Enlarger lens for 4x5 inch

[Gerard de Vrueh]

Hello,

Last week i bought a 4x5 inch enlarger for 25 euro from Fujimoto. It is a 450M-D. I have ordered new glasses (1 normal and 1 AN glas) for the negative holder from Focal Point inc. via internet. I have made lens plates myself made from 1 mm black anodized aluminium plate.

All in all it is a perfect working 4x5 enlarger build like a tank. And it is very easy do take apart so i can put it away when not in use.

As an enlarger lens i would like to use a schneider kreuznach G-glaron 150 mm/9 lens that i happen to have around and that happens to have an diaframe ring so i can stop it down to 45 or so.
Is this lens usable for enlarging 4x5 (it coveres 4x5 i have read the specs) and than i mean does it give a good quality. I think i an going to be making 30x40 cm enlargements at most.

Like to hear from you,
Gerard

[David de Gruyl]

It might be a little dim, but it should work. Whether that particular lens is a good lens for enlarging, I'll let someone else answer.

I use (among others) a 150mm f/9 process lens for enlarging without issue. I sometimes need the extra coverage compared to 135mm.

[ic-racer]

I'd think that would work fine.

[Bob Salomon]

It will be very inferior compared to an enlarging lens. As it is a process lens it is also designed to be optimal only at f22. That will put you into very long exposure times which can result in reciprocity failure as well as being more prone to vibration problems over such a long time.
An enlarging lens will normally hit optimal performance about 2 stops dow so around f11. That would result in normal exposure times.
In addition an enlarging lens is made for use in a darkroom so it has features for working in a darkroom. Like illuminated aperture rings, pre-set aperture seletion setting and dis-engageable click stops. Your lens would have none of these benefits.

[Drew Wiley]

Might be fine for basic black and white work. Dim or not is relative to your light source. Optics are adequate, but illumantion falloff at this focal length will dictate a
bit of edge and corner burning; but this is typical of most scenarios. Try it. But ideally,
a faster dedicated enlarging lens with less depth of field can prevent dust and scratches etc on the outside surfaces of the glass from being brought into focus.
I've tested G-clarons on enlargers just for the fun of it, and found them to be better than some old enlarging lenses, though I don't actually use them for this purpose.

[Gerard de Vrueh]

Hello,

First of all thanks for al the replies. For now i just try this lens and see what is is worth. I'll keep my eye on a 150 mm rodagon.

@Bob

I have read the specs on the Schneider Kreuznach (SK) site. And i agree that it is a proces lens. SK say that is is a lens mainly for copy between 1:5 and 5:1. They also say that this lens can be used to work at infinitiy but that then the optimal diafram is 22 (that also give the greates coverage). So i wander if this lens performs best at 22 for all situations or that it's just at infinitiy that f22 is nessesary. For repro (1:5 and 5:1) the choices of diaframes to work with may wel be bigger. And if i use this lens at 5:1 a 4x5 would end up being 20x25 inch. Thats 50x60 and thats much bigger than i want to go. For start i would like to make say 8x10 inch on 12x16 with a white edge.

But that is al theory to my opinion. As soon as i have the negativeholder glasses i'll try this lens and decide if i like it or not. I'll post the result on this forum.

Gerard

[Gerard de Vrueh]

Hello,

Ik have a second question. I can get a Rodenstock Ysaron lens,1:4,5 f=135 mm no 4974301 for very little money (say 5 $). I suppose it is someware in the quality range of a trinar.....but i cant get much info on this lens. Rememer that i wil not be making large photo's so i may not be needing a top lens. I have used a trinar for 6x6 in the past and frankly is wasn't bad at all. All i could find on this ysaron is that it is a tessar type.

And is 135 mm good enough for 4x5?

Like to hear from you,
Gerard

[Michael Graves]

Hello,

Ik have a second question. I can get a Rodenstock Ysaron lens,1:4,5 f=135 mm no 4974301 for very little money (say 5 $). I suppose it is someware in the quality range of a trinar.....but i cant get much info on this lens. Rememer that i wil not be making large photo's so i may not be needing a top lens. I have used a trinar for 6x6 in the past and frankly is wasn't bad at all. All i could find on this ysaron is that it is a tessar type.

And is 135 mm good enough for 4x5?

Like to hear from you,
Gerard

I've used the Ysaron 80mm and it was a decent performer. Don't use it for overly large magnifications. Keep an eye out for Nikkor or Rodagon lenses. The 135mm will cover the 4x5 format, but for optimum performance, you might want to look for a 150.

[bob carnie]

I can recommend the Apo Rodagan with f 4, I would buy it again.

[jp]

I use 135mm with 4x5 enlarging. It's fine for me. A used el-nikkor or schneider componon-s will be very good for B&W printing. Either should be available all day for $100-200.

[Gerard de Vrueh]

@ Bob,

Well i would recommend myself that lens too :) I have got the APO rodagon 50 mm and can say that these lenses are beyond incredibly good. So is the normal rodagon 80 mm that i have got.

But do i need that quality? Well if i make an enlargement of 20x25 from a 24x36 mm negative i am making a 10x enlargement. If i make a 30x30 from a 6x6 negative i only make an 5x enlargement. In the last case i could do with a lesser quality lens. In the past when i bought two enlargement lenses fron rodenstock the infosheet from rodenstock gave a list wich lens to use for wich enlargement. If you only make a 3x enlargement the stated that you could do with a rodenstock trinar.

But i have to agree that if i ran into an rodenstock APO rodagon 150 for a nice price i would buy that.


@ JP498
Unfortunately on ebay a lot of these lenses are sold from the US but the sellers do not want to send it to the netherlands most of the time.

But for the Ysaron, i do not know what to compare it to. Bur since i wil not be making big enlargements (say 4x at the most) i wil not be needing a rodagon quality is suppose.

[Bob Salomon]

@ Bob,

Well i would recommend myself that lens too :) I have got the APO rodagon 50 mm and can say that these lenses are beyond incredibly good. So is the normal rodagon 80 mm that i have got.

But do i need that quality? Well if i make an enlargement of 20x25 from a 24x36 mm negative i am making a 10x enlargement. If i make a 30x30 from a 6x6 negative i only make an 5x enlargement. In the last case i could do with a lesser quality lens. In the past when i bought two enlargement lenses fron rodenstock the infosheet from rodenstock gave a list wich lens to use for wich enlargement. If you only make a 3x enlargement the stated that you could do with a rodenstock trinar.

But i have to agree that if i ran into an rodenstock APO rodagon 150 for a nice price i would buy that.


@ JP498
Unfortunately on ebay a lot of these lenses are sold from the US but the sellers do not want to send it to the netherlands most of the time.

But for the Ysaron, i do not know what to compare it to. Bur since i wil not be making big enlargements (say 4x at the most) i wil not be needing a rodagon quality is suppose.

Why would you want to take the time and effort to make any size print and not want maximum quality from your efforts? Go for the best enlarging lens you can find for the magnification range that you want to work in.

[bob carnie]

At F4 you are getting more speed which is needed in larger fiber prints.

The following is purely my opinion , and from years of enlarging.

When I first started my own lab, I bought normal Rodagons 50mm, 80mm,105mm, and 150mm.

When I started to make a bit of money and my client base became more demanding, I completely switched to APO Rodagons.
At the same time I purchased a laser aligner and bought enough glass from Focal Point in Florida.

My work became to my eyes better..... I concluded, good optics, level enlarger setup, and flat film as the reason.
I even stopped using the 80's and switched to APO 90's..

There may be those who can tell you the scientific reasons for APO optics,
I can only talk from a practical viewpoint, My work simply got better.

[rdenney]

I can get a Rodenstock Ysaron lens,1:4,5 f=135 mm no 4974301 for very little money (say 5 $).

For that money it's worth buying just on a hunch.

But it should be a good performer. It is a tessar design, optimized for close focus (vs. the Ysarex which was optimized for infinity focus). It will cover, though you may need a smaller aperture to get full performance in the corners.

Rick "who used a tessar lens in this focal range for years for enlarging 4x5" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

I'm with Bob. If you can latch onto the Apo Rodagon N 150, it's a great lens, but won't
come cheap.

[Corran]

I thought I was being smart when I used a 150mm G-Claron as an enlarging lens for 4x5 to replace a fungus-y Componon. Long story short, it was not good to my eyes. I spent all of $85 to get an El-Nikkor 135mm and the results were much, much better. Make sure your enlarger is aligned though!

[Drew Wiley]

I prefer a longer focal length for 4x5, but did once own a 135 Rodagon and can testify that is was an excellent lens, certainly better than my Componon S equivalent at the time. The only reason I sold it was that I acquired the 150 Apo.

[Gerard de Vrueh]

Thanks all of you for your responce,

I agree in general that the APO rodagons are beyond the question of a doubt marvelous. I have the 50 APO myself and it is clearly better than the normal nikkor i had before that. I have the normal 80 mm rodagon for 6x6 and that to performs very wel. Unfortunately i don't see many 150 mm rodagons offered second hand, and if they are the are pricy. What i do know that the faults in a lens design become more visible when making larger prints. I have made 20x20 cm print from a 6x6 negative with a 80 mm trinar once and made the same with the 8o mm rodagon. I did not see a hole lot of difference between the two, and was to put it mildly disappointed at the time. When making a 30 x 30 on the onther hand you do begin to see the difference. Especially sharpnes and contrast in the corners is a big difference. With smaller prints you do not notice this lesser quality from a trinar. That is why i can live with al lesser quality 150 mm lens for now because i will at most be making 20x25 cm prints. Thats say 2x lineair enlargement.

But of cource if i happen to get my hands on a 150 mm rodagon for a nice price i will certenly buy it. But i do not see one offered right now (netherlands) so i will live with the G-glaron or the 135 mm ysaron that i bought..... for 5 dollars !!! And if that gives me a decent print i'll be happy with it. I do not have to make a living out of it.

But of cource when i happen to make a very nice picture and want to make a bigger print i'll most certanly start looking for a better lens.

But for now my question if i can make decent print with the g-Glaron or the Ysaron have been awnsered.

I,am stil waiting for the new bellows for my wista DX field camera. So when that has been taken care of i'll can start making some new pictures and try these lenses out.

Thanks,
Gerard

[Bob Salomon]

135mm Rodagon also covers 45 and is also a superior lebs.

[artflic]

When you are enlarging from a 4 x 5 negative I think the lens is only one of the factors. As has been noted above, lens and negative stage alignment is most important. For what it's worth, I have been playing in the darkroom for over 40 years now and have had a number of different enlargers and used just about every type of lens, including Componon S, El Nikkor, etc. My darkroom has two Durst Lab 1200s and a Beseler 45V XL. For 4 x 5 printing my lens of choice is a Schneider Apo Componon HM 150. That having been said, I recently ran an interesting experiment. I bought out a guy's darkroom (for resale) and on his Beseler 45 MX he had mounted a Kodak Enlarging Ektanon 161mm lens. I did a bit of investigating and found several similar lenses on ebay for cheap ($15-30). These were Kodak Projection Anastigmats in 161 length as well. I had a total of six lenses of the old and much cheaper variety as well as the newer Apo Componon HM. I printed a series of 16 x 20 prints using each of the lenses, and marked the lens on the back of each print. When all was dry it was almost impossible to tell which had made the best print, my expensive Schneider or the aged and inexpensive Kodaks. All lenses were stopped down 3 stops. My wife, who does a bit of photography herself and is used to seeing decent prints absolutely could not tell the difference and, in fact, picked one of the old Kodak prints as the best. I usually top out at 16 x 20 but, on rare occasions will do 20 x 24. This primarily is limited by my tray and sink size. It may well be that the premium lenses are better performers for larger prints, but you usually buy the equipment you need to do the job you want. I'll stick with my Schneider, but would not hesitate to recommend older glass to anyone on a budget. The same recommendation would hold true for any of the better lenses from Nikon, Rodagon, or Schneider. As a post script I used Omega enlargers for most of my years, but fell into the Beseler about ten years ago and preferred it over Omegas (D5XL). The two Dursts fell into my lap over the past several years. Although these were all expensive items, the switch to digital has placed a lot of darkroom equipment on the market for dirt cheap. Compare B&H prices for new lenses with what you see offered on ebay. It's a great time to have a darkroom.- Rob Rielly

[Gerard de Vrueh]

When you are enlarging from a 4 x 5 negative I think the lens is only one of the factors. As has been noted above, lens and negative stage alignment is most important. For what it's worth, I have been playing in the darkroom for over 40 years now and have had a number of different enlargers and used just about every type of lens, including Componon S, El Nikkor, etc. My darkroom has two Durst Lab 1200s and a Beseler 45V XL. For 4 x 5 printing my lens of choice is a Schneider Apo Componon HM 150. That having been said, I recently ran an interesting experiment. I bought out a guy's darkroom (for resale) and on his Beseler 45 MX he had mounted a Kodak Enlarging Ektanon 161mm lens. I did a bit of investigating and found several similar lenses on ebay for cheap ($15-30). These were Kodak Projection Anastigmats in 161 length as well. I had a total of six lenses of the old and much cheaper variety as well as the newer Apo Componon HM. I printed a series of 16 x 20 prints using each of the lenses, and marked the lens on the back of each print. When all was dry it was almost impossible to tell which had made the best print, my expensive Schneider or the aged and inexpensive Kodaks. All lenses were stopped down 3 stops. My wife, who does a bit of photography herself and is used to seeing decent prints absolutely could not tell the difference and, in fact, picked one of the old Kodak prints as the best. I usually top out at 16 x 20 but, on rare occasions will do 20 x 24. This primarily is limited by my tray and sink size. It may well be that the premium lenses are better performers for larger prints, but you usually buy the equipment you need to do the job you want. I'll stick with my Schneider, but would not hesitate to recommend older glass to anyone on a budget. The same recommendation would hold true for any of the better lenses from Nikon, Rodagon, or Schneider. As a post script I used Omega enlargers for most of my years, but fell into the Beseler about ten years ago and preferred it over Omegas (D5XL). The two Dursts fell into my lap over the past several years. Although these were all expensive items, the switch to digital has placed a lot of darkroom equipment on the market for dirt cheap. Compare B&H prices for new lenses with what you see offered on ebay. It's a great time to have a darkroom.- Rob Rielly

Thanks rob for your reply!

This weekend i received the negative holder glasses that i ordered from focalpoint. Mike from focal point has advised me in finding the correct type for my 450M-D fuji enlarger. The enkarger glasses (one normal and one AN glass) are a perfect fit and i have them mounted in the negative holder. The enlarger is now in perfect working order and i can't wait to use it. I found focalpoint though this forum and can recommend themto everone who needs new enlarger glasses!

Thanks everone for the input.

Gerard