could have easily fixed it. But it deserved the old folks home for scrap metal. Probably saw 60 yrs of use. I bought it second-hand 35 years ago, so sure did get my money's worth. But when I want something that looks like a machine, that
deserves some stainless polish... People down the street work on speedboats. I work on enlargers.

[Luis-F-S]

What is a 300 lb Durst? Wish I could find one of those instead of the 600-pounder we had to carry up two flights of stairs out of an industrial basement last month.

Instead of running off at the keyboard, the thread is on a Durst L-138 which from the Durst manual weighs 165 pounds with the condenser head. The L-184 weighs 353 lbs and it comes apart in at least three pieces. My 300 lbs was very generous, don't know what you're moving. L

[Larry Gebhardt]

The Durst 138S is fine for 35mm, in my opinion. You need the right lensboard and lens to allow easy aperture adjustments. The condensers are excellent. There are a lot of negative holder options, and some are better than others.

As far as bulbs go you will find there are a lot of solutions that work. The original bulbs are long out of production and are hard to find (and pricey if you do). I have played with some options and the flood light bulbs work ok with milk glass in the heat absorbing glass holder. You will need a bulb holder that positions it correctly. There were also p/h303 bulbs for cheap a few years ago. They work pretty well even on 5x7, so 35mm will be excellent as far as coverage goes. I finally settled on a home build LED setup, but the various bulbs I tried all worked acceptably with some time put into experimentation (a baseboard meter will be very useful).

[volumniv]

I don't know, I'll see it tomorrow. It is just hard to pass up, because I plan on getting into large format as soon as the funds allow, but one step at a time. and it would be nice to just get an enlarger now that will do everything, plus this one comes with everything, all the condensers, 50mm schneider lens, extension tubes, 2 neg holders (no legs broken on them), even original light, and is in amazing condition judging from the pictures and from what he tells me..is there that big of a difference between getting a 4x5 beseler enlarger vs a 5x7 Durst? Is the 5x7 actually that much harder to use, or is it just bigger, because if its just bigger, I'm 6'4'', so I could handle that. :)

[Luis-F-S]

Like Larry said, the L-138s is a fine enlarger and can certainly be used for 35mm. You don't need extension tubes, you need recessed lens boards. If it has the Nega 138 glass negative carrier, but no inserts for 35mm, it's going to be a pain to use a 5x7 carrier to print 35. I would not get a Beseler enlarger, I'd get an LPL which is a much newer design and a far superior unit with carriers all the way from 35 to 4x5, 3 interchangeable light sources and holds it's alignment. If you've never printed, it will be much easier to learn (ie you're less likely to become discouraged) with a diffusion enlarger than a condenser one, but you do what you want, and you may figure it out eventually. Have you downloaded the owner's manual from the Durst-Pro-USA site? L

[Drew Wiley]

Pain? Why? I do it all the time. All you need is a simple cutout mask on the top glass for smaller negs using the Nega 138. Cost for that, essentially zero if you're
willing to invest in a 5 cent razor blade. Omega enlargers are wonderful for beginners and classroom work, as are the Saunders. Plenty of people will use them
for a lifetime. No criticism there. But there is nothing hard about using any of the Dursts. You might get a little intimidated by all the options in the literature.
The main problem with them is that they tended to be used in industrial-scale commercial labs. Lots got hard hard use over many years. So condition is everything. And it helps if you have basic shop skills if you intend to refurbish one. But if you could choose between a Ferrari for free or a Toyota Corolla, what would you pick? And yes, my old Omega did go to the boneyard to make room for another free Durst, but by that I don't mean the dump - I mean some quiet corner of my lab, where the chassis is still installed, and all the components boxed up in storage. It will be reincarnated one way or another, or perhaps find a
new home.

[Drew Wiley]

Forgot to address one thing - recessed boards, yes, for short lenses. I have some of those. But why not do like I do and use longer than "normal" lenses so you are just using the sweet spot of the optic at larger apertures? The Durst, with that long column allows you to easily do that. It stays steady due to both the quality of the build and its vertical rather than overhanging profile. And there are all kinds of neg carriers for them. Yeah, finding an unbattered Nega 138 can take a bit of patience, but I landed a nearly mint one for $35 - not bad for something that might have cost a grand originally with glass! These are precision devices with all kinds of fine-tuning on them, in an utterly different league than conventional enlarger carriers, which are basically just aluminum plates.

[Larry Gebhardt]

One other strength of the Durst over the Omega D5 I have also used is the thing stays aligned for longer, and it's fast to realign with a laser alignment system if you every try tilts for perspective correction. The Omega is a lot more difficult to get just right in my experience.

One of the reasons I built my LED system was I wanted a diffusion option in addition to the condensers. My system slides into the condenser slots. If you don't want to build something like that you would need to look for another head if you want diffusion printing. Of course you can get a simple plate cut for the Durst and mount other heads on that.

[bob carnie]

I own Durst,2000 - Devere 515 - and three omega condensor

All are excellent - I would stay away from auto focus, and in all cases brace the column specifically the omega. Each enlarger has its good and bad points
so I am neutral on which one to recommend as the best.

spend good money on glass in all cases.

[bob carnie]

btw a free durst 4 x5 in Toronto if you are close

[Luis-F-S]

Again, we're talking about someone who shoots 35 and has never set foot in a darkroom.....................so Bob, which would be best for someone who's never been inside a darkroom?

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, I turned down the autofocus Durst even though it was the newest of the batch. Wanted something within my own shop skills to tinker with; so took a nice
L184 and colorhead. All refurbished and new-looking except waiting for the new bellows. I've even matched the registration carriers to my own punch system. It was a pleasant Christmas break project while it was raining. I could have had any number of dozens of 4x5 Omegas or even six entire 8x10 Omega F's. But all the Omega and Beseler stuff probably went to landfill. They wanted to lease out the entire building quickly. He's into his 70's now and wants to concentrate on Sinar digital food photography, though the studio alone is an enormous space. It pays well and has the perk of eating the cusine of famous chefs after the shoot. I asked him to save the Omega carriers for the glass itself. Don't know if that happened or not. But he did save all the Durst glass and accessories. I talked him into selling the autofocus unit. Somebody will pay top dollar, perhaps 75K; but he hated it himself. Finicky, and all the carriers were proprietary to that model alone.

[volumniv]

This just popped up for sale, can anyone tell me what model omega it is? it is not listed.. 146312

[volumniv]

It has a diffuse head on it, which has been one of the main drawbacks for me about the Durst..well, that and everyones opinion to avoid it for now (mostly)

[Drew Wiley]

Luis - so what if he has never set foot in a darkroom. That was you and me once too! And I certainly began with 35mm. These pro enlarger are so abundant as
giveaway nowadays, why not have machinery to grow with, if the darkroom turns out to be something you enjoy? One thing lead to another. The amount of floor space a 138 takes up isn't any more than using an Omega or Beseler atop a bench or stand. Gosh. It's hard to go wrong these days if the gear is in good condition.
Omega, Saunders, Durst, Beseler - all these pop up frequently. As a beginner, I'd be happy with any or em. But if I happened to like nice-lookin' machines, and
admired serious postwar Italian production skill like you'll never see again....

[volumniv]

Well, I have been in a darkroom a couple of times and really enjoyed it..hence this journey. I've never used a condenser head, only diffuse, are they that bad for B/W work as far as dust and stuff goes? Just found a Saunders/LPL LPL 670XL packed in its original box, little baggies and all for 900..they are 1800 on B&H new..I could run with that if the Durst would be a huge mistake which seems to be the general consensus..

Here it is

146314

[Geary Lyons]

This just popped up for sale, can anyone tell me what model omega it is? it is not listed.. 146312

It is an Omega D2, condenser head. A solid workhorse if in good shape.

Cheers,
Geary

[Drew Wiley]

If you think there's a "consensus" you haven't taken much of a census! But a nearly new LPL will save you time and complication if you don't like fixing things.
It will limit you to a maximum negative size of 6x7cm, though that is a distinct step up from 35mm if you decide you need a slightly bigger film format. Any
condenser head can be turned into diffusion simply by adding a sheet of transluscent white diffusion plastic above the negative stage. But working with variable
speed papers, which are predominant nowadays, is a lot easier with a colorhead.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Nothing wrong with diffusion or condenser. I use a diffusion variable contrast head made by Ilford on my D5 and wouldn't trade it for anything even though it's on one of those inferior Omega's. My Durst is a condenser and it works great too. It really depends are what you want out of your enlarger. Diffusion prints with a longer scale and retains more information in the highlights and shadows but not a huge amount. It's really more how you shoot and process and what you want out of your neg.If I could get a 5x7 Ilford head for my Durst 138 I'd get it if the price were reasonable. I see a guy is making an adapter for the Ilford head but I have no idea how well it works or if it even covers 5x7.

I've never used or actually seen an LPL enlarger but I'm sure they are first rate. I still argue that the Omega and Beseler are everything you'l ever need and will outlast you and give first rate results. Omega and Beseler were the primary enlargers in every lab I've been in and would wager they have been the primary enlargers in most US professional labs.

I worked for 2 companies that had Durst 138's in their lab with either Omega or Beseler 4x5 enlargers too. The only time the Durst was use in both cases was when the neg was too large for the others. The reason, they are cumbersome and slow to use. You mentioned your friend said they are the best. I would have asked the best for what? They're excellent for 5x7 and 4x5 but the best for 35mm, from experience I don't think so. I wouldn't say they are the best for medium format either. Many would argue they aren't the best for 5x7 but rather the DeVere is the best. It really comes down to you what's best for your needs and your experience.

Everyone starts from the same point of no experience and knowledge. Some of us have better guidance than others and make fewer mistakes. I was fortunate to have a great mentor and apprentice under a master photographer. Filter the information you get on the internet. Listen to people that are long time professionals and highly experienced amateurs. Listening to the wrong people will only cost you money and discourage you. On the other hand listening to the wrong advice helps keep the flow of lightly used high quality equipment back into the market. So many people with little to no experience buy equipment on bad advice and wind up finding out that it's not as easy or what they were told it is and wind up taking a bath on it when they get discouraged.

My advice, skip the Durst until you know if you're going to like darkroom work and if you're any good. You may not want to get into large format when you get deeper into it. You might want to go medium format or stay in 35mm or you might want to go 8x10 and need a bigger enlarger or you might even decide that 8x10 contact prints are so beautiful you don't need anything else. It was good enough for Edward Weston. Give yourself time to figure out where you're going with this before you jump into something else. You might even decide this analog thing is time consuming and you go digital. Who knows.

What format view camera are you thinking about 4x5 or 5x7? The only reason I have the 138 is I shoot 5x7 and have a lot of 6x17 negs. I also need to print some of my art negs full frame to the edge and the Nega carrier is the way to go. If it were 4x5 I'd only own my D5 Omega. I like my 138 but would rather print on my D5. It's simply easier to use and less cumbersome.

Printing is an art and it take a great deal of learning to be a fine printer, particularly if you're doing it on your own. Good luck with your decision.

[Geary Lyons]

snip... Just found a Saunders/LPL LPL 670XL packed in its original box, little baggies and all for 900..they are 1800 on B&H new..I could run with that if the Durst would be a huge mistake which seems to be the general consensus..

I would suggest stepping back and making some realistic determinations on what formats that you want to shoot. If you are committed to eventually going to 5x7, what is the path to get there? What is the time frame? How close are you to actually building out or finding space for a darkroom? Are there community darkrooms available in your area?

The 670XL is a medium format enlarger. Max film size is 6x7. Considering that enlarger is incongruous with everything that you have said but, "I only shoot 35mm right now." There are better choices, IMO, with which to start. Especially at that price point!! But you need to determine the format progression.

You could find a 4x5 enlarger rather easily. Does it make sense for your transition to LF to start with 4x5? There is just far more available on the market in 4x5 cameras and enlargers. I love 5x7 and the aspect ratio, but that is me. If you never plan to go to 8x10, the Durst 138 is a wonderful piece of kit. I use a Devere 504 for 35mm-4x5 and a Durst L184 for 5x7-8x10. That configuration is the result of many years and many other enlargers. (Still have my 30+ year old D2) Sold my LPL 4500 to buy the DeVere. But space and room height very quickly become issues. Both the Durst and Devere are floor standers and solid as rocks. Neither of those enlargers will make you a better photographer, but will definitely make your DR time more productive.

Where are you located? There is probably somebody close by that would be willing to do a "show and tell".

Cheers,
Geary

[Drew Wiley]

I just have to remember my own roots. I bought a 6x7 enlarger but sold it almost immediately. Even for medium format work, a 4x5 enlarger was way more solid
and versatile. But then I had the basis to move up to 4x5 film too. That's what really got me addicted to printing. 4x5 enlargers are way more common than 6x7
models anyway. 8x10 is really a tough step up, however, in terms of size and expense.

[volumniv]

Saw it tonight- man is that an amazing piece of equipment...I see what you all mean with the 50mm lens sitting up so high, what he used to use was one of those schneider lenses that has a tab that you can set to lock into place so you can close the lens to wherever you set it...

Either way, I have some thinking to do...thank you for all the advice, knowledge, and opinions everyone :)

[dsphotog]

If it's affordable.... Go for it!

[volumniv]

I ended up passing on it..the space I will be using isn't too big and that enlarger was well...the opposite of "not too big" ;)
For now, I'm going to find a nice 35mm dedicated enlarger and then just get a bigger one when I get a bigger space, and bigger camera .. though, it certainly was not as complicated of an enlarger that people made it out to be..but at the same time I do appreciate people not wanting me to become discouraged in the darkroom due to an enlarger that is not "plug in and go". If anyone is missing any pieces on a Durst 138s, let me know and I can put you in touch with the guy, it had everything, and was pretty mint.

[lorithorn]

Hello,

So I'm going to go look at a Durst 138s for my first enlarger, I only shoot 35mm right now but I'm looking to expand to large format and I only want to buy one enlarger, so why not get a big one :) ..anyways people really seem to be complaining about finding replacement bulbs for the Durst enlargers..B&H sells a 150w enlarger bulb, though it is a different shape I think than the Durst original bulb. Here is a link to the bulb i'm referring to: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/74801-REG/Wiko_PH212_Lamp_150.html - will this work? Or does it have to look like one of those G40 bulbs I've seen people write about?
I just don't want to buy an enlarger and not be able to find a light for it... Anyone know if this light would work?

Also, anyone ever try this light for the Durst? It's sold/marketed as a replacement - https://www.interlight.biz/light-bulb/DURST-LABORATOR-138

Thanks guys, really appreciate the expertise.

You can get a G 40 bulb at Home Depot. Plenty bright for my needs.
http://hautavis.net/129/o.png