Componon S vs. Ektanon enlarging lenses

[artflic]

Hi All, I had been reading about the supposed excellence of Kodak Ektanon enlarging lenses (161mm) so I thought I would check them out. I had taken one off a Beseler 45 that I bought locally and picked up a couple more by advertising on this web's WTB section. In the end I had three Ektanon 161mm and 1 Kodak Projection Anastigmat 161mm lens to compare to my usual Schneider Componon S 150mm lens. Three of the lenses were in good condition with just the beginning of some haze, but hardly noticeable. One (bought through this site - caveat emptor) had more scratches than a cat with fleas. These were primarily on the front element. I normally print 11 x 14 or 16 x 20 due to sink space. On occasion I do 24 x 30, but that is with trays all over the floor. I used a high quality 4 x 5 negative and made a good 16 x 20 print from each on Kodak Fine Art RC paper - (F surface). I marked each in pencil on the back to correspond with each lens. My wife absolutely could not tell the difference. In fact, I was hard put to do so myself. If I hadn't done the printing I doubt that I could have differentiated one from the other without resorting to a powerful magnifying glass. Suprisingly, the print made by the lens apparently cleaned with sandpaper was no different from the undamaged lenses. If I were enlarging to the max, there might have been a discernable difference, but for my usual 16 x 20 prints the $25 Kodak Ektanon performed just as well as my favorite Componon S (latest model). Printing was done on my Durst Lab. 1200. The Componon was stopped down two stops and the Ektanons stopped down three stops. The only noticeable difference in the printing is that I had to increase filtration to add contrast to the Kodak lenses, which I fully expected to do. They were around 1 grade difference in contrast. I am sure that there is a high tech way to check resolution on these lenses, however, I think the eyeball test is best as that is real-world viewing of the finished product. If anyone is concerned about not having the best and latest glass to print with, perhaps they may have to consider some of the older equipment. Comments welcome - Rob Rielly (ArtFlic)

[Shen45]

If you really want to surprise yourself print with the Ektanon stopped to f16. The only thing I noticed with mine is a slight difference in the corners compared to my 150 Nikkor. All in all like you I cannot really pick a difference. They are a beautiful lens for printing portraits and still life images.

[Mark Sampson]

This post agrees with the general reputation of the Kodak enlarging lenses; very sharp, but less contrasty than a more modern lens. Not surprising as the designs may be 50 years old now, and out of production for 40 years. Just for fun, do your three Kodak lenses carry the two-letter 'camerosity' code as part of the serial #?

[argos33]

Thanks for the write-up Rob. I have an Ektanon that I got for free and will definitely have to try it out next time I'm printing in the darkroom.

Evan

[artflic]

None of the four lenses has a serial number. I am not sure if Kodak used serial numbers on their enlarging lenses, perhaps another member has knowledge of that. They all are "Luminized" or coated and bear the letter L in a circle. The only real downside to the lenses is the lack of a click stop. I had to turn on my darkroom lights to set the f stop prior to making the print. In the future I will keep a penlight handy to save time. Rob

[Dan Fromm]

The heliar-type little Enlarging Ektars (50/4.5, 75/4.5) have serial numbers. The ones I've had, at any rate; all post-1946, all used the CAMEROSITY code for the year of manufacture.