Comparison of enlarging lenses

[Peter Collins]

I have three questions that I cannot find clear answers to in the forum/darkroom:enlarger/lenses.

1. For 4x5, which is better and why? 135mm or 150mm focal length?

2. What are the relative differences between componar, comparon, componon, and componon-s?

3. What is the forum's consensus (!) on a good enlarging lens? (While I have the impression that the possibilities are El Nikkors, Rodagon [are there different names/quality levels??], and Schneider-Kreuznach, I do not have any information on one brand vs. another.)

Finally, please direct me to any threads I have overlooked, or to any sites with answers to my questions. For that I am most grateful.

merci mille fois!

[Gene M]

150 is generally considered the standard for 4x5. A 150 does a slightly better job of providing even illumination across the negative. You need a bit more headroom (enlarger head height) for the longer lens however.

Componar, comparons and Rogonars are inferior lenses. Don't even consider one. Componon (minus the "S") are older Componon-s's. The "S" indicates a more modern coating.

I've used dozens of enlarging lenses. I see no appreciable difference between a clean Nikor a Componon or a Rodagon. APO models are sharper but more expensive.

My choice is the Schneider Componon 150 APO. It's a bright lens and sharp as hell. I paid about $250 for it, used in mint shape.

Good non-APO 150's can be had in the $150 range.

[David Mark]

Peter,

I believe Gene is right that 150 is the standard for 4X5 printing, for the reason that it provides the most even illumination of the negative. However, in my own darkroom, where ceiling height is limited, I use a 135 EL Nikkor and have no complaints about its sharpness, contrast, or evenness of illumination.

I suspect that unless you are making extremely big enlargments any current six element enlarging lens from Nikkor, Schneider, or Rodenstock will be fine. Remember that a 16 X 20 print from 4 X 5 is only a X4 enlargement, which shouldn't be much of a strain for any good enlarging lens.

The most comprehensive (and opinionated) reviews of current enlarging lenses that I have seen can be found in Ctein's book: Post Exposure. The most alarming thing that Ctein has to say is that he found great sample-to-sample variation among enlarging lenses, regardless of manufacturer. As I recall, he said that he found one out of three enlarging lenses to have significant decentering, and one out of ten to be a real dog. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I have never come across an obviously bad enlarging lens from any of the big three.

[Michael S. Briggs]

As the others have said, the 150 mm lens will theoretically provide better illumination and perhaps corner sharpness at the expense of a reduction in maximum print size compared to a 135 mm lens.

My advice is to get a fairly recent 6-element enlarging lens. This would be a Componon, El-Nikkor, or Rodagon. Or, if you want the very best, an Apo-Componon or Apo-Rodagon-N (which has 7 elements). All 135 mm and 150 mm El-Nikkors have 6 elements -- the 50 mm and 75 mm f4 El-Nikkors have fewer elements, as do all Schneider Comparons, Componars and Rodenstock Rogonars.

[ronald lamarsh]

I have to take slight issue with the statement that Rogonars, and comparons are inferior. Yes on an optical bench measuring lined test patterns with a loupe or using specialized equip to measure MTFO etc. they will not perform as well. Now, if you check the Rondenstock literature the rogaonar-s is optomized for 2-6x enlargement with 4x as optimum so on 4x5 that equates to 16x20. I at one time had a 80mm rodagon that I used for 6x6 med format and enlarging to 11x14 which is close to 6x and compared it to the original 75mm ektar(4 element)that came with the enlarger and really couldn't see any difference at all, even with a loupe. I truly believe that at 4x enlargements of B&W that one would be hard pressed to pick out which enlarging lens made which picture if all were printed by the same person of the same negative and contrast adjusted to match. Perception is reality and if you just got that new super lens, knowing that it will solve world peace and hunger then when you use it of course it will look better. If you are doing color/commercial work by all means you need a state-of-the -art APO lens from one of the big three the same goes for B&W enlargements from 4x5negs to 30x40 and beyond and too boot you'll need a couple of the latest APO super symmar's for your camera. I'm not intending to start a war but but facts are facts and I personally think that there is a little too much of technical-one-upmanship going on in the large format world. I thought we were supposed to be having fun and expressing ourselves artistically.

[Nick_3536]

If you're buying used then there is no reason not to get a Componon [Is this the top of the line Scheidner?],El-Nikkor or Rodagon. Prices are so low today that you aren't going to save much money moving down. For example I just picked up a Rodagon 105mm for a $26. My 135mm Nikon was $31.

[David Kaufman]

There are significant differences between brands of enlarging lens and within brands. For 4x5, the 135 Rodagon is excellent and will cover fully and evenly. Other brands of 135 are not quite as good in my experience. There are often significant sample to sample variations between identical brands of enlarging lens, often in flatness of field from centre to corners which will determine how much you have to stop down for uniform sharpness across the image. It is best to test any enlarging lens with a test negative in a glass negative holder (for negative flatness) before purchasing. As a rule, apo lenses will give more uniform image field flatness and higher degrees of sharpness at larger f-stops. The differences may be subtle, but when you have an enlarging lens that produces an image with crisply-focussed grain in all parts of the image, the image looks a lot better than a similar image with mushy grain and reduced local contrast.

[Ernest Purdum]

Although Componar is an economy line, the easily confused Comparon is not. The confusion may have something to do with the line being discontinued. At the time the Comparons were made, the Componon was optimized for 10X enlargement. Since this is larger than most people use, the Comparon was optimized for 4X enlargement, working well in the 2 to 6X range, probably where the larger proportion of enlargements from 4" X 5" are made. If, as has often been done, you decide to "test" lenses, Componon vs. Comparon, by making a big blow-up of a small section of a negative, the Componon will win, but this is not a realistic comparison. If instead, you enlarge to 8" X 10", the Comparon should, if examined closely inough, be the winner. They are often available at quite moderate prices. Of course, if it meets your budget, it is always nice to buy one of the several excellent lenses now on the new market.

[John D Gerndt]

I have made a couple of informal tests of enlarging lenses by producing prints to look at. ‘Makes sense no? I have been surprised by these blind tests. I now believe in sample variation. I now know my APO is better but NOT five times better, not even twice as good “in my application”. I now choose from a stable of lenses according to exactly what I want to accomplish. That old answer pops up: it all depends on your process and required results (and a little bit to do with money).

It is sound advice to buy a modern 6 element lens. Use it as your standard. Try a few others as well and be ready to be surprised.

If you are really tight for money 135mm are usually significantly cheaper. My experience says they are fine for coverage and uniform light. If you are nearly broke, I recommend a Kodak 135 or 162 and stop it down to at least f8 (clean the lens well too). I choose this at times with a really contrasty chrome and love what it does for the color (significant difference in the MTF) and the sharpness ain’t too shabby either.

Cheers,

[Mike Chini]

I bought a $130 Nikkor 150mm lens off eBay and it works wonderfully. I'm able to enlarge from about 5x7 all the way to 20x24 and everything is crisp, tack-sharp and contrasty.

At one point I spent some time researching the different lenses etc. for my 35mm work but in the end, I cannot tell any worthwhile difference between my brand-spanking new 50mm APO Rodagon and an older Schneider 80mm. In the end, any good lens should do the job.

[Øyvind Dahle]

A 150 or a 180 will give you more room, a 135 will give you the little extra when it comes to zooming - printing only part of your negative. Have two lenses so you can compare, a three-lens? rogonar-s and a normal well centered rodagon, el-nikkor or a componon-s.

I think it is more important to have the negative, lens and paper correctly aligned!

Øyvind:D

[Bas Hoeben]

I recently bought a 1980's(?) vintage 150 mm f5.6 El-Nikkor (with an unusual mounting thread of 53mm diameter and deep scallops on the aperture ring). After surmounting the difficulty of fitting the lens in my antiquated Meopta Magnitarus enlarger, I am now extremely satisfied by its performance (I'm doing b&w exclusively). Unfortunately I am unable to locate any information on this lens (its quality compared to a more modern version, number of lens elements, MC or not). Even Nikon does not seem to remember that they ever made the lens. Is there anybody using this lens who could give me the information?

Thanks in advance

[Michael S. Briggs]

Bas, your guess of the age is probably correct. Nikon brochures from the 1980's show the 150 El-Nikkor with the strange 53 mm mounting thread. If your lens is multicoated, it can't be too old and I would guess it to be either optically identical or very similar to the current version. Nikon may have made some changes to accomodate the reduced mounting thread of the current version. The 150 mm all-black version with deep scallops and 53 mm threads is 6 elements in 4 groups, just like the current version. AFAIK, all El-Nikkors are 6/4 lenses except the 50 and 75 mm f4 ones. In the past few decades Nikon changed the external styling of their enlarging lenses several times. I have several brochures of various vintages and none of them claim optical improvements.





A little secret: there is a piece on the front of the lens that unscrews to reveal another set of 53 mm threads. You can use this to reverse the lens, e.g., on your enlarger to do reductions, or on a camera to make images on the film larger than life size.





Previous discussions: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000lQK,
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0034UO,
and http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Y4A.

[Johnkpap]

Thanks for your posting on Comparon lens I have had My little question answered, I got given a 75mm F4 Comparon for free because one of the blades had moved out of place. I spent a couple of Hours cleanig and putting the blades back. I then went to the trouble of having a mount made to put it on my Durst L1200. I found that for B&W portraits the little lens printed better than my $$$ 80mm El-nikkor, it had less contrast and better tones and at 11x14 from a 6x4.5cm Bronica neg. I could not see any difference in sharpness from both lenses but the ones from the little Comparon look better.

I have become rather fond of it.

People seem to think that I am printing with a APO whatever lense when they see the prints, I just let them keep thinking that fact.

Many thanks