50mm Lens Choices... and which of my lenses sucks most

[ckpj99]

So my darkroom is now in use. I have no clue why I didn't do this earlier. I bought a CL enlarger over a month ago and it came with three lenses

EL-Omegar f/3.5 75mm
EL-Omegar f/3.5 50mm
Schneider Componar-S f/2.8 50mm

The specific enlarger I bought is Beseler 45, which I bought because I wanted to print 4x5. The previous owner apparently was overloaded in the enlarger department because he had no 4x5 stuff for the enlarger. No neg carrier, no lenses.

So I recently bought a EL-Nikkor f/5.6 135mm (I think there might be two version of this lens, and I think this is the cheaper one, but it has no other markings). I also bought a 4x5 carrier obviously.

Before my questions, it might be important to know that I will be printing 4x5, 6x6 and 35mm about equally.

So here it goes:

1) Which of my 50mm lenses is better? I assumed the Schneider was better, so I've been using that. If that's the case, I'm willing to sell the Omegar, but I have no clue what it's worth. If it's worth $5, I'll just keep it.

2) If I were to upgrade any of these lenses, which would you upgrade first? I know virtually nothing about enlarger lenses, so are any of these lenses especially bad.

I haven't used the 75mm or the Omegar 50mm, so I can't speak to that, but other lenses seem fine, I guess. I've also been using all the lenses stopped down from their maximum aperture two stops, because I figure that's about the sharpest aperture for most lenses.

I appreciate the advice. Thanks in advance.

[Sevo]

The Componar-S is the most basic enlarger lens Schneider made in recent times - four-lenser, reverse Tessar type. It is quite nice, no worse than the better Schneiders if you stick to its sweet spot in both aperture and enlarging factor (around f/16 1:6 for my 80mm version - probably more like f/11 1:8 for 50mm), but at the current price for used small-format Componon-S and APO lenses (which are more versatile in range and speed) there is not really any point in getting one.

Omega never made lenses, and they probably bought them in from different makers over the course of time - and they did not properly differentiate between entry level and pro either, so it could be hard to tell what you've got there. Some large format ones were "Made in West Germany", so presumably Schneider or Rodenstock, but in the eighties the smaller, budget ones looked as if they were of GDR or Czech make (where the latter had quite a reputation for fine enlarger lenses).

[Bob Salomon]

Omega was part of Berkey Marketing. Berkey was a full line distributor for other product lines like Gossen, Rodenstock, Toyo, etc. All of the private label Omegar lenses were made by Rodenstock.

Basically all of the lenses that came with your enlarger are basic "kit" lenses. Sell or give them away and get good general purpose lenses like a Rodagon or better. There is no sense in investing in materials and your time to get less then the optimal performance that better lenses will give you.

[ckpj99]

What about the Nikkor, folks? It is worth sticking with, or should it be on the chopping block as well. My resources are not unlimited, so buying three new lenses immediately is out of the question. But I assumed the Nikkor was the best lens I had anyway.

[Bob Salomon]

It is the best you have. Replace the others. Then worry about 45 later.

Also you should be aware that all enlarging lenses require that your enlarger is in correct alignment and that your negative is held flat in a glass carrier if you want to obtain the best quality from your system.

[ic-racer]

Componar-S
The lenses in the COMPONAR-S series are efficient enlarging lenses, reasonable in price, for the discriminating amateur. Enlargements with the four-element COMPONAR-S produce high-contrast and brilliant prints, from either color or black-and-white negatives. This lens type is suited for practically all magnifications of enlargement. Its optimal performance is in the area of 6:1 to 10:1.--Schneider

[Sevo]

Well, did you really expect:

Componar-S
The lenses in the COMPONAR-S series are efficient enlarging lenses, reasonable in price, for the discriminating amateur. Enlargements with the four-element COMPONAR-S produce adequate contrast and sharpness prints, from either color or black-and-white negatives. This lens type is suited for practically all magnifications of enlargement your Durst 305, stood on a board across the bath tub, is capable of. Its optimal performance is in the area of 6:1 to 10:1.--Schneider

That said, there is not really that much wrong with amateur/entry level enlarging lenses, at least of the more reputable brands - they are very fine indeed, and unlikely to be the sharpness/contrast limiting factor in your workflow. But given that the average ebay price of Componars and Componon S's (or other mid range pro enlarging lenses) is effectively identical (and either way dirt cheap down to postage value if you are patient enough to strike a bargain), there is not really any point in buying or using the former any more.

[imagedowser]

ckpj99, If in looking for a 50mm, don't overlook a C.E.Rokkor-X f2.8 made by Minolta, if you come across one, it was W.Eugene Smiths favorite for 35mm. He used his in an old Leitz Valoy. Minolta also made the lens in 30mm for half frame 35 which is excellent for cropping or larger prints if your column is limited. The Leitz Focotar and Rodenstock APO may be better, but you'll pay bigger bucks and truthfully I don't see much of a difference..... Ctein, in his book "Post Exposure" likes the Componon-S among others, and they can be had used relatively inexpensively .... Ctein has tested them all and is well worth a read.

[Vaughn]

The 135mm lens will be great for MF if you do not need to go bigger than 11x14 (the enlarger head starts to get pretty high!LOL!). I prefer it for making 7x7 or 10x10 enlargements from my Rolleiflex negs (Omega D5XL w/ El Nikkor 135mm/5.6) over using an 80mm lens.

[BetterSense]

I wouldn't be in a big hurry to get rid of the lenses you have. I was in the same position when I got my craigslist enlargers and I don't think I ever had an enlarging lens that was really holding me back. When I got my 2.8 EL-Nikkor, I compared it by making 11x14 enlargements with both it and with the 'Beslar' lens I had been using. There was such a minimal difference I was glad I didn't rush out and pay good money for the EL-Nikkor.

People make a good point that used enlarger lenses are a good value, but even cheap enlarging lenses work great at normal enlargement sizes, stopped down a couple stops.

[patrickjames]

Odds are you won't see the difference between lenses if your enlarger is not aligned. I have tested a bunch of 50mm lenses in my life and most of the 6 element lenses are good enough. If you take the time to align your enlarger properly (I prefer laser alignment) and use a glass carrier you will begin to see the differences in lenses. Of the 50mm(ish) lenses I have, the best is a Zeiss, followed by Computar DL/C.E Rokkor-X/Fujinon EX are about equal then the Componon/Rodagons (non-APO). It is difficult to tell the differences between lenses unless I compare the Componon/Rodagons against the Zeiss. Personally I wouldn't waste time/money on a cheap lens. I paid $20 or less for the Computar/Rokkor/Fujinon lenses at different times. A box of paper cost $80-100 these days.

[ckpj99]

Thanks for all the input folks. To address a couple of things. I need to do an alignment on my enlarger, but I have no clue what I'm doing. So I'll need to research that. And frankly, I'm happy with the enlargements I'm getting. So I'm in no big rush. I just don't want to be missing out on something.

I found a bunch of great 50mm lenses on eBay and KEH. So I'll start keeping an eye out for those first.

So any good resources out there on the web for enlarger alignment?

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for all the input folks. To address a couple of things. I need to do an alignment on my enlarger, but I have no clue what I'm doing. So I'll need to research that. And frankly, I'm happy with the enlargements I'm getting. So I'm in no big rush. I just don't want to be missing out on something.

I found a bunch of great 50mm lenses on eBay and KEH. So I'll start keeping an eye out for those first.

So any good resources out there on the web for enlarger alignment?

Why not call and ask Beseler?

[Scotty230358]

Given that enlarger lenses can be had for reasonable sums thiese days may I suggest the following

Rodenstock Rodagon - in all focal lengths
Schneider Componon S - in all focal lengths
50mm EL Nikkor f2.8
63mm EL Nikkor f2.8
80mm EL Nikkor f5.6

All these are 6 element lenses and are of a very high quality. If you are only printing monochrome I am unconvinced that APO lenses are really necessary.

I own Examples of all the lenses I have suggested and get excellent performance out of them all.

[Jody_S]

It's pretty easy to test them, it will only cost you a few sheets of paper to enlarge the same 35mm neg using all 3 lenses and compare results. I don't know if you'll be able to tell them apart, if you shoot them all at f11-16.

[rdenney]

Look at the images through a grain focuser. If you can seen sharply defined grain across the image, edge-to-edge at a reasonable working aperture, then you gain little by upgrading your enlarging lenses. The grain focuser itself is a better investment than lenses that may only be very slightly better. Not having the enlarger accurately focused at the grain level is an easier and more damaging mistake than not having the best enlarging lens.

Rick "mutatis mutandis--do not change what does not need changing" Denney

[ckpj99]

rdenney. I have a good grain focuser, so I'm guess I'm on the right track, lol. Thanks for all your help. I'm researching aligning my enlarger. It's a little difficult to find any. I figured out the "z axis" adjustment for the whole enlarger head, the front to back tilt. Got that leveled up with the baseboard. I'm really having trouble figuring out the "y axis" adjustment for the negative carrier. I can get it to tilt (quite a lot), but I don't know how to lock it or adjust it finely, because it snaps back to "zero."

I have a Beseler 45 MXT.

[patrickjames]

Alignment of the film stage to the baseboard is the most critical alignment, but you should get the lens aligned too.

Back in the 90's I was happy with the prints I made. I was in a bunch of shows, won a bunch of awards in the old Luminos Printmakers contests, blah blah blah, so apparently others were happy too. Then I bought a glass negative carrier. Wow I thought. What a difference. Then a couple years later I happened upon the Zeiss lens and wondered why it was so sharp in the center but not at the edges. Cue the laser alignment tool. The point of this is you don't know how much better it can be until it is better! If you are really concerned about the best print quality then just spring for (or borrow) a laser alignment tool. Everyone I know uses the Versalab. Get a glass neg carrier too preferably with anti-newton glass on top.

If you don't want to deal with any of this, then just go in your darkroom and have fun. Nothing wrong with that.

[jose angel]

A Beseler enlarger? Ouch, these are hard to align, but they can be perfectly aligned.

First of all, as Patrick says, I find that a laser alignment tool is a must for serious printers. It saves a lot of time in the adjustment process and checking. A lot.

If I recall it correctly, the whole enlarger head (that is, the film stage to the baseboard) is not that bad to adjust. There are two screws, one for the "y" axis at the bottom of the head holder (very easy to adjust), another for the "x" axis in the vertical plate (a bit at right) of the head holder... I recall this one as an eccectric bolt&screw or so (?). I remember to have it correctly aligned. Edit: I`m not sure if this is only for 23C type enlargers.

The lensboard stage is the hardest to align; the adjusting system is almost useless... the only way is to buy an adjustable, double plate board (the one with three adjusting screws), or to build a similar one.

[ic-racer]

Alignment of the film stage to the baseboard is the most critical alignment, but you should get the lens aligned too.

Alignment of Film stage to lens is most critical. The bigger you enlarger the more leeway you have on the baseboard and the closer lens and film have to match.

[jose angel]

What I wrote in my post above applies to the 23C series. I wonder if it applies to the 45, too. My excuses.

[Drew Wiley]

You don't have to use a 50mm lens for 35mm. That's just generally the shortest focal length suitable. You can always use something longer, which will often perform better.

[paulr]

This (http://www.buy.com/prod/bes-align-4-x4-adjustable-lens-board/203344033.html) kind of modification fixes the alignment issues with the Beseler. It's unavailable at the moment ... maybe someone else makes one? I worked at a place with a machine shop when I set up my darkroom, so I made my own out two lensboards, screws, and foam. Once this is taken care of, I've found beselers to be very robust and to hold their alignment a long time.

As far as lenses, yeah, test and use the best one you can find. In my experience all enlarging lenses are disappointing. I didn't come to this conclusion until I saw what was possible with a desktop scanner that cost half the price of my best lens. At any rate, the differences in lenses are less important than perfect alignment and negative flatness. A critical focuser that can see all the way to the corners is a worthwhile investment.

[jeroldharter]

This (http://www.buy.com/prod/bes-align-4-x4-adjustable-lens-board/203344033.html) kind of modification fixes the alignment issues with the Beseler. It's unavailable at the moment ... maybe someone else makes one? I worked at a place with a machine shop when I set up my darkroom, so I made my own out two lensboards, screws, and foam. Once this is taken care of, I've found beselers to be very robust and to hold their alignment a long time.

...

I believe that lens board was made by Delta and called the Bes-Align. It used three screws in a triangle configuration to level the lens board, just like you adjust tripod legs to level the tripod head. The limitation was that the standard model has a 39mm opening. they made a 50mm model for larger lenses but I've never seen one.

I would consider those lenses that came with your enlarger junk. I'm not saying that you would be unable to generate a good print with one, but why bother? You are going to a lot of effort and expense to use sheet film for the best quality prints you can muster. Why use the absolute cheapest lenses those manufactures made as part of your workflow? With non-apo enlarging lenses being so inexpensive, I would buy two and keep my favorite.

I have three Beseler enlargers. I like them, but they offer the worst in American engineering when it comes to alignment. Very exasperating. Every time I would change a lens I have to re-align the enlarger. That is why I now have 3 enlargers, one for each focal length I use. As long as I don't rattle the cage to much, the lens stays in good alignment.

[Drew Wiley]

Whaaat thh.. Paul ... variations of enlarger-like lens formulas (but with fixed aperture) have been used to make the printed circuits that go into those scanners. What are you accustomed to as an enlarging lens anyway, an old Coke bottle?

[paulr]

I've used the best apo lenses by both Schneider and Rodenstock. The one I kept and used for years was a 150 apo-componon hm.
The best 50 I used was the apo grandagon but I didn't do enough small negative printing to buy one.

Look at the MTF curves for any of these lenses. You lose a ton quality by running an image through this secondary optical system. Your eyes will tell you and the data published by Schneider and Rodenstock will correspond with this directly.

[Drew Wiley]

Pure unadulterated BS, Paul. You're suggesting that a basic scanner, which in fact itself
contains optical components, does not have any intermediate degradation? I'll bet you had
an alignment or carrier issue. If it can be picked up on a scanner - and I mean a damned
expensive one, it can easily be picked up on a decent enlarging lens.

[Bob Salomon]

You don't have to use a 50mm lens for 35mm. That's just generally the shortest focal length suitable. You can always use something longer, which will often perform better.

No, the shortest is a 40. The 50 is usually the best as a longer lens would not be optimized for the 35mm format and possibly for the magnification you need. The 40mm WA lets you make a 30% larger print at the same head position that the 50mm would require.

[Bob Salomon]

"The best 50 I used was the apo grandagon but I didn't do enough small negative printing to buy one."

Afraid you are confusing lenses. The Apo-Grandagon is made in 35mm, 45mm and 55mm and are wide angle taking lenses. The Apo Rodagon and the newer Apo Rodagon-N 50mm lenses are/were enlarging lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

Wide-angle options are rarely ideal in terms of illumination unless one has specially ground
a diffuser for the falloff (a good practice in general). For example, a 135 Rodagon might be
perfectly sharp for garden-variety 4x5 work (and I've owned em), but I would far rather
use a 180. Just like taking lenses. And I'd rather use a so-called MF enlarging lens like 75,
80, or even 105 for 35mm than one marketing specifically for 35mm. The only reason to
use a shorter length is if you can't get enough head room, which would rarely be the case
with 35mm unless you were trying to make huge prints from the tiny negs, and that would
introduce light source issues way more expensive than the lens question itself.

[Bob Salomon]

Wide-angle options are rarely ideal in terms of illumination unless one has specially ground
a diffuser for the falloff (a good practice in general). For example, a 135 Rodagon might be
perfectly sharp for garden-variety 4x5 work (and I've owned em), but I would far rather
use a 180. Just like taking lenses. And I'd rather use a so-called MF enlarging lens like 75,
80, or even 105 for 35mm than one marketing specifically for 35mm. The only reason to
use a shorter length is if you can't get enough head room, which would rarely be the case
with 35mm unless you were trying to make huge prints from the tiny negs, and that would
introduce light source issues way more expensive than the lens question itself.

Actually a 40mm Rodagon-WA will easily match the 50mm Rodagon. Just like the 120mm Rodagon-WA will match or exceed a 135 or 150 Rodagon. You simply just have to try one yourself to see.

[Drew Wiley]

Dingnabbit, Bob ... I've not only tried em ... I've got all kinds of the damn things, and custom diffusers for each. And one-of-a-kind custom enlargers to go with em! A 150 Apo
Rodagon lens is my go-to for 6x7 and 6x9! I use something in the 75 to 105 range for 35mm. Damn darkroom ceiling is 16ft lens.

[Sevo]

Actually a 40mm Rodagon-WA will easily match the 50mm Rodagon. Just like the 120mm Rodagon-WA will match or exceed a 135 or 150 Rodagon. You simply just have to try one yourself to see.

He explicitly mentioned illumination. And there, wide angle lenses may indeed have issues regardless how excellent they are. The smaller lens-film distance means that the rays of light from the edges of the film have a more shallow angle to the margins of the condenser or mixing box, sometimes past the designed coverage (or even past the hard margins). Originally, you could buy matching condensers and diffusers - but today, it can be near impossible to find the matching ultra-rare accessory for a rare enlarger and a no less rare lens on the used market.

[jose angel]

My only problem with 50mm lenses is that I have to use them on medium format enleargers... the bellows compression use to be near the limit, and the lens usually fit embedded in the lens stage, making the working room too tight to my taste. I have even built a recessed lens board for my 50mm Apo Rodagon N.

With 35mm film I also prefer a 75-80mm lens, just to avoid that "tightness". Obviously enlargement is then limited. With smaller enlargers, a 50mm lens is just perfect.