je2a3
je
I have a Bogen X35A enlarger that came with a Voss 50/3.5 lens [39mm screw mount]. I'm satisfied with 5x7 prints but at 8x10 it doesn't seem to be sharp enough to my rookie eyes. Being a newbie in the darkroom/printing process I was wondering if I am better off looking for a better enlarger before worrying about the lens? Also are the Russian enlarger lenses any good? Like this for example: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29986&item=7520231281
Thanks in advance!
Joseph
Thanks in advance!
Joseph
R
Roman
Guest
I don't have any experiences with Russian enlarging lenses, so I can't comment on this one.
At 8x10 in. prints you're already getting into an area where little mistakes will be very visible on your prints. Is the enlarger aligned correctly (the planes of the negative, lens and paper have to be perfectly parallel)? Is it vibration-free (no heavy traffic going by outside your window? Do you wait for a few seconds between touching the enlarger for adjustments, and paper exposure?) Do you stop down your enlarging lens for 2 or 3 stops from wide open (that's the sweet spot of enlarging lenses)?
50/3.5 sounds like a 3 element lens (though it might be 4 element - I never heard of Voss lenses); for 8x10 from 35mm film, you should use at least a 4-elemnt lens, best would be 6-element.
I don't know about used enl. lens prices in the US, but here in Europe, a good older lens would cost about 30 to 40 Euros - I'm thinking of older EL-Nikkors, of older Schneider Componon 50/4 lenses (often found re-branded by Durst), Durst Neonons (made by Pentax), or Meopta Anarets (the best bang-for-the-buck option).
Before you get a new enlarger, I'd definitely try to get a better lens first!
Roman
At 8x10 in. prints you're already getting into an area where little mistakes will be very visible on your prints. Is the enlarger aligned correctly (the planes of the negative, lens and paper have to be perfectly parallel)? Is it vibration-free (no heavy traffic going by outside your window? Do you wait for a few seconds between touching the enlarger for adjustments, and paper exposure?) Do you stop down your enlarging lens for 2 or 3 stops from wide open (that's the sweet spot of enlarging lenses)?
50/3.5 sounds like a 3 element lens (though it might be 4 element - I never heard of Voss lenses); for 8x10 from 35mm film, you should use at least a 4-elemnt lens, best would be 6-element.
I don't know about used enl. lens prices in the US, but here in Europe, a good older lens would cost about 30 to 40 Euros - I'm thinking of older EL-Nikkors, of older Schneider Componon 50/4 lenses (often found re-branded by Durst), Durst Neonons (made by Pentax), or Meopta Anarets (the best bang-for-the-buck option).
Before you get a new enlarger, I'd definitely try to get a better lens first!
Roman
doubs43
Well-known
Roman's suggestions for the EL-Nikkor or Componon are excellent. If you don't have a grain-focusing device, the EL-Nikkor f/2.8 is the better choice for best focusing and it's plenty sharp when stopped down for exposure. If you have a grain-focusing device, the EL-Nikkor or Componon at a maximum f/4 are both outstanding.
Walker
Walker
There are four Leitz Focotar 50mm enlarging lenses on eBay at the moment...
http://search.ebay.com/focotar_W0QQfromZR40QQsojsZ1
http://search.ebay.com/focotar_W0QQfromZR40QQsojsZ1
TPPhotog
Well-known
I can recommend the Meopta lenses which are Czechoslovakian, I have the 50mm and 80mm. The Anaret S is especially nice.
Fred
Feline Great
I've used both the EL-Nikkor 50 F2.8 and the Durst Neonon 50 (for 35mm) and Neonon 80 (for 120 roll) stopped down to f8/f11 and can easily recommend either. The Nikkor has the edge only just at prints 12 x 16.
the_other_dirk
Member
I also use an Anaret S (an 80mm for medium format) and I'm very satisfied with it. It's f4.5, so you need a grain-focusing device, but that's less expensive than an f2.8 lense and you're really sure you're printing it as sharp as possible!
For 35mm I bought a Nikon EL-Nikkor f2.8 when I started doing photography. Was mighty expensive (I was only 15 at the time), but it's still a great performer (and I keep telling myself it only costs a few euros per year! That's the way to justify significant expenses in photography!)
For 35mm I bought a Nikon EL-Nikkor f2.8 when I started doing photography. Was mighty expensive (I was only 15 at the time), but it's still a great performer (and I keep telling myself it only costs a few euros per year! That's the way to justify significant expenses in photography!)
vicmortelmans
Well-known
I always wondered what's so special about enlarger lenses. I have done some enlarging (b&w) a couple of years ago, after I bought a really cheap atique second-hand enlarger. The lens on it could serve no more (dirt allover and inside and very dark in general), so I glued the smallest of one of those sets of macro-extension-tubes to the enlarger and mounted an excellent Takumar SLR M42-lens. Enlarging worked fine: I could focus at the right distance and if I wanted extra large or extra small enlargings, I mounted a lens with appropriate focus value...
what would I gain with a 'real' enlarger lens?
Groeten,
Vic
what would I gain with a 'real' enlarger lens?
Groeten,
Vic
peter_n
Veteran
I'm trying to put together a darkroom and I bought a lens a few months ago. I managed to get a Focotar but the recommendation for the EL-Nikkor f2.8/50mm is widely repeated on many forums. Apparently it is has higher contrast than the Focotar but it is much less expensive - pristine and LNIB samples go on eBay for <=$50.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Doug said:
These are outstanding enlarger lenses. I highly recommmend them. Next best would be a Schneider. El Nikkors have had, believe it or not, quality control issues. You got a good one or a bad one. I had a bad one - 50 f2.8 - that could not print anything over a 5x7.
Get a Focotar. You won't regret it.
Cheers,
Keith
Last edited:
TPPhotog
Well-known
Think of it as the glass on the front of your camera gets the image onto your film and the glass on the enlarger gets the image back off your film and onto paper. There's no point in one piece of glass being poor as it will mess up the rest of the process.vicmortelmans said:
As for having a real one in your case probably nothing as you have solved the problem with beautiful Takumar glass.
Btw I use a lovely Photax Paragon Universal enlarger these days and it produces pictures as good as any of the modern enlargers I have used
je2a3
je
The X35A is really a very simple device, looks like it was typically used in a high school photography class. But I've taken every precaution as Roman stated to make sure everything was in order [alignment, vibration and etc.]. Yes, I'm using a micro-grain focus finder.
I've actually experimented rigging an Industar 50 lens since I've read somewhere that long time ago hobbyists would use a Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 in a pinch in an enlarger. The results were a mixed bag - too much contrast [hard to control even with burning/dodging] and greater depth of field. I guess true enlarger lenses were also designed to have flatter DOF?
Since I'm doing exclusively 35mm B&W prints it is reassuring to know that a better lens is the way to go.
This is really a great site with nice and helpful people. Thanks for all the information and recommendations!
Joseph
I've actually experimented rigging an Industar 50 lens since I've read somewhere that long time ago hobbyists would use a Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 in a pinch in an enlarger. The results were a mixed bag - too much contrast [hard to control even with burning/dodging] and greater depth of field. I guess true enlarger lenses were also designed to have flatter DOF?
Since I'm doing exclusively 35mm B&W prints it is reassuring to know that a better lens is the way to go.
This is really a great site with nice and helpful people. Thanks for all the information and recommendations!
Joseph
I got a 50mm Focotar when I bought my Beseler enlarger, and it's been excellent. I've been tempted by faster enlarging lenses like the f/2.8 but focusing is touchy enough even at f/4.5, and trying to actually use the wider aperture would make alignment all the more important. I might find a 40mm useful for making larger enlargments.
I have an EL-Nikkor too, though, the 80mm f/5.6 that has a wide enough field for 6x7 negs, and this also has been very satisfactory. The short focal length is nice for keeping the head reasonably low for enlargements, though it can get a bit tight for small prints.
In extremely careful experiments to see just how good an enlargement from 110 size Verichrome Pan film could be, I got a Minolta 30mm f/2.8 C.E. Rokkor-X enlarging lens. Probably not too much call for one of those now!
But, relating to above comments about using camera lenses for enlarging, I never got a lens specifically for half-frame 35mm negatives, though I've used half-frame quite a bit. Instead, I placed my 8-element 1st version 35mm Summicron on top of an empty Beseler lensboard, set to f/8. This worked surprisingly well, enough that I never shopped for a "proper" enlarging lens for that format.
I have an EL-Nikkor too, though, the 80mm f/5.6 that has a wide enough field for 6x7 negs, and this also has been very satisfactory. The short focal length is nice for keeping the head reasonably low for enlargements, though it can get a bit tight for small prints.
In extremely careful experiments to see just how good an enlargement from 110 size Verichrome Pan film could be, I got a Minolta 30mm f/2.8 C.E. Rokkor-X enlarging lens. Probably not too much call for one of those now!
But, relating to above comments about using camera lenses for enlarging, I never got a lens specifically for half-frame 35mm negatives, though I've used half-frame quite a bit. Instead, I placed my 8-element 1st version 35mm Summicron on top of an empty Beseler lensboard, set to f/8. This worked surprisingly well, enough that I never shopped for a "proper" enlarging lens for that format.
R
Roman
Guest
About using camera lenses for enlarging:
With smaller prints and stopped down, this will be quite OK, but once you make larger prints, esp. with older lense you will see the differences in the corners, which will not be as sharp as the center - camera lense (with the exception of macro lenses) are not corrected specifically for flat field and close-up work.
Another problem I have heard about: esp. with condnsor enlargers you might damage a camera lenses, since the stuff used for cementing lens elements is not as heat proof as in enlarger lenses (and with longer exposure times the lens might heat up a bit) - I have not tested this myself, though.
In any case, why risk a camera lens and inferior results when you can get one of the above-mentioned lenses for a mere 20 to 40 bucks?
Roman
With smaller prints and stopped down, this will be quite OK, but once you make larger prints, esp. with older lense you will see the differences in the corners, which will not be as sharp as the center - camera lense (with the exception of macro lenses) are not corrected specifically for flat field and close-up work.
Another problem I have heard about: esp. with condnsor enlargers you might damage a camera lenses, since the stuff used for cementing lens elements is not as heat proof as in enlarger lenses (and with longer exposure times the lens might heat up a bit) - I have not tested this myself, though.
In any case, why risk a camera lens and inferior results when you can get one of the above-mentioned lenses for a mere 20 to 40 bucks?
Roman
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Bogen enlargers were good, I had a B22A and was happy with it.
Schenider and Nikkor are excellent lenses, but for amateurs like me there is another alternative that s selling cheap in used-stores.. Wollensak!
I got a Wollensak raptar 90mm lens for medium format and I have to say I'm impressed!
I had to make an adaptor for the 39mm thread (wollensak had a tad smaller thread) but the quality is great, sharp like a knife and awesome contrast.
I'm currently looking for a 50 mm lens for 35mm.
Schenider and Nikkor are excellent lenses, but for amateurs like me there is another alternative that s selling cheap in used-stores.. Wollensak!
I got a Wollensak raptar 90mm lens for medium format and I have to say I'm impressed!
I had to make an adaptor for the 39mm thread (wollensak had a tad smaller thread) but the quality is great, sharp like a knife and awesome contrast.
I'm currently looking for a 50 mm lens for 35mm.
je2a3 said:
je2a3
je
Roman said:
You're right, I've also read this somewhere that's why I made sure I didn't keep the light on for too long.
So far the list of lens possibilities is growing and I will have to narrow down to a few on my next eBay hunt.
Thanks!
Joseph
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
titrisol said:
I just bought what is more than likely the same lens, Wollensak Enlarging Raptar, 91mm/4.5, and right now a machinist friend is making a custom lensboard for fitting it to a LPL C7700; 90mm (give or take a millimetre or two) enlarging lenses are of course best for 6X7 format negatives but quite difficult to find new; Meopta makes one but availability might be a little tricky here.
There are many capable enlarging lenses made in the past by great optical houses which can be acquired inexpensively. In the US, Wollensak, Elgeet and others seem to be available easily, elsewhere those by houses like Ross, Taylor-Hobson Cooke, Wray, Dallmeyer, Friedrich, and others are worth considering too. The main issue, of course, is to get the lens physically mounted to the enlarger as some of them do not come with the standard Leica screw.
Now I still need to get rid of a couple of spare Ross Resolux lenses, any taker?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I have both a Focotar and a Meopta. The Focotar is a LOT better -- much more internal contrast.
Cheers,
Roger
Cheers,
Roger