View Full Version : 11x14 enlarger lense

Colin Seaman
8-May-2001, 11:06
I noticed in View Camera magazine that Photo-Graphic Systems Inc., were advertis ing a Pawo 11x14 enlarger. The enlarger came with a 300mm APO Ronar. I was cur ious to know if this lense actually has the coverage for 11x14? Wouldn't you nee d a 480mm APO Ronar to make enlargements from negs that size?

10-Apr-2011, 12:16
Good question .

10-Apr-2011, 13:18
The 300/9 Apo-Ronar is listed for 5x7 cameras.

It has an IC of 264mm at f/22.

That's WAY too small to cover 11x14 even on an enlarger (i.e. no movement at all).

- Leigh

10-Apr-2011, 18:33
I agree with Leigh. The Apo-ronar is a highly unlikely candidiate. I'd probably get some other large process lens, I'm sure there are many that would work as most process cameras could do 11x14.
In terms of lenses marketed for enlarging, the longest Componon I know of (360) falls short also with IC of 377mm. The longest Rodagon G 480mm also falls short.

Maybe Bob C. will chime in here with what he uses.

Kirk Fry
10-Apr-2011, 18:46
At 1:1 the coverage is 2X what it is at infinity. KFry. Depends if your print size is infinity. :-)

Nathan Potter
10-Apr-2011, 19:57
The best bet is a process lens designed for the reproduction ratio you expect to most commonly use. Used Nikons are usually relatively inexpensive. But indeed, check the field of view (coverage) at the aperture and reproduction ratio you expect to use.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

12-Apr-2011, 06:16
I don't have an 11x14 enlarger, but I do have an 11x14 view camera. I have used a 480mm APO Ronar on my 11x14, but many shorter lenses will cover the format. I have often used a 360mm Schneider Componon (with a lens cap) to take pictures with my 11x14. Since you're focusing at effectively infinity the lens-film distance is as short as possible, giving the smallest image circle. In enlarging the image circle would be bigger due to the increased distance between lens and paper over the lens-film distance. In other words, picture taking is the stress case for lens coverage, not enlarging. I think you have a shot in having a 300mm lens cover. I've tried a 210mm Repromaster on my 11x14 view camera and it just misses covering, there is about 1/2 inch of vignetting in the corners. I think a 240mm Repromaster or a 270mm Repromaster would cover 11x14, if you were looking for shorter focal length lenses for your enlarger to get bigger print magnification.

12-Apr-2011, 13:33
At 1:1 the coverage is 2X what it is at infinity.
That's correct... But at 1:1 you don't need an enlarger in the first place. :p

The Apo-Ronar lens under discussion is a process lens optimized for 1:1. At other ratios the datasheet says "The focal length should bel twice the longer side of the format.", implying that the range of optimum performance is limited.

It will work for larger prints. Whether the results are satisfactory or not is up to the user to decide.

- Leigh

Drew Wiley
12-Apr-2011, 13:45
Apo Nikkors can be had quite reasonably in focal lengths like 450, 600, and even larger.
I got a 720 free when someone threw out a process camera. These make superb
enlarging lenses provided the maximum aperture of f/9 will work for you. You only need
to stop them down one more stop for truly precise work, so they generally work just
fine for all but the very slowest papers. I wonder if the enlarger being advertised has
this lens simply because he had it on hand and wanted to offer as a more tempting
package deal? Sometimes old-time portrait photographers chose 11x14 film because the big image was so convenient for retouching. They often enlarged it only a tiny bit, to 16X20 or so.

12-Apr-2011, 13:51
I wonder if the enlarger being advertised has this lens simply because he had it on hand and wanted to offer as a more tempting package deal?
It's also possible that the enlarger wasn't being used for 11x14 negatives... perhaps 8x10 or even smaller. :rolleyes:

- Leigh