Enlarge lens 150 vs 135

[Greg]

Maybe the older El-Nikkor 135 has some cult following ?

Definitely a following on this end. Over the years have used probably no less than five different 135mm enlarging lenses - Schneider, Rodenstock, etc. For me my choice is an older El-Nikkor heavy all metal construction, 12 aperture blades, and distinct aperture stops. My 65mm El-Nikkor has always been my choice for enlarging 35mm negatives. When I was working as a professional printer, printing 35mm negatives I preferred using the 40mm on a Leitz Focomat because it was just so much faster to use. Now retired, I only use my 65mm Nikkor for printing the 35mm negatives that I shot in the 1970's. Old habits die hard, and maybe they just should...

[Mark J]

63mm ?
I have the 63mm f/2.8 'N', the earlier one I think was f/3.5 ?

[xkaes]

Thanks, I dug out some of the info on that one.
It's interesting that it's a double-gauss type construction, unlike all of the other premium brands which are Plasmats. I wonder if the 105 is the same.

Since all the Fujinon EX lenses are 6/6 design, I assume that is the case. I know the 50mm f2.8 is.

[xkaes]

63mm ?
I have the 63mm f/2.8 'N', the earlier one I think was f/3.5 ?

The 63mm f2.8N had a list price that was 65% higher than the 50mm f2.8N.

[Mark J]

Interesting. I sold a Nikkor 50/2.8 N recently but kept the 63mm. I bought an Apo-Rodagon N 50 at a good price. I should really check performance of the 63mm against this, for interest.
It's an interesting construction, half Gauss, half Plasmat. Maybe that's why I keep it ? !

[Drew Wiley]

The 63 El Nikkor certainly has a better reputation than the 50mm version. But I like a longer working distance and zero falloff toward the corners, so I actually use a 105 Apo Rodagon N for 35mm work - WAY better optically than the old 50mm and 105 Componon S lenses. I also picked up a dirt cheap 75/f4 El Nikkor - certainly not one of their better lenses; you get focus shift before a stop down, and it's a wretched lens for anything larger than 6X6 negs; but for 35mm, you're only using the center of the optic, and in that mode it works quite well.

Of course, none of these comparisons have any relevance unless you're using precise carriers with glass on both sides.

[Alan Townsend]

For the argument, all lenses on an Omega D2.


If the 135mm focal length is the normal standard for the 4x5 and the 150mm is the normal "long end" for the 4x5 format.. And with botch of them able to cover 16x20, and even i believe 24x20 enalrgements on the baseboard Is there any actual benefit to a particular focal length

I would say 135mm better for lower magnification (1.5-3x) and 150mm better for higher magnification. This is because at lower magnifications the lens is farther from the film so both have similar coverage angles used that way. More important to check the optimal magnification for particular enlarger lenses.

Alan Townsend

[Mal Paso]

The 80mm El Nikkor was the breakthrough lens according to Nikon. There is an article on their site about it.

[Mark J]

Alan you are more or less correct, though a 135 is generally fine to 6x. I have spent a lot of time looking at datasheets recently for my own purposes ( to enlarge to 16x20" ) but for Schneider/Rodenstock a 150 is really better for bigger magnifications although the penalty is the bigger throw distance. I don't know for sure what Nikon or Fuji can do, they have never published their MTF data.

[monochromeFan]

Well, bigger isnt always better for magnification. Learned the hard way 95mm enlarging lens on 23cII requires the head at full height to almost fill an 8x10 sheet of paper. A 50mm lens, with same 35mm negative can do that at 12" of column height.