enlarger lens brands, much difference?

[brian steinberger]

I need to purchase an 80mm enlarging lens to print 6x6 negs. My question is, is there much difference in glass between Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider? There is so much difference in price, Nikon being the cheapest, and Schneider being the most expensive. I want a high quality lens, as I would like to produce high quality fine art prints. I'm using it in conjunction with a Beseler 45M with dichro 45s head. Any suggestions? Brian

[Bill_1856]

There is probably more difference between individual lenses than between brands. I'd suggest that instead of a $700 Ap0 80mm lens, you get a $200 105mm which should work just fine on your 4x5 enlarger, and give more uniform center-to-edge coverage both in sharpness and illumination. I've used Nikkor, Rodenstock, and Leica lenses and have found them all quite satisfactory.

[Craig Schroeder]

I've had all of them that you mention and I would guess that there would be as much variation within one brand as there is between them. I currently have an 80 Rodagon, 90 Schneider APO and a Schneider 100 Comp-S that are in that general category focal length. I'm not an accumulator normally, but have bought some darkroom equipment here and there that included them. Starting at 11X14, I can just barely discern some slight advantage to the APO but I almost think I'm imagining this sometimes, knowing what the thing costs and letting it intrude on my judgement. I use 645, 67 and 69 formats so I've rationalized keeping them but I think you could let a coin flip determine your choice for your 66 work. Be aware of the models that are 6 element designs within the brands you mention.

[brian steinberger]

So I could use a 105mm lens for 6x6 work, and that would provide better sharpness and illumination? Craig, what do you mean by the 6 element designs?

[Henry Ambrose]

I have the Schneider 90 APO and use it sometimes to make smallish (full frame on 8x10) 35mm prints. And I can't see any difference between the 90 Schneider and my 50 APO Rodagon - its that good.

I can definitely see a difference between the Schneider 90APO and a Nikkor 80mm on 6X7 at 11x14 print size. Used 90s seem to go for $300-400 and I think they are worth the money.

[John_4185]

Reading that enlarging lenses of the same make and type have significant variations in quality is really distressing because I need an new one. (Old lenses never die; but some idiot (me) will remove it to clean one day and it will fall out of his tremoring hand and bounce on the cement floor.)

So if lenses do vary so much, then the opinions of individuals' who used a lens would seem to be of questionable value; maybe they got a good one, maybe they got a rare lemon, and/or their standards are high/low. It is all too variable.

Does any company second-certify lenses as Linhof apparently did, or does any company allow a customer to purchase and return lenses until he finds a good one? Pretty stupid idea, eh?

If I hadn't arrived at a relatively comfortable state of living just as enlarging is dieing I would put myself in business buying up lots and certifying and second-branding the good lenses.

Al of which is to say what was inferred - I'm close to desperate for a good enlarging lens for 4x5. I prefer 150mm or better.

[Oren Grad]

JJ -

Some years back, Ctein wrote an enlarging lens roundup article for the old Camera and Darkroom magazine in which he asserted that, based on his own tests, modern enlarging lenses had poor quality control, especially in the area of centering. He reported that some shockingly high fraction of new lenses - I can dig out the article if you're interested and look up the exact number, but as I recall it was at least one third - came out of the box seriously decentered, and that this was as true of expensive "apo" lenses as it was of lesser lines.

Ctein's advice was indeed that you should buy an enlarging lens only from a vendor that would let you return or exchange it.

[Stephen Willard]

I have just started doing real big stuff with my 10x10 enlarger such as 30x40s, 20x60s, and so on. When you do big stuff all imperfections become very visible including dust, imperfections of the film, enlarger alignment, and imperfections of the enlarger lenses.

Based on my recent experiences I have decided to purchase the 1951 USAF resolution chats to quantify both my field and enlarger lenses. I initial had an older Rodenstock 240mm enlarger lens that I thought was sharp, but when I started doing big stuff it became apparent that the image degradation was unacceptable at the edges. I then purchased a new Nikon EL 210mm lens which showed significant improvement, but the fall off in image quality at the edges is still to much for me. I suspect that if you bought three lens of the same type and make there would be notable differences between them. Shortly, I intend to buy from B&H two of the best 210mm enlarger lens from each of the major manufactures. No small piece of change. I will then have 11 days to return them for a full refund. My intent is to quantitatively measure the resolving power of each lens using the 1951 USAF resolution chats. The one that wins I will keep. The others I will return.

A point of interest is that the film were tack sharp. My suspicions are the enlarger lenses at the edges are a week point in the overall processes.

Hope this helps.

[Craig Schroeder]

"Craig, what do you mean by the 6 element designs?"

There are 2 levels within the Schneider and Rodenstock lines (I forget as I write this about Nikon, but I believe they at least used to have a 4 element, lower priced option). The Componars are 4 element and Componons are 6. The Rogonars are 4 element and the Rodagons 6. There are also specialized variants for large print duty, copy duty and wide angle versions where enlarger height issues or comfortable working elevations are needed.

The only lens of the ones you are considering that I've had a good sampling of (8-10, I believe, between friends' and what have gone through my hands and a school darkroom that I taught in) is the Rodagon 80. There wasn't a clinker in the bunch and I would feel confident in recommending one of those from personal experience. I can't imagine you being disappointed in a Nikkor or Componon and have never personally encountered a bad example of these, either. I don't do extreme print sizes, so it's likely that I simply haven't pushed any of these to the point of showing off their deficiencies, I suppose.

[Oren Grad]

OK, I went back to my magazine collection just to make sure I was recalling Ctein's point correctly. Haven't found the roundup article yet, but I was able to locate an instance of the one-in-three claim in a 1990 review of a couple of Apo-Rodagons, one of which he found to be itself badly decentered. More recently, in an article "How to Pick an Enlarging Lens" in "The Magic of Darkroom Art", a special issue published by PHOTO Techniques in 1997, Ctein wrote the following:

It is very difficult to manufacture a perfect lens, with all elements precisely positioned and centered. Almost every lens I've ever examined has a slightly tilted or decentered element(s)... A little bit of misalignment is normal and won't seriously degrade performance. A premium grade lens should show less than 50% variation around its perimeter (e.g., resolution varying from 120 l/mm to 180 l/mm). Unfortunately, there is about a one-in-three chance of getting a lens that is more misaligned than that, and a one-in-ten chance of getting a real dog. So far as I can tell, all lens makers have this problem, and the performance of a well-made sample has nothing to do with the chances of getting a poorly-made one.

He also included a worthwhile reminder:

Before you go running off to exchange a lens, please make sure your complaint is legitimate. Remember that less than a 50% edge variation is acceptable, and would be very difficult to see in a print.... Double-check your tests, and especially your enlarger alignment, before harassing some poor, underpaid sales clerk because one or more corners of your prints are fuzzy.

It's a good article, has lots more useful advice. That special issue is still available from PHOTO Techniques if anyone's interested.

Per Craig's point, Nikon doesn't have a separate 4-element line, but the old 50mm f/4 EL-Nikkor was a 4-element lens, and the current 75mm f/4 is as well. I believe the other EL-Nikkors are all 6-element lenses. Although the 75/4 is specified to cover 6x6, I would recommend either the 80mm f/5.6 or 105mm f/5.6 (both of which I own, and both of which are 6-element lenses) instead.