good enlarging lens for 6X9 B&W negatives

[Simon Benton]

I have just obtained a Beseler 23C enlarger and want to print some of my 6X9 negatives taken on my old Graflex Super D. Can anyone recommend a good enlarging lens together with the optimum focal length. If you have one for sale please let me know - if you also have the matching Beseler 4X4 board that would be even better. :):)

[Old-N-Feeble]

Back when I was wet printing... a long time ago... I found that most any lens of decent make was fine unless it was a lemon. I did prefer slightly longer than normal focal length for moderately size enlargements because the grain structure in the far corners showed no visible distortion... 60mm for 135, 150mm for 6x7cm, 210mm for 4x5... not really feasible for big prints though. I had Rodagons and El Nikkors and none were of the pricey Apo variety.

[ic-racer]

Look for a six-element 105mm lens. (Rodagon, Componon, etc.) I enlarge 6x9 with a 105mm Schneider Componon-S I got in 1986.

[bob carnie]

I use the APO Rodagon 90mm for 6x9 negs , it really is a nice lens.

[Ari]

I used to have a 100mm Componon-S, bought it for a song in 2005.
They should be relatively easy to find on eBay, as it is a relatively unusual focal length.

[Bob Salomon]

I use the APO Rodagon 90mm for 6x9 negs , it really is a nice lens.

Apo Rodagon or Apo Radagon-N?

Per Rodenstock the original Apo Rodagon 90mm was only designed for 645 to 67 film
The much more improved 90mm f4 Apo Rodagon-N was also only corrected for up to 67 but the 105mm Apo Rodagon-N was corrected for up to 69.

[tgtaylor]

I use an El Nikkor 105mm f5.6 for 6x7 and 6x9 which I found in absolute mint condition w/bubble and box on eBay for very little money. In conjunction with a glass negative carrier and Delta Adjust Board this lens is extremely sharp.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe overkill, but I use my 150 Apo Rodagon with wonderful results.

[bob carnie]

not the N version I have two of them and have worked with no apparent problem


Apo Rodagon or Apo Radagon-N?

Per Rodenstock the original Apo Rodagon 90mm was only designed for 645 to 67 film
The much more improved 90mm f4 Apo Rodagon-N was also only corrected for up to 67 but the 105mm Apo Rodagon-N was corrected for up to 69.

[Kevin Crisp]

105 El Nikkor has done it for me.

[joselsgil]

I have used the Schneider Componon-S 5.6 100mm lens without any problems. A 105mm or 135mm can also do the job.

[Michael Graves]

I'm another fan of using longer than "normal" focal lengths. I use all Rodagons now. 80mm for 35mm, 135mm for all 120 sizes, 150 for 4x5 and 180 for 5x7. I'd like a longer one for 5x7, but the bellows on my 5x7 Beseler doesn't accommodate anything longer.

[Bill Burk]

For 6x9 I recently picked up a 105mm f/4.5 Comparon, and I made about a dozen 11x14 prints on MGIV.

I joke that my f/64 club card is going to be revoked because of these prints, but it wasn't the enlarging lens' fault some of the prints aren't critically sharp.

While many of the lenses recommended thus far would be "better", this lens did alright for me.

[Bob Salomon]

I'm another fan of using longer than "normal" focal lengths. I use all Rodagons now. 80mm for 35mm, 135mm for all 120 sizes, 150 for 4x5 and 180 for 5x7. I'd like a longer one for 5x7, but the bellows on my 5x7 Beseler doesn't accommodate anything longer.

Assuming that your enlarger is properly aligned, your film is in a glass carrier and you are printing within the optimized perameters of your lenses with a quality piece of film you will get much better results using the proper enlarging lens. If in the Rodagon series, 50mm for 35 film, 80mm for 645 and 66, 105mm for 67 and 150mm for 45.

That 80mm is corrected for 2 to 10X while the 50mm is corrected for 2 to 15X, that 80 is corrected for 2 to 10X while your 135mm is corrected for the same but your column height ends up too long and you add the possibility of vibration.

Modern lenses perform best for the film sizes that they were designed for. The old days of not getting best performance at the edges are no longer with us.

[Drew Wiley]

But eveness of illumination is often an issue, Bob. Not all enlargers are equipped with a full
set of ground diffusers matched to each lens. Not every task can ideally be compensated by casual corner and edge burning, esp in critical color work where recip issues with affect color balance differentially. I personally have a strong preference for longer than "normal" lenses; but my enlargers are braced for earthquakes, no just vibration (no joke - I'm only six blocks from the Hayward fault). Long lenses also give shallower depth of field so one can focus just on the emulsion and pick up less whatever beyond that.

[Oren Grad]

For 6x9 cm I generally use the 105 EL-Nikkor N. Once in a while I'll use the 135 EL-Nikkor A. I'm happy enough with the results that I haven't spent the effort to compare these against any other brands.

Ctein's book "Post Exposure", for now available in its entirety as a free download, has a long section about enlarging lenses:

http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm

[Bob Salomon]

Have you actually made comparison prints at 10x from you 6x6 or 35mm? For 35mm you are using lenses optimized for an 8x10 as opposed to one made for up to 15x22".

Diffusers or condensors? Or do you mean mixing chambers?
And, if reciprocity is an issue all the more reason for the proper focal lengths. Or, if you want a real surprise, compare those longer Rodagons to the Rodagon WA for each of those formats. Short of the Apo Rodagon-N the WA's easily are the best performers. And for 35mm that means a 40mm, for 6x6/6x7 a 60mm and for 69 an 80mm while a 120 is spectacular for 4x5. 30% less head height for the same magnification, less problems with reciprocity and vibration.

The longer the lens the less depth of field. Or are you referring to depth of focus?

[Drew Wiley]

I frequently print with masks and AN glass, Bob. Shallow depth is quite important. Then there are critical cases where one cannot realistically edge burn, like making matched sets
of dye transfer matrices. Same with making contact dupes or internegs. The field of illumination has to be nearly perfect. It's pretty rare I'd want to even use a 150 for 4x5.
240 is more likely. But my lenses are all so overkill optically that nothing is sacrificed in the
print itself. Everything is diffusion printed. When I want a big print I use a big neg, so none
of that high magnification ratio nonsense. Even when I print a 30x40 from 4x5 I'll make an
8x10 interpositive or interneg first. Head height is a non-issue. One enlarger is 12ft tall and
I load it on a rolling platform ladder. I can stand on the easel without deflecting it.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Bob... I don't know about the others who prefer longer-than-normal enlarging lenses but I stated "modest enlargement". To me, this means up to 8x10 from 135, 11x14 from 6x7cm and 16x20 from 4x5in. These are all within the proper range (or close enough) of the lenses I used. That was many years ago and I did switch to standard lenses if I wanted larger prints. That was thirty years ago and I could, indeed, see the difference in corner distortion (very slightly stretched grain structure) when I used normal vs longer lenses. That just bothered me. Maybe newer lenses are significantly better but I doubt it. My El Nikkors and Rodagons were pretty darned good except for the 80mm Apo Rodagon which must have been a lemon. BTW, I used a Beseler 45 MCRX bolted to a 2x4/4x4 table in a concrete slab home in an extremely stable geographic region nowhere near a highway.:)

[Bob Salomon]

If you have an 80mm Apo Rodagon-N that "was a lemon" then it should have come back to us, as the importer, or to who ever sold it to you if it was a grey market version. The Rodenstock filters, enlarging lenses and taking lenses that are imported bu us and sold through our dealers come with a HP Marketing Corp. lifetime warranty to the original retail purchasor.

Lemons are only good for lemonade and manufacturer's stand behind problem lenses.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hey Bob... I bought the Apo Rodagon used and I don't think it was an "N" version. I can't remember because it was a very long time ago (thirty years or so). Since I didn't buy it new I wasn't about to have it warranty replaced. I supposed I should have checked to see if there was a recall which I would have taken advantage of but I didn't think to look.

[Michael Graves]

I own a 50mm Rodagon as well. It isn't edge sharpness, but rather illumination drop off caused by my enlarger (At least I assume it's the enlarger). Under my Peak grain focuser, I had little trouble seeing that there was faint loss of resolution toward the edges. I don't know if it is the enlarger design or the lens. I'm not an engineer. Vibration isn't much of a problem since my house is on a solid concrete foundation with no cellar. And I ran the kids off long ago.

[Bob Salomon]

30 years ago there was no 150mm Apo Rodagon-N. Back then there was a 180mm Apo Rodagon for 4x5 work. The 150 replaced the 180 but far less then 20 years ago.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Bob... I wrote 80mm Apo Rodagon. Now that I think about it... might have been a 50mm... maybe 25 years ago. I can't remember precisely. Either way is was a dog from center-to-corner.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob... I wrote 80mm Apo Rodagon.

Sorry, confused posts.

The 80mm N, all N's in fact, are totally different lenses then the earlier non-N versions.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Not a problem, Bob. I respect and appreciate your knowledge. Notice that I added to my last post... I can't remember accurate details other than I really disliked the that old Apo Rodagon I had.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

I use a 90mm Rodagon I purchased off a member of this site.

If I have to tilt/shift the enlarger lens to correct for perspective in prints, I switch to a 135mm.

[Bob Salomon]

Rodagon or Apo Rodagon or the rare Apo Rodagon N?

Rodenstock did not make a 90mm Rodagon.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Rodagon or Apo Rodagon or the rare Apo Rodagon N?

Rodenstock did not make a 90mm Rodagon.

Hmmm... Have to check