enlarger lens brands, much difference?

[brian steinberger]

I need to purchase an 80mm enlarging lens to print 6x6 negs. My question is, is there much difference in glass between Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider? There is so much difference in price, Nikon being the cheapest, and Schneider being the most expensive. I want a high quality lens, as I would like to produce high quality fine art prints. I'm using it in conjunction with a Beseler 45M with dichro 45s head. Any suggestions? Brian

[Bill_1856]

There is probably more difference between individual lenses than between brands. I'd suggest that instead of a $700 Ap0 80mm lens, you get a $200 105mm which should work just fine on your 4x5 enlarger, and give more uniform center-to-edge coverage both in sharpness and illumination. I've used Nikkor, Rodenstock, and Leica lenses and have found them all quite satisfactory.

[Craig Schroeder]

I've had all of them that you mention and I would guess that there would be as much variation within one brand as there is between them. I currently have an 80 Rodagon, 90 Schneider APO and a Schneider 100 Comp-S that are in that general category focal length. I'm not an accumulator normally, but have bought some darkroom equipment here and there that included them. Starting at 11X14, I can just barely discern some slight advantage to the APO but I almost think I'm imagining this sometimes, knowing what the thing costs and letting it intrude on my judgement. I use 645, 67 and 69 formats so I've rationalized keeping them but I think you could let a coin flip determine your choice for your 66 work. Be aware of the models that are 6 element designs within the brands you mention.

[brian steinberger]

So I could use a 105mm lens for 6x6 work, and that would provide better sharpness and illumination? Craig, what do you mean by the 6 element designs?

[Henry Ambrose]

I have the Schneider 90 APO and use it sometimes to make smallish (full frame on 8x10) 35mm prints. And I can't see any difference between the 90 Schneider and my 50 APO Rodagon - its that good.

I can definitely see a difference between the Schneider 90APO and a Nikkor 80mm on 6X7 at 11x14 print size. Used 90s seem to go for $300-400 and I think they are worth the money.

[John_4185]

Reading that enlarging lenses of the same make and type have significant variations in quality is really distressing because I need an new one. (Old lenses never die; but some idiot (me) will remove it to clean one day and it will fall out of his tremoring hand and bounce on the cement floor.)

So if lenses do vary so much, then the opinions of individuals' who used a lens would seem to be of questionable value; maybe they got a good one, maybe they got a rare lemon, and/or their standards are high/low. It is all too variable.

Does any company second-certify lenses as Linhof apparently did, or does any company allow a customer to purchase and return lenses until he finds a good one? Pretty stupid idea, eh?

If I hadn't arrived at a relatively comfortable state of living just as enlarging is dieing I would put myself in business buying up lots and certifying and second-branding the good lenses.

Al of which is to say what was inferred - I'm close to desperate for a good enlarging lens for 4x5. I prefer 150mm or better.

[Oren Grad]

JJ -

Some years back, Ctein wrote an enlarging lens roundup article for the old Camera and Darkroom magazine in which he asserted that, based on his own tests, modern enlarging lenses had poor quality control, especially in the area of centering. He reported that some shockingly high fraction of new lenses - I can dig out the article if you're interested and look up the exact number, but as I recall it was at least one third - came out of the box seriously decentered, and that this was as true of expensive "apo" lenses as it was of lesser lines.

Ctein's advice was indeed that you should buy an enlarging lens only from a vendor that would let you return or exchange it.

[Stephen Willard]

I have just started doing real big stuff with my 10x10 enlarger such as 30x40s, 20x60s, and so on. When you do big stuff all imperfections become very visible including dust, imperfections of the film, enlarger alignment, and imperfections of the enlarger lenses.

Based on my recent experiences I have decided to purchase the 1951 USAF resolution chats to quantify both my field and enlarger lenses. I initial had an older Rodenstock 240mm enlarger lens that I thought was sharp, but when I started doing big stuff it became apparent that the image degradation was unacceptable at the edges. I then purchased a new Nikon EL 210mm lens which showed significant improvement, but the fall off in image quality at the edges is still to much for me. I suspect that if you bought three lens of the same type and make there would be notable differences between them. Shortly, I intend to buy from B&H two of the best 210mm enlarger lens from each of the major manufactures. No small piece of change. I will then have 11 days to return them for a full refund. My intent is to quantitatively measure the resolving power of each lens using the 1951 USAF resolution chats. The one that wins I will keep. The others I will return.

A point of interest is that the film were tack sharp. My suspicions are the enlarger lenses at the edges are a week point in the overall processes.

Hope this helps.

[Craig Schroeder]

"Craig, what do you mean by the 6 element designs?"

There are 2 levels within the Schneider and Rodenstock lines (I forget as I write this about Nikon, but I believe they at least used to have a 4 element, lower priced option). The Componars are 4 element and Componons are 6. The Rogonars are 4 element and the Rodagons 6. There are also specialized variants for large print duty, copy duty and wide angle versions where enlarger height issues or comfortable working elevations are needed.

The only lens of the ones you are considering that I've had a good sampling of (8-10, I believe, between friends' and what have gone through my hands and a school darkroom that I taught in) is the Rodagon 80. There wasn't a clinker in the bunch and I would feel confident in recommending one of those from personal experience. I can't imagine you being disappointed in a Nikkor or Componon and have never personally encountered a bad example of these, either. I don't do extreme print sizes, so it's likely that I simply haven't pushed any of these to the point of showing off their deficiencies, I suppose.

[Oren Grad]

OK, I went back to my magazine collection just to make sure I was recalling Ctein's point correctly. Haven't found the roundup article yet, but I was able to locate an instance of the one-in-three claim in a 1990 review of a couple of Apo-Rodagons, one of which he found to be itself badly decentered. More recently, in an article "How to Pick an Enlarging Lens" in "The Magic of Darkroom Art", a special issue published by PHOTO Techniques in 1997, Ctein wrote the following:

It is very difficult to manufacture a perfect lens, with all elements precisely positioned and centered. Almost every lens I've ever examined has a slightly tilted or decentered element(s)... A little bit of misalignment is normal and won't seriously degrade performance. A premium grade lens should show less than 50% variation around its perimeter (e.g., resolution varying from 120 l/mm to 180 l/mm). Unfortunately, there is about a one-in-three chance of getting a lens that is more misaligned than that, and a one-in-ten chance of getting a real dog. So far as I can tell, all lens makers have this problem, and the performance of a well-made sample has nothing to do with the chances of getting a poorly-made one.

He also included a worthwhile reminder:

Before you go running off to exchange a lens, please make sure your complaint is legitimate. Remember that less than a 50% edge variation is acceptable, and would be very difficult to see in a print.... Double-check your tests, and especially your enlarger alignment, before harassing some poor, underpaid sales clerk because one or more corners of your prints are fuzzy.

It's a good article, has lots more useful advice. That special issue is still available from PHOTO Techniques if anyone's interested.

Per Craig's point, Nikon doesn't have a separate 4-element line, but the old 50mm f/4 EL-Nikkor was a 4-element lens, and the current 75mm f/4 is as well. I believe the other EL-Nikkors are all 6-element lenses. Although the 75/4 is specified to cover 6x6, I would recommend either the 80mm f/5.6 or 105mm f/5.6 (both of which I own, and both of which are 6-element lenses) instead.

[Dan Fromm]

Stephen,

Interesting plan.

FWIW, I've been using a couple of enlarging lenses as macro lenses, and in that application they work very well. I've also shot those lenses, and other enlarging lenses too, at distance. None of them performed acceptably as taking lenses at distance.

For that reason I have doubts about your idea of using shots of a test chart to choose which lenses to send back. Unless, that is, you use the test chart at the lenses' intended working distance.

Also, I'm a little puzzled about why getting, say, a pair each of Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider enlarging lenses is better than getting, say, six Nikons. If manufacturing defects are distributed randomly and with the same distribution across makes, both approaches give the same probability of getting a really good lens. But it you buy a bunch of only one make, you'll learn something about how good that maker's QC is. With a pair of each brand, you lose the opportunity to find that out.

Stafford, if you can live with a maximum aperture of f/9 for focusing, consider using a process lens. I've shot a number of f/9 process lenses fairly close up -- one (1) each 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens, 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII, 10.16" Taylor Hobson Copying Lens; three (3) 240/9 G-Clarons, all 6/2 Dagor type -- and all did very well.

Please tell us what you find.

Cheers,

Dan

[John_4185]

Also, I'm a little puzzled about why getting, say, a pair each of Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider enlarging lenses is better than getting, say, six Nikons. If manufacturing defects are distributed randomly and with the same distribution across makes, both approaches give the same probability of getting a really good lens. But it you buy a bunch of only one make, you'll learn something about how good that maker's QC is. With a pair of each brand, you lose the opportunity to find that out.

Of QC methods there is one that does random sampling, and is highly effective.If the defects are random, then it is clear that there is no quality control other than a passing glance at the finish. That said, it is fair to be skeptical of studies that do not publish their methodology, and are not peer reviewed. It's a true conumdrum.

I will look into the process lenses. Alas, I put the G-Clarin 240mm in a shutter, then on a Bender with Arcas Swiss back and eBayed it and got squat. Somebody profited very well from my ignorance - which is justice, I guess.

[Bob Salomon]

In regard to Ctein's comments.

We have been the Rodenstock distributor since before Barry wrote his article.

In that time we have never had a user return a new lens for the problems described by Barry in his article.

It is very possible he received a lens that was not up to factory standards but no lab or user has ever reported having purchased one.

The most likely reasons for a user to not getting results that are to be expected with a new lens is an enlarger out of alignment, the use of a glassless carrier, the making of a print outside the optimal magnification range or outside optimal aperture or from a less then optimal negative or slide.

The last problem one needs to be concerned over is a lens that is improperly centered. The technology that the factories use to grind, polish, coat and center enlarging lenses is exactly the same as that used to make taking lenses and how many of you have ever purchased a new large format lens from any of the major manufacturers and found it uncentered?

[Oren Grad]

JJ:

If the defects are random, then it is clear that there is no quality control other than a passing glance at the finish.

Not really. To a first approximation the extent of quality control can be discerned in the overall probability of getting a defective unit within a random sample from the production line. One may glean further information from the clustering of defects within the production sequence and from any variation in the nature of the defects themselves. Bear in mind as well that inspection of product is far from the only means of process control.

Bob:

In that time we have never had a user return a new lens for the problems described by Barry in his article.

It is very possible he received a lens that was not up to factory standards but no lab or user has ever reported having purchased one.

There is more than one possible explanation for never receiving any complaints:

(1) Defects are, in fact, quite rare.
(2) Defects are not rare, but most users are not very knowledgeable and don't know what performance to expect, how to get maximum performance from their equipment, or how to test their equipment properly.
(3) Defective units, if there are any, tend to be exchanged with the retailer rather than the distributor, and the retailers, knowing fact (2), just resell them rather than returning to the distributor.

I don't know what's the truth of the matter.

The most likely reasons for a user to not getting results that are to be expected with a new lens is an enlarger out of alignment, the use of a glassless carrier, the making of a print outside the optimal magnification range or outside optimal aperture or from a less then optimal negative or slide.

I suspect you're right. This is consistent with (2) above.

The technology that the factories use to grind, polish, coat and center enlarging lenses is exactly the same as that used to make taking lenses and how many of you have ever purchased a new large format lens from any of the major manufacturers and found it uncentered?

As you've pointed out many times, enlarging lenses are used differently than are taking lenses, and have very different demands placed on them. Is it possible that enlarging lens performance is simply more sensitive to the effects of decentering or other misalignments?

[John_4185]

Oren: I stand corrected. Wasn't thinking clearly.

Bob: Thanks for the nudge. My confidence is a bit higher.

For 4x5 I never make images larger than 4x, so I guess a lens designed for 2x to 6x is best. Whatever I get it should fit the D5 rotary standard.

Besides browsing B&H for this information, can someone point me to a better, possibly a table of _authoritative_ information on _excellent_ enlarging lenses. (Most expensive is not always better, I hope.)

Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon...

[Bob Salomon]

"Whatever I get it should fit the D5 rotary standard."

These are almost a guaranteed method of mounting a lens so that it will not maintain proper alignment.

Oren,

Rodenstock lenses are used by some, if not most, of the most critical custom labs in the USA. They are also used by people like the US Postal Service for scanning mail as well as many labs that did the highest quality slide duplicating.

Not one of these organizations have ever returned a lens for a problem having anyting to do with the centering of the elements. And these are more then casual users and thery are very critical users.

[Oren Grad]

Bob -

Fair point - a useful reminder that a lot of this stuff - most of this stuff? - isn't necessarily sold to hobbyists.

OTOH, Ctein's a smart guy who understands measurement and experimental method. I guess the apparent discrepancy between what he's observed and what you've observed will have to remain unresolved for now. In practical terms, it doesn't matter anyway - it's always a good idea to test any new or used equipment you buy to make sure it's performing as expected across the range of intended applications.

[Ole Tjugen]

Hmmmm.... I use an Anaret-S 80mm for medium format work. I have compared it to lenses from some of the major manufacturers, and found that the difference is small enough to be negligible. In most cases the differences were in the lowly Anaret's favor!

[Richard Schlesinger]

Get hold of a copy of Ctein's book, Post Exposure. He goes into detail as to how to test enlarging lenses; great if you have the time and energy. I've just been buying enlarging lenses, and on the basis of Ctein's book I bought a recent Schneider 80mm Componon S for 2 1/4 sq. My reasoning, which is probably faulty, is that Ctein, in his list of lenses, did not mention the Nikkor 80. He did say he dropped those lenses from his testing that did not measure up one way or another. The 80 is what I settled on as I too have a Beseler MCR and what with the limited height a 105 limits the print size I can make more than I want. Bob Salomon says that manufacturing has improved and production changes over the years, so that the older lenses may not be up to the newer ones.

There seems no end to the pursuit of 'the perfect lens' - if you have the energy and patience (I have not, I'm too old and won't live that long.) But I can't emphasize strongly enough that you get and read Ctein's book. Everybody else has opinions, and has made wonderful prints etc. but as far as I know he is the only one who has approached the problem scientifically and produced results which you can replicate

[paulr]

"The last problem one needs to be concerned over is a lens that is improperly centered. The technology that the factories use to grind, polish, coat and center enlarging lenses is exactly the same as that used to make taking lenses and how many of you have ever purchased a new large format lens from any of the major manufacturers and found it uncentered?"

I'll lean toward Bob on this one, not Ctein. While I haven't read the Ctein article, his scientific articles have often seemed shaky to me under close scrutiny. Meanwhile, a friend of mine who's a technician at Schneider described the manufacturing and quality control process for lenses. They use laser guided cnc machines to center the elements to within a few thousanths of a millimeter. Final qc is done by projecting a series of test patterns through the lenses that are checked visually by a specially trained technician (aparently no one has developed automated tests for whatever they look for that are as good). It's hard to believe that significantly screwed up lenses are going to get through. And it seems likely that the other other companies (at least Rodenstock, which charges just about as much) would be using similarly good methods.

My only personal experience is with Schneider ... I sent back a 150 apo componon because it had a flake of something on one of the inner elements (it had always been there and never bothered me, but when i mentioned it to my friend he said to send it in for a cleaning). He ended up sending me a new lens. Performance of the old and new lens were completely indistinguishable. Only a sample of 2, but it supports what I'd expect.

[Kendrick Pereira]

Oren, could you enlighten me on what is meant by variation around its perimeter Does this mean the perimeter of the print [image] rather than of the lens?

It's interesting to see that comments posted are still strongly reminiscent of what I used to hear at the camera club I belonged to regarding lenses for the 35 mm format around 1980. Two fellow members of the club decided to upgrade themselves from 4 element to 6 element enlarging lenses. The 4's were, if memory serves, a Schneider Componar and the Minolta equivalent. Both bought Schneider Componons. They were puzzled by the results and after putting their heads together agreed that the new 6's were both far inferior to the old 4's. The Minolta was by a long chalk the best of the four lenses [all four were 50 mm focal lenses designed for 35 mm format]. They returned the Componons and were given replacements without any fuss, which they both found to be excellent. The moral: "Ctein's advice was indeed that you should buy an enlarging lens only from a vendor that would let you return or exchange it."

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

"The most likely reasons for a user to not getting results that are to be expected with a new lens is an enlarger out of alignment, the use of a glassless carrier, the making of a print outside the optimal magnification range or outside optimal aperture or from a less then optimal negative or slide."

Not to put too fine of a point on it, everyone is putting too fine of a point on it. Try critically checking alignment at different heights on your enlarger, they all wobble. To be this critical, you would need to re-align the enlarger every time you change head height. To be this critical, you would need to be enlarging onto Kodak Aerocon-II duplicating film, some are rated to 500lpm. Too bad paper only holds about 25lpm.

I would agree with Ctein and only buy from a dealer that allows return exchange. They all make FINE lenses.

[Jim Rice]

Just to add to the non-information: I used to have a 105 EL-Nikor that I used for 6x7. It was the first one B&H sent me and was brutally sharp.

[Shen45]

I have a draw full of enlarging lenses and these have beeen aquired over time because I have been given them or they came with pieces of equipment.

I have battled with "quality" all my photographic life but recently that all changed. A DeVere 504 came on the market at a "crazy" price so I bought it. I have a D2 which I have had for many years. I have made many excellent images with thiis enlarger, however the difference between the images produced by the two enlargers was subtle but apparent. Nothing to do with different light source - it was all to do with rigidity of total construction.

The Devere came with a beautiful set of Rodenstock Rodagon lenses 50,80,105, and 135.

I also have a 150 Componon [Older silver], a 135 Beseler Color pro and a 60 year old 161 Ektanon.

In 6x6 format I have the 80 Rodagon, an 80 El Nikkor and a 75 Ektar.

Used in the DeVere each of the lenses produces a print no different in visual resolution to the others, when used at the optimum aperture. Each lens does though impart its own character to the image.

When used in the Omega there are visible differences in the lenses caused by very minor problems with alignment. I am able to align the Omega quite well and for 95% of images small differences are not noticeable.

My take is that most lenses are very good but can be let down by optical alignment of the enlarger.

I will leave you to ponder which 2 lenses are by far my favourite lenses.

[Michael Newberry]

Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but didn't Nikon switch their 4 element EL lenses over to 6 elements back in the mid 80's? I've used a 150mm Nikkor for some time and it is razor sharp, although I haven't tested it against other lenses side by side. My main addition to this discussion is that the enlarging paper/developer can also give a difference in sharpness. For example, I switched to Seagull after noticing that the same neg printed substantially sharper using Dektol compared with Ilford or Agfa papers. If comparing lenses side-by side, be sure to use the same paper and developer.

Michael

[Andre Noble]

You know, despite what you're getting from responses above, there are differences in quality between even the top enlarger lenses.

Remember, some people wear thick glasses and some have 20/10 vision. Some can enjoy all the posiitve in their photograohy , some are obsessive complusive. (I'm the latter in both).

I went from a Ctein-vaunted 6 element 50 EL-Nikkor to another Ctein recomended Rodenstock Apo Rodagon 50 I got off EBay like new for $70. The improvement was obvious immediately in y 8x10 B&W prints: Sharper, better eveness of illumination to edges of the 35 frame, subtlety of contrast. I judged these based on B&W prints. There was nothing wrong with the Nikkor. I had used it for 7 years and was happy. But I was not expecting the imrovement I got moving to the Apo Rodenstock. My initial motivation was just to get a cuter looking lens that had the do-hicky illuminated aperture setting.

I am not a lens brand snob. Please don't get me wrong.

I own Nikon 35mm and LF lenses that are second to none in sharpness.

But Knowing just how good the German enlarging lenses are, I see no reason to go with Nikon when you can get Apo Rodagon lenses cheap off Ebay..

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Andre_941, did you have one example of each lens? If so, you can't draw any conclusion about lenses other than your two with any confidence.

[Bob Salomon]

Andre,

There are Apo Rodagon lenses and there are Apo Rodagon-N lenses. There is a world of difference between them. Which did you get?

[Andre Noble]

I got the Apo Rodagon 50 f2.8 (the non-N version). It's all I need. It's wonderful.