Best enlarging lenses

[SParis]

Old thread now, but nobody mentioned the Fujinon EX series.
They come in 50mm, 75, 90, 105 and 135. They're superb; I found them better than the higher end big-three lenses, although I never tried any of the APO ones.
Fujinars are the lower-end Tessar types, and other suffixes, ES and EP are good, but not remarkable.

[Pere Casals]

They come in 50mm, 75, 90, 105 and 135.

Yes... but these are not LF lenses. The 135 may see some usage, for 4x5", to compensate fall-off or to overcome enlarger limitations, even shorter focals may be suitable for enlarging a crop, but EX series are for MF and 35mm format.

[SParis]

I mentioned the shorter Fujinons only for completeness, and to demonstrate that Fuji made a full line of top quality enlarging lenses. Of course the 90 and shorter lenses are not intended for large format.

I didn't mention Fuji's other 135mm lenses, the Fujinar-E, Fujinon-Es, and Fujinon-EP, all of which, as well as the EX, are intended for 4x5 enlarging. 135mm is a pretty standard focal length for 4x5.

I use a Fujinon-EX for all my 4x5 enlarging; I did some considerable testing before settling on it, and found it better than the Componon, Rodagon and El-Nikkor equivalents. As I said, I did not compare it to any of the ultra-high-end APO lenses.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/enlarge.htm

[Pere Casals]

135mm is a pretty standard focal length for 4x5.

IMHO it is pretty standard for amateur usage to overcome enlarger's limitations, and it's also suitable for small prints, and for crops. It's fall-off may also compensate the taking lens fall-off. ...But Pro/Advanced printer having a solid/big enlarger will usually/always prefer a 150mm or a 180mm for 4x5.

Absolutely no problem with a 8x10" print, because as you give bellows to focus (the small print) the circle grows and you take the center, but as you stress the lens for a large print then rays going to the corner are very inclinated, generating fall-off and lowering optical performance.

I did some considerable testing before settling on it, and found it better than the Componon, Rodagon and El-Nikkor equivalents. As I said, I did not compare it to any of the ultra-high-end APO lenses.

I've made some informal tests, I spent and afternoon testing, but I placed a USAF 1951 glass slide and I took the projection with a DSLR without the lens, projecting on sensor:









I also sandwiched the resolution target with a crazy sharp negatives, to see the resolving power margin, and I've also inspected that projection on photopaper under microscope.


Let me say what I found: What requires to be checked is the printer, much more than the lenses. My old&beaten rodagon 210 (serial 8,700,000, year 1973) was casting (at least) 145 lp/mm from the negative plane, outresolving by a fair amount what LF taking lenses take from scene.


All manufacturers make very good enlarging lenses, sporting a performance level that's beyond what negatives have, what most of the jobs may require and what most printers are able to handle, but there is a manufacturer, Rodenstock, that made specialized lenses for each magnification range, not speaking about cheap entry level, but about the Rodagon Pro range, they offered the Plain (no letter) Rodagon, the R and D (reproduction - duplication) , the N and the G. Making a lens optimal for a certain magnification ranges allows great prformance in demanding situations

A particular demanding situation is mural prints, you need performance at large aperture to have shorter exposure times, this is what a G does.

Sadly, many Rodagons found around have separations in the cementations.


There are 3 kinds of enlarger lenses: bad, regular and good, depending on the printer owning the lenses !

[jose angel]

Sadly, many Rodagons found around have separations in the cementations.

I do not want to contradict that statement but to share my opposite brand experience; I have stopped looking for Schneiders because I find few without fungi or coating issues (and the vast majority with schneideritis). So I think lenses are definitely showing their age.
---
Time ago I did test prints to compare several Schneiders, Rodenstocks and others I had, enlarger and process lenses, at 8x10" print size. I try to remember that almost all of the german 6 element lenses performed quite well, the older the lens the lower corner performance/ softer image wide open. On 8x10" print size and working apertures, differences were hard to be noticed, if any. Generally speaking, they were all usable to my standards. I was surprised that one of them I considered amongst the best I have (a very late version!), had to be quite closed down for field flatness. My reference lenses were Apo Rodagon N in different focal lengths.

Cheap lenses (Hansa, triplets, russian?, etc.), were average to poor performers, with slightly lower resolution and worst corner performance, some even difficult to achieve focus wide open. As said, old Componons were cheap and good (I tested some small mount 50 and 85mm versions).

And as Pere says, the operator must know how to achieve maximum sharpness. A second row cheap lens will provide perfectly good results on skilled hands, better than an astronomically priced top of the line lens in a beginner`s darkroom... so I'd say it's more important to get the most of it than to have the very best one.
---
Ooops, I just realizad it is an old thread...

[Greg]

In the late 1990s we were starting to work on a project that involved enlarging a collection of B&W EM glass plates. Acquiring a specialized enlarger for enlarging the glass plates, think it had a point light source but could be wrong, was not within the budget. But we were able to borrow and compare several brands of enlarging lenses. El Nikkor, Componon, V-Elmar, Apo, etc. Initially used an Omega D2V, but soon found that the alignment of the negative carrier, lens, and baseboard left much to be desired when moving the enlarger head up and down. Fortunately we were able to get a 4x5 Durst Laborator Ce 1000 which had excellent alignment characteristics. Of all the lenses we tried, an older all metal (135mm or 150mm can't remember which) El-Nikkor came out on top, all thought just barely. But then we were able to borrow a 120mm f/6.3 Macro Nikkor off a Nikon Multiphot and it blew out all of the "enlarging" lenses. Vaguely remember having to reverse the 120mm lens on the enlarger to match its configuration when used on the Multiphot. Biggest thing that we learned at the time was never to assume that all the components of an enlarger are in alignment, even when new out of the box.

[Bernice Loui]

Focusing on the "quality or performance" of the enlarge lens alone often discounts the rest of the optical enlargement system that can have extreme effects on the overall system results. This is why using the very best enlarger available properly set up can make a HUGE difference in the results.

As for the lens, that depends on image quality on the film to be enlarged-magnified and the ability of the material that image is projected on to receive and process the information in the image projected on it. B&W print paper does not have the same information handling abilities as film, using the very best optics possible projecting from a sheet of film with extreme amounts of information on to a print material that has no ability to properly receive and process all that information to be processed in the visual print.


Bernice

Initially used an Omega D2V, but soon found that the alignment of the negative carrier, lens, and baseboard left much to be desired when moving the enlarger head up and down. Fortunately we were able to get a 4x5 Durst Laborator Ce 1000 which had excellent alignment characteristics. Of all the lenses we tried, an older all metal (135mm or 150mm can't remember which) El-Nikkor came out on top, all thought just barely. But then we were able to borrow a 120mm f/6.3 Macro Nikkor off a Nikon Multiphot and it blew out all of the "enlarging" lenses. Vaguely remember having to reverse the 120mm lens on the enlarger to match its configuration when used on the Multiphot.

**Biggest thing that we learned at the time was never to assume that all the components of an enlarger are in alignment, even when new out of the box.**

[Tin Can]

If B&W paper is lower resolution than some film, what final product could be better?

Emulsion on glass?

Focusing on the "quality or performance" of the enlarge lens alone often discounts the rest of the optical enlargement system that can have extreme effects on the overall system results. This is why using the very best enlarger available properly set up can make a HUGE difference in the results.

As for the lens, that depends on image quality on the film to be enlarged-magnified and the ability of the material that image is projected on to receive and process the information in the image projected on it. B&W print paper does not have the same information handling abilities as film, using the very best optics possible projecting from a sheet of film with extreme amounts of information on to a print material that has no ability to properly receive and process all that information to be processed in the visual print.


Bernice

[Greg]

Forgot to mention that I once took a workshop in which George Tice was a guest lecturer. He did some enlarging demos. Remember that he did not like to use glass carriers for various reasons. He said that the negative would "pop" in a glassless carrier after being heated up by the enlarger lamp, so he would turn on the enlarger and wait maybe 30 seconds before checking the focus. When making the enlargement, he would turn on the enlarger and hold a cardboard card under the lens for 30 seconds before actually exposing the paper. He did two prints, one with and one without letting the negative pop before exposing the enlarging paper. Side by side there was a difference, all be it minimal as my memory serves me. He equated the difference as being equal to the difference between using a very good enlarging lens and an excellent one.

[Bernice Loui]

Curious that a sheet of film would "pop" in a glass carrier. Never in all the years of printing on a Durst 138 condenser enlarger with glass carriers has this happened. Problems with dust_absolutely, problems with newton rings_absolutely if anti-newton ring glass was not used, negative popping_never.

What I'll say about Durst 138 & 184 glass carriers for sheet film, they work, work really well if in good condition and properly set up. These Durst carriers essentially flatten any sheet of film put into them and holds then flat, no ifs, buts or questions. The routine would be to work like the dickens to remove all possible dust from All the surfaces involved (film, glass carrier), the set it up in the 138. Once it is set up that sheet of film could stay in the 138 for hours, projection illumination on for many minutes at a time to set up, make test prints and more. If that negative popped or shifted or other mechanical issues with the film carrier or enlarger, there would be extreme dis-content and dis-satisfaction with the whole system. This rarely happened_if ever. This why I'm so fond of the Durst 138, system and it's glass film carrier system. The thing simply works and is stable.

Used non-glass carriers in the 138, Bessler and other enlargers, the film DOES pop causing great grief resulting in writing them off as usable.

This is also a question of printing style, printer folks might not want to work for hours on a single sheet of film trying to achieve the print result in mind.


Bernice

Forgot to mention that I once took a workshop in which George Tice was a guest lecturer. He did some enlarging demos. Remember that he did not like to use glass carriers for various reasons. He said that the negative would "pop" in a glassless carrier after being heated up by the enlarger lamp, so he would turn on the enlarger and wait maybe 30 seconds before checking the focus. When making the enlargement, he would turn on the enlarger and hold a cardboard card under the lens for 30 seconds before actually exposing the paper. He did two prints, one with and one without letting the negative pop before exposing the enlarging paper. Side by side there was a difference, all be it minimal as my memory serves me. He equated the difference as being equal to the difference between using a very good enlarging lens and an excellent one.