4 x 5 vs 5 x 7 Enlarger: Which One?

[Gregory Gomez]

Is there any advantage to using a 5 x 7 enlarger for 4 x 5 negatives along with a 180 mm or 210 mm enlarging lens? (I will never be enlarging 5 x 7 negatives by the way.)

Will the bigger cold light head of the 5 x 7 enlarger reduce the amount of edge burning required on prints made from a 4 x 5 negative and will it cover the 4 x 5 negative better than the typical 4 x 5 light source?

Will a longer focal length enlarging lens, like a 180 mm or 210 mm, produce sharper prints than a 150 mm enlarger lens? (The magnification rations will be between 3x and 3.5x the linear dimensions of the film plane to produce prints no bigger than about 13 x 16.5 inches using Tri-X film.)

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Ralph Barker]

Personally, I see little advantage in using a 5x7 enlarger only for 4x5 and smaller negs. Set up properly, any good 4x5 enlarger will illuminate the negative pretty evenly, and a 135mm lens with excellent coverage or a 150mm lens will similarly cover with little or no fall-off. Longer focal lengths will move the image area into the center "sweet spot" of the lens, but the enlarger head will be correspondingly higher for a given enlargement size, with greater risk of vibration. Plus, there are far fewer 5x7 enlargers on the market compared to 4x5, so the prices are often quite a bit higher. Thus, if you're certain you'll never get a 5x7 camera, I'd stick with a good 4x5 enlarger.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi Gregory,

If you can get your hands on a 5x7 enlarger, go for it. Somebody once said, go bigger than what you need. No matter how good of a 4x5 enlarger you get, you will always have some degree of fall off in the corners. I printed a 4x5 test negative in a 5x7 enlarger with a 210 lens and there was no fall off. I am now constructing an 8x10 enlarger (with 12x12 aristo head) out of an old graphics copy camera for 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.

[jnantz]

gregory

i'd get the 5x7 enlarger not because you will be able to get better prints froma 4x5 negative, but because you might end up with a 5x7 camera, and you'll need to enlarge those negatves too

[paulr]

In some cases you might get more even illumination ... many of the 4x5 light sources i've used just barely cover the negative (including the zone vi cold light that i've printed most of my work with. it is not even close to even).

but as far as lenses, you'll do best with one designed for 4x5. with a longer lens, sharpness will be more consistent from center to corner, but it will be lower. especially in the center, where it tends to count a bit more. the sharpest lenses for general purpose 4x5 are the 150 mm schneider and rodenstock apo lenses.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I agree with Ralpf for the most part. The advantage I saw is that I didn't need to switch to a 135 for larger printing. True there are less 5x7 enlargers out there. Let's say there was only one, and that one was a durst 138, that would be good enough.

[John Boeckeler]

The column for the 5 x 7 enlarger is apt to be pretty long. So if you get the 5 x 7, make sure you have enough ceiling height.

[Ken Lee]

Give me the 5x7 enlarger :-)

I have a 5x7 camera, but only a 4x5 enlarger. I'd love to enlarge some of my 5x7 images. An 11x14 is only a 2X magnification. They will look heavenly.

Best wishes,

Ken

[Jim Rhoades]

I was very happy for many years with my D-2 and a VC head. Then I started printing 8x10 Pt/Pd. Then due to the cost of learning Pt/Pd printing I thought 5x7 would help the learning curve. Then I started to really look at these 5x7 negatives. And I thought, wow these would really hold some detail if only I had a 5x7 enlarger.

My durst 138 is really cool and I thank all you guys who recommened it over the Zone VI.

If you have the room, bigger is better.

[Eric Woodbury]

Go with the 5x7. More even light, especially if it's a coldlight. Also, next year you'll have a 5x7 camera and then you'll be kicking yourself if you didn't.