Durst M601 and LPL C6700. Which one for 35mm B & W?

[fixbones]

Hi,

I may have a chance to purchase one of this 2. Durst is as new while LPL C6700 comes with el nikkor 50/2.8 lens.
Which one do you guys think would be better suited for 35mm B & W? I don't plan on colour and do not shoot other formats.

Durst M601 is a condenser while the C6700 is a dichroic/diffuser. Am i right?

Any advice is appreciated. I am really new at this and am planning to try some wet printing.

 

[tomalophicon]

I don't know about the LPL but I have the M601.

For 35mm, make sure it has the recessed lensboard 'Setopla' (there may be other ones with different names) otherwise you won't be able to get large prints. It's the round bit of metal the lens is screwed into. Also check the condenser lenses inside the head for their condition.

If you want to go bigger than 35mm you'll need the '80' condenser lenses. with 35mm you can use one 50 and one 80. It's sort of hard to explain.

The glass negative carrier is very handy in my opinion too. not all of them have one though I don't think.

Again, if you want to go medium format you will need a longer enlarger lens, like 80mm.

It's a good enlarger in my opinion, though I've only just started using it after using a Kaiser for a long while.

 

[kully]

I had that LPL model with a 50/2.8 lens. It was nice to use and I only gave it away as I didn't have room for a darkroom.

The only thing that niggled me was having to set the knobs for different grades - I would have preferred a filter tray (although I'm sure others would prefer the opposite).

 

[fixbones]

Thanks. Will contact the seller regarding the recessed lens board. Enlarger comes with a pretty basic Rodenstock Trinar. Will source for an el-nikkor.

 

[tj01]

I think 50 EL might be too wide for printing (8X10). I suggest you don't pass up on the Durst, and get an 80mm on top of it.

 

[zumbido]

The Durst is a nice unit, but I find:

1. Parts are hard enough to get at a price I'm willing to pay that I usually just improvise. I mean, really, why would I pay $50-$80 for an obscure lens board when I could have spent an extra $50 at the outset to get an enlarger that is still supported and serviced?

2. Adjusting it for level is an all-manual proposition. Some people say it "can't" be adjusted, which of course is hogwash anytime the head, column, and baseboard can be detached from each other. But it doesn't have mechanisms for adjustment. If it's out of plumb, you'll be looking at shimming or metal grinding or etc.

3. Newton's rings are a plague. You'll want anti-newton glass for the negative carrier unless you have a proper clean room for printing. But if you have that, I'm not sure why you'd be bothering with an old unsupported unit like the M601.

I enjoy mine because someone threw it in for free when I bought a bunch of trays and reels and whatnot for $60. I wouldn't go out and buy another one though. Right now I'm using it more often as a copying/"scanning" stand (with my dslr) than for printing.

 

[pau3]

I cannot comment on the Durst, but I have plenty of experience with the LPL.

I have a LPL C6700 is small and straighforward. Unlike kully, I prefer to handle knobs
rather than change filters in a drawer, which, by the way, allows to select a intermediate grades. The 50/2.8 el-nikkor is a good as anything else (except
the apo-something), if it's in good shape. Also, if you end up using 6x6 or 6x7,
you only need to plug a 80mm, without any modification to the enlarger.
The only non standard thing I would recomend is a universal glass carrier,
to replace the glassless one. Others will advice against this.

The only real drawback of the LPL is that it cann't reach real grade 5 contrast,
but at maximum contrast is contrasty enough for me.

Best,
Pau

 

[wakarimasen]

Any other comments on the LPL C6700
Is it a good choice for a beginner?