The lure of an Apo EL Nikkor

[Allen in Montreal]

Are there any APO EL Nikkor owners here that have first hand experience printing with these lenses?

Thanks,

amc

[neil poulsen]

I've heard that, in addition to being sharp, they're excellent at preserving detail in the shadows.

That observation was offered by someone who has a 210mm and uses it for 4x5 and 5x7. He went on to say that he can tell the difference between a photo printed with an Apo El Nikkor and a different lens by examining detail in the shadows.

(Normally I don't respond with hearsay. But, I thought this was interesting.)

[Allen in Montreal]

Hi Neil,

Thank you,
I know there were not many of these lenses in circulation so I guess the odds of one of us having one is small.
I really hoped to hear some first hand feedback.

[Nathan Potter]

I used a 210 mm Apo El Nikor in an industrial lab for printing integrated circuit images captured on Technical Pan film (HC 110 development). Very hard light source in the enlarger but certainly compared to the normal 210 Componon S the printed image showed noticeably higher contrast and sharpness across the field of a 4X5 neg. I can't vouch for the increased shadow detail but I suspect that would be noticeable as a result of the higher lens contrast. These are a very impressive set of lenses - and expensive.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Drew Wiley]

Allen - did you just win the lottery or something? I've certainly handled these lenses
and studied the specs, but could see no advantage for conventional enlarging over
lenses 1/20th the price. They are heavy, need to be stopped down to about f/8 for
best results, and need to be longer than usual (210 is the "normal" for 4x5). When
I want extreme apo sharpness I simply use the regular Apo Nikkor (a stop slower in
real life); and if I need speed I use either a regular EL-Nikkor or Apo Rodagon. Even
in a 30x40 Cibachrome, I don't think the naked eye could detect a difference. And all
these lenses will blow away a tradition Componon S. One problem I serious reckoned with is the possibility of an MFT so high that the pattern of the AN glass
would become reproduced in the print. The folks who covet these lenses seem to
be those who use LF digital camera for copying paintings, who need exceptionally
parallel rays for flat objects. And remember, there were several generations of these things, and not all created equal. For some, you need a hell of a stiff mount
on the enlarger.

[Allen in Montreal]

Thank you Gents,

Drew, no I did not win the lottery and I have no intention of buying one. I am very happy with my Rodagons. With the help of a fellow LFPF member I have just finished building my series with a mint 300 Rodagon.

I was just curious ( I am a Curious George at heart) when I saw a 105 listed on the evil for almost a $1000.00 and it has two bids.

I just picked up a Rodagon 105 G for some larger prints I want to make over the winter.....for $50.00 !! I know they are not the same glass, but for argument's sake, the $950 difference is a whole lot of film and paper and finished prints to show for it.

Neil's friend's comment about shadow detail is intriguing, but not enough to drop 1k to find out. :)

The 105 G performed very well in a brief unscientific test I did when it first arrived.

[Jan Pedersen]

2,100+ $ is it really worth that much? Hope buyer will be digging those shadow details. :rolleyes:

[Allen in Montreal]

Jan,

I just got home and saw that too!

Ouch.

That is about....2050 shts of 4x5 T-max more expensive than a conventional 105.
Or, since it most likely to be used with 2 1/4, about 520 rolls of 120 Tmax more than a conventional 105.
As much as I would love to test it side by side and see for myself,
I'd take the 2000 sheets of film any day! :)

[Jan Pedersen]

Insane but every one has his or her desire. I just bought a 100mm Componon S for 54$and know it is not as good but 2k in difference? I could buy 2 Golden Dagors for those money or a looooooot of film.

[Drew Wiley]

Lenses very similar to Apo Nikkors are still being made for industrial processes, but
with fixed apertures specific to the application. These wouldn't be suitable for typical
enlarging, but are important for extremely critical work like printed circuit manufacture.
But if you think this kind of stuff is expensive, you should look into Nikon's medical
imaging equipment!

[Allen in Montreal]

One has finally come along in 210mm.
Ouch!!
Fortunately my curiosity has long since waned! :)


http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130373624229&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_690wt_1139

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry Allen, but not many banks are willing to give out a second mortgage at the
moment.

[Allen in Montreal]

Sorry Allen, but not many banks are willing to give out a second mortgage at the
moment.

:)

And to think, since this thread started I bought an 105 Apo Rodagon N for about 1/10 of the 105 apo nikkor, and man the Rodagon sure is sharp!

[ic-racer]

For some complex internegative work or copy work, the added resolving power may be of benefit, but enlarging paper does not have enough resolution to likely make a difference in conventional LF projection printing.

There is a way one can actually mathematically double the resolution of a projection print.* I have done that with my Componon 210mm and you can't see any difference in the prints on standard enlarging papers because the paper's resolving power is the limit. That statement is with respect to enlargements 11x14" and less. For massive enlargements, yes, added resolving power may make a difference, but I don't think those lenses are flat field at big magnification ratios; thus negating any benefit. Again just my 2 cents (and worth every penny!).

*its simple, but kind of a trick question, can anyone guess :)

[Patrick Raymore]

Are Apo el Nikkors, expensive for hobbyist? Yes. But consider this, to a printing enterprize with several buildings and a staff of 50 people the one time expense of ten thousand dollars is small.

We have been very fortunate that these enterprizes have gone digital and these wonderful lenses have fallen into the hands of many hobbyist.

Having said that, I must tell you that most users do not get the best from these lenses. Why? Because the are used on amatuer equipment. To get the best from these lenses they need the best associated equipment, good setup and excellent technique.
Most even fail to read the specifications on the Apo El Nikkors.

Are you using a glass neg holder, is the enlarger column braced, is the enlarger head laser aligned, are you using a vaccum easel etc.

A printing paper's resolution largely depends on its surface texture and can be as good as film per Darkrom techniques/Ctein.

I own a dozen of these lenses and they are exceptional. They done require exceptional technique and associated equipment. (If you drive a $250,000 Farrari in traffic it feels worse than a toyota Camry) You get what you pay for.

As to the particulars. The first thing I noticed was the increase in contrast. (although Rodenstocks have pretty good contrast) With careful fine tuning you can see the increased resolution. It takes work to get the best from these lenses. Little things matter when using these lenses. Vibration of walking around in you darkroom during the printing, the air conditioning going on, or vehiches passing by the house during printing. My experiments show that papers do not lay flat enough beyond 16*20 without a vaccum easel when using my Apo El Nikkors and orthoplanars. This has been confirm by many others.

Do you need a Apo El Nikkor to make wonderful creative prints? No! No magic bullet here. Just a wonderful tool.

[Drew Wiley]

Fallen into the hands of hobbyists???? I don't know of any hobbyist who can afford one
of these things, or even knows what it is. And they rarely surface on the market. When one does, it tends gets snatched up by someone putting it on a digital copy
camera due to the relatively parallel apo rays it is capable of yielding. If anything, digital has made these lenses scarcer.

[ic-racer]

Pictures of a few...

[neil poulsen]

For some complex internegative work or copy work, the added resolving power may be of benefit, but enlarging paper does not have enough resolution to likely make a difference in conventional LF projection printing.

There is a way one can actually mathematically double the resolution of a projection print.* I have done that with my Componon 210mm and you can't see any difference in the prints on standard enlarging papers because the paper's resolving power is the limit. That statement is with respect to enlargements 11x14" and less. For massive enlargements, yes, added resolving power may make a difference, but I don't think those lenses are flat field at big magnification ratios; thus negating any benefit. Again just my 2 cents (and worth every penny!).

*its simple, but kind of a trick question, can anyone guess :)

The only thing that comes to my mind is using a larger than normal lens for the given format?

Hmm? Does it involve mirrors?

[ic-racer]

The only thing that comes to my mind is using a larger than normal lens for the given format?

Hmm? Does it involve mirrors?

Actually doing a reduction does it. So, an 8x10 negative reduced to a 4x5 print doubles the resolution in the original.