Enlarging lenses

[swmcl]

Hi,

I take it that an 'enlarging lens' is the same beast as a lens built to fit an enlarger ??

How does one know whether one has an enlarger lens ? I see that some do actually state the fact on the ring around the front element but I'll bet that is not across the board.

Is the only way to know by looking up some data someplace ? Or can one know by features on the lens ? For example in barrel lenses, would there be a f-stop range more usual for a taking lens and another f-stop range for an enlarger lens ? Would an enlarger lens be likely to have a flange ? Would an enlarger lens ever have a really large aperture ? Would an enlarger lens be coated ?

The reason I ask is because I have a lens here that I am having great difficulty getting data on. It has an aperture iris and a flange.

Thanks again to you all for your kind and generous advice and help.

Steve

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. What lens do you have? Ask about it, i.e., about a particular lens with a name and attributes, not about some vaguely defined very general who-knows-what.

In modern times lenses meant for enlarging have names that differ from the names of similar lenses made for taking. Usually. Perhaps only sometimes. For example: in the Schneider line, Comparon/Xenar, Componon/Symmar; in the Rodenstock line, Rodagon/Sironar.

In ancient times the same prescriptions were often used in both applications. For example, Boyer's propaganda claims that the Saphir B was the first lens designed specifically for enlarging. Could be, doesn't have to be, so.

Ignorant sellers on eBay sometimes apply the rule that lenses in barrel are for enlarging, lenses in shutter are for taking. My 135/5.6 Symmar, offered on eBay as an enlarging lens but in fact sold by Schneider for taking, and 105/4.5 Comparon in Copal #0, offered as a taking lens but sold by Schneider for enlarging/macro, are examples.

Now, what do you have?

[swmcl]

Dan,

The lens in question is a Xenar 7 1/8th inch f 3.5.

The answer to my questions then seems to be more that one must research each lens to know whether they are for the enlarger or not ...

Cheers,

[Dan Fromm]

Taking lens. Go shoot with it and be happy. And don't forget to name names.

[Vlad Soare]

I take it that an 'enlarging lens' is the same beast as a lens built to fit an enlarger ??
No, they're normally not the same, though exceptions do exist. Enlarging lenses are optimized for very short focusing distances and for a reversed light path (that is, light enters them from the back and exits through the front, unlike taking lenses).
That being said, they can be used interchangeably if you can live with a slightly lower image quality and/or don't enlarge too much.


For example in barrel lenses, would there be a f-stop range more usual for a taking lens and another f-stop range for an enlarger lens ?
Not necessarily.


Would an enlarger lens be likely to have a flange ?
Long ones, yes.


Would an enlarger lens ever have a really large aperture ?
My fastest enlarging lens is an f/2.8. So yes, they can have large apertures, though slower ones (around f/5.6) are more common.


Would an enlarger lens be coated ?
Absolutely. All modern enlarging lenses are coated, even the cheapest ones. They're built to the same standards as taking lenses, and multicoating is as important for an enlarger lens as it is for a taking lens.


The answer to my questions then seems to be more that one must research each lens to know whether they are for the enlarger or not ...
That's correct, though hints (but not strict rules) can sometimes be derived from their names.

[Len Middleton]

Steve,

As well as the above comments on the lens design name (e.g. Comparon, Componan, Rodagon, versus Xenar, Symmar, Sironar, etc.), some companies use "EL" (e.g. EL Nikkor) to indicate an Enlarging Lens.

Also illuminated aperature scales on the barrel can another good indication of an enlarging lens. Do note however, that not all enlarging lenses have illuminated aperature scales, particularly earlier ones.

Hope that helps,

Len

[swmcl]

Again many thanks to you all, especially Vlad.

I didn't want to reveal the actual lens because it is at the centre of a custody dispute!

I've decided to not keep it so I can reveal it now. I'm not the type to be coy !

Cheers,

[Robert Hughes]

There are limits of course. Monty's lens doesn't need to enlarge ANY more ...

[erie patsellis]

Componons were the preferred taking lens for table top work years ago, I still use several for both tabletop work and some work at infinity. Granted some may say it won't work, but you have to be the final judge of image quality.

[Stephen Willard]

I would like a chime in here with a slightly off topic posting. Acquiring an excellent enlarging lens is critical. In the journey from the original scene to the making of an exquisite print, the enlarging step is the most important. Field taking lenses as a whole do a very good job at making sharp negatives. The point where image degradation really occurs is during enlargement. There is a significant and notable difference between an excellent enlarging lens and a cheap enlarging lens.

When purchasing a new or used enlarging lens make sure you bargain for time to evaluate and test the lens. I just purchased an EL Nikkor 240mm lens from an ebay store. It was being sold as new, and when it arrived it looked new. Fortunately, I already had a EL Nikkor 210mm lens to benchmark the new purchase against. When I compared the two lenses using my 10x focusing loop for a 16x40 enlargement, the differences were evident and striking. The 240mm lens was soft and had very low contrast compared to my 210mm lens. I talked with a Nikon technician about my test results and they said that can happen and the lens is definitely defective. They no longer service those lenses because they do not make them anymore. I have a 7 day test period to test the lens, and I just called the ebay store from whom I purchased the lens about the problem. I will be returning it this coming Monday for a full refund.

Lesson learned - take your time and be cautious in your acquisition of an enlarging lens!

[Bernard Kaye]

DITTO
Constantly being in a damp environment called a "darkroom" will sooner or later degrade any enlarging lens:
so go NOW to yours and put it or them in a dryer environment, perhaps expose it or them, carefully, to sunlight for a short time for UV to kill fungus and keep it out of the darkroom except when using it.
If you purchase a used one, good luck.
Having retailed these, they are the Achilles heel of photo-lab procedure and I think that a single coated example that has been well cared for is a better deal than a multicoated one that has been abused or ignored, let sit in a damp darkroom and not to be a Luddite, an uncoated Leitz or Zeiss enlarging lens may surprise you whereas Rodenstocks have contrast and reveal detail that convinced pros to use them instead of Nikor and Schneider when I convinced the pros to try the Rodenstock.
But, again, buying them used is perilous.
Bernie

[Stephen Willard]

Bernard, my contention is that it makes no difference whether it is new or used. You still need to test it to make sure its okay. Placing the enlarger head as high as it will go and using a 10x focusing loop will tell loads about the lens. You also need to make some 8x10 prints at various places within the image area when the enlarger head is at its highest point. This will give you a comparison between the center of the lens and at it edges under worse case conditions.

[Dan Fromm]

Componons were the preferred taking lens for table top work years ago, I still use several for both tabletop work and some work at infinity. Granted some may say it won't work, but you have to be the final judge of image quality.Erie, according to Schneider it depends on the magnification. They say that between 1:6 and 6:1 Comparons are better and that Componons are better outside that range.

[Bernard Kaye]

I agree fully with all of you including Stephen, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: yes, even a new one can have its shortcomings and a well cared for used one that was good when new will perform well.
Again, some want sharpness, some want contrast, some want edge separation, some want shadow detail; you decide but try to avoid one that has lived too long in a darkroom; it may be terminally ill as Leitz told me when I sent a customer's 60mm. Fotar to them and that was a very fine lens for 35mm..
Bernie

[Bernard Kaye]

It was a Focotar and at 60mm. it was perfect for 35mm.
Bernie Kaye

[Peter K]

It was a Focotar and at 60mm. it was perfect for 35mm.

The Focotar was also used in the Leitz copystand "Reprovit II".