enlarger lens brands, much difference?

[Kendrick Pereira]

Oren, could you enlighten me on what is meant by variation around its perimeter Does this mean the perimeter of the print [image] rather than of the lens?

It's interesting to see that comments posted are still strongly reminiscent of what I used to hear at the camera club I belonged to regarding lenses for the 35 mm format around 1980. Two fellow members of the club decided to upgrade themselves from 4 element to 6 element enlarging lenses. The 4's were, if memory serves, a Schneider Componar and the Minolta equivalent. Both bought Schneider Componons. They were puzzled by the results and after putting their heads together agreed that the new 6's were both far inferior to the old 4's. The Minolta was by a long chalk the best of the four lenses [all four were 50 mm focal lenses designed for 35 mm format]. They returned the Componons and were given replacements without any fuss, which they both found to be excellent. The moral: "Ctein's advice was indeed that you should buy an enlarging lens only from a vendor that would let you return or exchange it."

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

"The most likely reasons for a user to not getting results that are to be expected with a new lens is an enlarger out of alignment, the use of a glassless carrier, the making of a print outside the optimal magnification range or outside optimal aperture or from a less then optimal negative or slide."

Not to put too fine of a point on it, everyone is putting too fine of a point on it. Try critically checking alignment at different heights on your enlarger, they all wobble. To be this critical, you would need to re-align the enlarger every time you change head height. To be this critical, you would need to be enlarging onto Kodak Aerocon-II duplicating film, some are rated to 500lpm. Too bad paper only holds about 25lpm.

I would agree with Ctein and only buy from a dealer that allows return exchange. They all make FINE lenses.

[Jim Rice]

Just to add to the non-information: I used to have a 105 EL-Nikor that I used for 6x7. It was the first one B&H sent me and was brutally sharp.

[Shen45]

I have a draw full of enlarging lenses and these have beeen aquired over time because I have been given them or they came with pieces of equipment.

I have battled with "quality" all my photographic life but recently that all changed. A DeVere 504 came on the market at a "crazy" price so I bought it. I have a D2 which I have had for many years. I have made many excellent images with thiis enlarger, however the difference between the images produced by the two enlargers was subtle but apparent. Nothing to do with different light source - it was all to do with rigidity of total construction.

The Devere came with a beautiful set of Rodenstock Rodagon lenses 50,80,105, and 135.

I also have a 150 Componon [Older silver], a 135 Beseler Color pro and a 60 year old 161 Ektanon.

In 6x6 format I have the 80 Rodagon, an 80 El Nikkor and a 75 Ektar.

Used in the DeVere each of the lenses produces a print no different in visual resolution to the others, when used at the optimum aperture. Each lens does though impart its own character to the image.

When used in the Omega there are visible differences in the lenses caused by very minor problems with alignment. I am able to align the Omega quite well and for 95% of images small differences are not noticeable.

My take is that most lenses are very good but can be let down by optical alignment of the enlarger.

I will leave you to ponder which 2 lenses are by far my favourite lenses.

[Michael Newberry]

Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but didn't Nikon switch their 4 element EL lenses over to 6 elements back in the mid 80's? I've used a 150mm Nikkor for some time and it is razor sharp, although I haven't tested it against other lenses side by side. My main addition to this discussion is that the enlarging paper/developer can also give a difference in sharpness. For example, I switched to Seagull after noticing that the same neg printed substantially sharper using Dektol compared with Ilford or Agfa papers. If comparing lenses side-by side, be sure to use the same paper and developer.

Michael

[Andre Noble]

You know, despite what you're getting from responses above, there are differences in quality between even the top enlarger lenses.

Remember, some people wear thick glasses and some have 20/10 vision. Some can enjoy all the posiitve in their photograohy , some are obsessive complusive. (I'm the latter in both).

I went from a Ctein-vaunted 6 element 50 EL-Nikkor to another Ctein recomended Rodenstock Apo Rodagon 50 I got off EBay like new for $70. The improvement was obvious immediately in y 8x10 B&W prints: Sharper, better eveness of illumination to edges of the 35 frame, subtlety of contrast. I judged these based on B&W prints. There was nothing wrong with the Nikkor. I had used it for 7 years and was happy. But I was not expecting the imrovement I got moving to the Apo Rodenstock. My initial motivation was just to get a cuter looking lens that had the do-hicky illuminated aperture setting.

I am not a lens brand snob. Please don't get me wrong.

I own Nikon 35mm and LF lenses that are second to none in sharpness.

But Knowing just how good the German enlarging lenses are, I see no reason to go with Nikon when you can get Apo Rodagon lenses cheap off Ebay..

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Andre_941, did you have one example of each lens? If so, you can't draw any conclusion about lenses other than your two with any confidence.

[Bob Salomon]

Andre,

There are Apo Rodagon lenses and there are Apo Rodagon-N lenses. There is a world of difference between them. Which did you get?

[Andre Noble]

I got the Apo Rodagon 50 f2.8 (the non-N version). It's all I need. It's wonderful.