Character of Different Enlarging Lenses

[neil poulsen]

There are some general perceptions about the character of different brands and models of large format lenses. For example, I've heard that Rodenstock and Nikon lenses tend to be warmer, while Schneider and Fuji lenses may be a little cooler. Sironar-S lenses are very sharp and contrasty, while Schneider Symmar-S lenses have excellent luminosity. Etc.

In this regard, what can one say about the character of different brands and models of enlarging lenses? I'm curious, because I've always used Schneider lenses. But with the falling prices of enlarging lenses, I'm wondering if I should be considering other brands and models? How much depends on how recently the models have been introduced?

In particular, but by no means limited to, what can one say about lenses like the HM (high modulation), Apo's, and similar higher quality, eight plus element lenses? Are there significant trade-offs between quality and price when considering 6 and higher element lenses?

Note that Apo El Nikkors are out of my price range. :eek:

[Mike1234]

I've always thought that nothing anywhere in the process should add any character of its own to an image because that is a distortion of the image. Any changes to absolute natural reproduction (yes, I know this is impossible with current technology) should be avoided. Once as much accuracy and detail is recorded then one can interpret/manipulate/distort to his/her heart's content. Isn't this the objective of working in PS RAW and leaving the base layer image untouched? Of course, you're referring to a completely analog process but the precept is the same.

[Nathan Potter]

I've worked with a variety of enlarging lenses over the years and have to confess that the variability in my printing processes generally exceeds the variations found in most modern enlarging lenses. I think I do perceive suttle distinctions between various enlarging lenses but don't have the ability or experience to categorize those differences. I've used Rodagon 50 and 150, Componon 135 and Componon S 150, El Nikkor 50, 75, 135 and the Apo El Nikkor 210 and a few other no names I can't remember. Of course the Apo El Nikkor does slightly stand out for a clarity that can best be described when looking at an exemplary print as less inter-grain tonal modulation. If I had to discriminate some quality effect between the various lenses I'd have to say that the inter-grain tonal modulation is the most dominant (refers, I suppose, to lens contrast). Currently I mostly use El Nikkors.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[dsphotog]

It's for 35mm, not lf, but I have a Leitz 50mm el that gives a sharp image with creamy
tones. Kinda like a 5x7 neg shot with my Wolly lens.

[Bob Salomon]

The Rodenstock's Apo N lenses are corrected for a much wider range of magnifications and apertures then conventional enlarging lenses. However, with any enlarging lens, it is imperative that the enlarger be critically aligned, the negative be in a glass carrier and the magnification and aperture be within the optimal design range of the lens. Skip any of these requirements and you will sacrifice the performance characteristice of the lens.

[Drew Wiley]

I have and use all kinds of enlarging lenses - Rodagon, Apo-Rodagon, Apo-Nikkor,
EL Nikkor, and in the past various Schneider lenses. Each has its specific range of uses, though I really doubt any typical viewer of the prints could figure this out. For
example, for 35mm and 120 film I often use a 150 Apo-Rodagon wide open because
it gives better performance than any "normal" focal length for these formats. But for
4x5 it allows some deliberate fall-off in corner illumination which is sometimes rewarding, or alternately, an extra stop of speed. For typical color printing, I use a
180 Rodagon for color printing, but a 240 Apo-Nikkor for critical film duplication work.
I have several distinct lenses for 8x10 enlargement too, and each has its strong points.
Every one of these lenses is simply top notch, and the differences are in the nuances.