Enlarging lens for 8x10

[Henry Ambrose]

I've searched the archives but I'm not finding enough information on specific 8x10 enlarging lenses.

What are good used lens choices for 8x10 enlarging? I'll use it on a home made enlarger and probably up to 3 or maybe 4x enlargement (not necessarily to make 32x40s but to have room for cropping)

Thanks in advance.

[John Kasaian]

I've had very nice results from a 229mm Ilex Copy Paragon, I think it cost $60 nib from Photo Graphic Systems and has a lovely deep blue coating. Its aboard my elderly Elwood.

I've heard that 250mm Kodak Ektanons were what they used "back in the day" but hey, the Copy Paragon works for me.

If you're shooting 8x10 you might have a 240 G Claron or larger in your kit, which would probably work just dandy if you can handle f/9 (a little too dim in the dark room for my old browns!)

[Juergen Sattler]

The 300mm Rodenstock Rodagon!

[Stephen Willard]

Be very careful, for the quality of your images are only as good as your weakest link. I had used a 240mm Rodenstock Rodagon for a number of years making prints up to 20x24. And then one day I decided to start doing some big stuff and that is where I started to run into problems. The edges appeared out of focus while the center was razor sharp. There was nothing I could do to focus the edges. They were just soft and fuzzy.

I ended up buying a Schneider and a Nikon and benchmarking all three enlarging lenses. To my surprise the NIkon won hands down. Was the image soft at the edges for the Nikon. Absolutely, but it was much better than the Rodenstock and the Schneider. I kept the EL-Nikkor and returned the Schneider and sold the Rodenstock.

If I were you when you buy an enlarger lens, I would install it on your enlarger immediately and project the largest image possible. I would then check the edges to see how soft they are.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I use a 300 rodagon and have not found any softness to the image at the edges, checking with my peak. I just got the enlarger and have only made 20x24 so far. Now my interest is peaked. I'm going to go down and wind the salsman all the way up and check. Stephen, do you think it might have been more of an issue with using a 240, which is squeezing all the lens could do, rather than a using 300? I understand also that sometimes situations dictate a 240.

[Kevin Crisp]

The EL Nikor 210mm lens is often available used for a very reasonable price. I guess people only think it will cover only 5X7, but it covers 8X10 well. It isn't small, roughly the size of a coffee mug.

[George Stewart]

When I printed 8x10 optically I began using a 240mm Componon and found that vignetting at 20x24 was too much for my taste. I purchased a 300mm Componon-S and was much happeir.

[Henry Ambrose]

Stephen,
Were all the lenses you tried 240s? Do you think that was part of the problem? Whatever I come up with I'd like to avoid the dogs in any focal length.

Kevin,
I saw several references to the Nikkor 210 in the archives. I like the idea that it would let me work with less enlarger height. Is this what you are using now? I know when I tried a 135mm Nikkor for 4x5 I was not pleased and went to a 150 Nikkor which works fine. SIze is not a big deal as I can make most anything fit.

I have top notch lenses for 35 through 4x5 but the information on 8x10 lenses is somewhat thin. I've proven to myself through trial an error that the best APO glass gives visibly better prints in smaller formats. But I don't think I have to have the absolute incredible best to make moderate enlargements from 8x10. I do want it to cover and be sharp all over the frame. "Good" in an 8x10 enlarging lens might be completely satisfactory where in smaller formats I'd be looking for "the best". Am I wrong?

John,
I had a 162 Enlarging Raptor on a 5x7 enlarger once that was not very good but I'm open to suggestions for older glass. I guess your Copy Paragon was a graphic arts lens? What about GA lenses for enlarging? I think they'd be OK?

John Berry, please let me hear what you find about your 300 Rodagon.

Thanks for the info so far and keep it coming if anyone has more to offer.

[Nicholas F. Jones]

I agree that the issue here is focal length. As a rule of thumb, I've always used the same focal that is "normal" for the taking lens in the corresponding format. So I use a 300 on my 8x10 enlarger (and a 210 with the 5x7 head when enlarging 5x7 negs). But not everyone I realize has a column tall enough for a 300. On analogy with taking lenses, if the enlarging lens is too short, there is a danger of light fall-off on the edges (and, for all I know, image distortion as well). There are mtf charts available on the web, at least for Rodenstock and Schneider, that give will an idea of how a given enlarging lens of a given focal will perform on a given film format.

[Juergen Sattler]

Remember that a 240 for 8x10 is considered a wide angle - any wide angle will go soft at the edges when you enlarge to extremes - that's why they use a "normal" lens typically for enlargements. I have never heard that the 300mm Rodenstock Rodagon is soft at the edge and have not noticed it myself.

[Kevin Crisp]

Henry: I have the Beseler (sp) V series enlarger with an 8X10 head. I orginally used the Beseler APO HD lens which came with it, a 240mm, which I understand is a lower-end Rodenstock product. That lens (VERY inexpensive used) made fine 16X20 prints and it is small enough I can use the swing arm VC filter holder. I bought the 210 Nikkor not realizing how big it was and I was thinking it would be my 5X7 lens. I tried it one day with 8X10 and it worked very well and that is the one I use now. My only reason for not going larger than 16X20 is that my sink (Patrick Alt's old sink, actually, part of a long story...) can't handle the trays and I haven't gotten around to building a larger one. At 16X20 both lenses are sharp to the edges. The Nikkor requires using Ilford sheets on top of the diffuser panel for filtering, which is inconvenient. (I am working on an extender for the filter drawer which will solve this.) The pluses are that it requires less column height and, best of all, you don't need to raise the bellows between the lens stage and the top unit as much, which makes everything easier to keep in alignment. I know people look down on the APO HD lens but, again, it has worked well for me and that is an option. Depending on lens board size you may have to trim the mounting flange to get it to fit with the Nikkor.

Something to think about, and maybe slightly changing the subject, I never got prints REALLY sharp at the edges until I bit the bullet and got the Versalab alignment tool. After spending tedious hours with the t-square trying to align my enlarger I tried that tool and found out how precise the factory-recommended procedure for aligning the enlarger was not. It made a huge difference, I check things and make minor tweaks before printing sessions

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I cranked it all the way up and got about 4' square out of 12" square coldlight. About a stop dropoff from center to edge. But that is farther than any neg goes. I dropped it down to 20x24 size. Wide open I had a half stop drop in a 10" square center to edge. @ f-ll Just under a quarter stop dropoff. With my peak focuser you could tell it was just a little soft on the corner from focused center. Was very close though. You might not notice if you were using an image focuser rather than a grain focuser. All in and tight by f-11. I'm usually printing with 11 or 16 20-30sec with the coldlight. It has a daylight tube in it, and contrast filters work hunky dory without having to add a shift filter. Just a FYI. And this is with my $42.00 e-bay special. Not mint but not an anchor either.

[Henry Ambrose]

Thanks guys,
I just bought a 10 inch Kodak Enlarging Ektanon on eBay. I only -think- it will cover but it was cheap and it is coated, supposedly in wonderful shape. I know that some old Kodak taking lenses are still excellent even by today's standards - who knows about this one? I'll try this and if I don't get good results I'll try the 210 Nikkor or 300 Rodagon based on your good information. I'm still in the planning stages on the enlarger and having this lens in hand will be helpful.

Now I wonder where to find a good used bellows? What device would have used a 10-12 inch square bellows? I'm probably making a head of that size to give plenty of even illumination over an 8x10 negative.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, Henry, I've been thinking about building an 8x10 enlarger using the bellows from my Toyo 810G monorail. That way, the bellows can do double duty.

[Henry Ambrose]

Ralph,
Thats a really good thought especially with a modular camera design, but my 8x10 camera bellows does not detach easily. I bet someone has an old 8x10 camera bellows? It would not have to be perfect to work for an enlarger. Once I get the lens I suppose I can figure out how long a bellows I'll need. It might even work with a simple sliding "box in a box" design.

[Rob Hale]

Hi Kevin.
"The Nikkor requires using Ilford sheets on top of the diffuser panel for filtering"
How or where can I found out about these Ilford sheets? I have had a quick look at Ilford's site but these sheets are either not on the site or I missed them.