EL lenses for macro purposes?

Photar

Down Under
Local time
2:52 PM
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
242
Location
Australia
Is anyone else using EL-Nikkor (enlarger) lenses for macro purposes? Please share your experience below.

I am using two lenses of slightly longer focal length, EL-Nikkor 135mm f/5.6 A and EL-Nikkor 150mm f/5.6 A, with a Leica bellows II and a Leica 543 195 Leica M extension ring. This rig gives me maximum magnifications of 1:2.15 (135mm) and 1:3.08, respectively. According to Nikon, these lenses were optimized for 1:10 to 1:2 (135mm) and 1:8 to 1:2 (150mm), so I am making the best use of their intended magnification range. Both of these lenses are beautifully made. They come with two mounts (L39 and M50). The L39 mount fits right into my Leica 16 590 bellows adapter. I plan to use these lenses for butterflies. Hopefully, I can post some pictures from the next butterfly season in a few weeks.

Note, there are hardly any good reasons for using such lenses instead of modern AF macro lenses. A modern macro lens is more convenient in practically any way. It's just about having fun with older accessories. Two small advantages: EL-Nikkor lenses and bellows units are often quite cheap, and the focal length of these lenses obviously remains unchanged whatever magnification is achieved, unlike modern inner focus macro lenses that exhibit a shorter than nominal focal length at close distance. Thus, enlarger lenses have a slight advantage in terms of working distance.

According to Michio Akiyama, these lenses were introduced in 1983 (the year of the FE2), which ranks them among the most recent enlarger lenses of any brand.

ELNikkorA_20221216_0016.jpg
 
Note, there are hardly any good reasons for using such lenses instead of modern AF macro lenses. A modern macro lens is more convenient in practically any way.

View attachment 4874840

What?

People like Leicas here, you think they are reasonable?

Reason ain’t gonna have a set-up like this!

Kiu
 
When I was putting together a rig for film scanning my first thought was my El Nikkor 80 mm f/5.6. I got an inexpensive adapter that allowed me to use on my Pentax bellows with its slide/film holder. I found that it wasn't as sharp as my Pentax 50 mm f/2.8 macro lens, especially in the corners. Both lenses are in excellent shape, never dropped or abused, and I had made many excellent prints with the 80 El Nikkor. Sample variation?
 
When I was putting together a rig for film scanning my first thought was my El Nikkor 80 mm f/5.6. I got an inexpensive adapter that allowed me to use on my Pentax bellows with its slide/film holder. I found that it wasn't as sharp as my Pentax 50 mm f/2.8 macro lens, especially in the corners. Both lenses are in excellent shape, never dropped or abused, and I had made many excellent prints with the 80 El Nikkor. Sample variation?
Interesting, not sure what explains this. If the lens worked well in the lab, I think we can rule out sample variation. I use an enlarger lens (Focotar-2 50mm) for all my scanning jobs (35mm and 6x7). I get excellent results. I also compared a 100mm enlarger lens (Focotar II 100mm) at portrait distance with a Macro-Elmar-M 90mm (sorry, @NIKON KIU). The enlarger lens was clearly better in resolving fine details, despite the stellar reputation of the 90mm lens.
 
Back
Top Bottom