which 50mm enlarger lens to get?

[rHytHm]

I have a 23C II beseler and I currently have 2 75mm and a 150mm enlarger lenses. Brand names are sad and not worth mentioning. As I save up I eventually want to get a 50mm first and eventually replace the 75 and 150's with better quality lenses.

Question is which 50mm to get for my 35mm negatives. Based on other stuff I read the 50mm nikkor 2.8 is worthy. Other than that I have only heard names such as rodenstock and schneider are also worthy brand names that yield good quality.

Being a leica user and some what of a collector how is the focotar? If I am printing off 35mm negatives to 8x10 and 11x14 how will the focotar perform?

What would you get in my shoes factoring in IQ, cost, unique look, and collectibility?

Thanks for any input.

 

[jja]

A recent Nikkor 2.8 will yield excellent results at a great price. Check here for an extensive discussion of this topic:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum43/56070-best-used-enlarger-lens-35mm.html

 

[photo4ls]

50mm enlarger lens

50mm enlarger lens

Nikkor lens

 

[Al Kaplan]

I'm still using the 50/2.8 El Nikkor that I bought when they first hit the market in 1962 or thereabouts, and I'm still happy with it. For a number of years I used a cheap 75mm Spiratone lens for my 6X6cm negatives. When Schneider introduced their they closed out their single coated ones at bargain prices. I bought an 80mm Componon mult-coated Componon-S lenses. Fot the occasional 6X7 or 6X9 negative I have a 105mm Minolta enlarging Rokkor.

A lot of times I'll choose the 75mm Spiratone over the 80mm Componon. The Componon will sharply resolve the grain of FP4 or Plus-X on an 11x14 print whereas the Spiratone gives you nice smooth tones while the subject still looks sharp enough.

 

[drewbarb]

The Rodenstock APO-Rodagon 50mm is the probably the best standard 35mm enlarging lens ever made. The Rodagon G series lenses are slightly better for very large enlargements- prints over 20 inches on the long side- but for standard printing, the APO-Rodagons are the best.

Realistically, though, the difference between the APO-Rodagons and other high-end lenses is slight. The other top contenders to look for are the regular (non APO) Rodagons, later Nikkors, and the Schneider offferings, especially any Componon or Componon-S lenses.

The alignment of your enlarger will have a bigger impact on the quality of your prints than the difference between any of the top lenses. Make sure your enlarger is carefully set up and that the negative stage, lens stage, and easel are all perfectly level and parallel. Do that and put just about any lens on, and your prints will look great.

 

[Al Kaplan]

And remember that only other photographers look at big enlargements from less than 25cm/10 inches away.

 

[mh2000]

I have the el nikkor 50/4 and am very satisfied with it, but the 50/2.8 is supposed to be a bit better, especially when opened up (stopped down they are supposed to be very close).

I just peeked at ebay and saw a buy it now 50/2.8 for $29 which looks to be a super bargain to me.

 

[Tom A]

The Apo Rodagon is indeed a very good lens. My personal favorite is the Focotar-2 50mm f4.5. Not that easy to find, but worth the money. I have been using one since 1975 when I got my "latest" Focomat 1c. Great lens for enlargements up to 16x20. I have two of them - one was recalibrated at Leica Midland for optimizing it for 11x14 (this was done in the days when Leica would do things like that). The earlier Focotar's are also very good, though check for haze and dust in them!
One of the unsung hero's is the 63mm f2.8 EL Nikkor's. With a Valoy II or just about any non-auto focus enlarger it also adds the benefit of having the enlarging head a bit higher up, due to the longer focal length. This eliminates the crashing of forehead into the lamp housing when you check focus. I use this lens on a point source Focomat IIc as I find it better at f2.8 than just about any other enlarging lens.
I also do have a Focotar-3, a 50f4.5 prototype for the Focotar 35 V enlarger (the one that looks like a mix-master kitchen utensil!). It was discarded because the factory felt that it was too slow for color work and the head had to be way up there for 11x14's on the baseboard.

 

[venchka]

What my Texas neighbor, jja, said.

Nikkor 50/2.8, latest version. Cheap! Cheap! Plenty good for all of your 35mm needs. B&H photo has a picture of the current version on their web page.

For 6x6 & 6x7: Nikkor 80/5.6, latest version. Looks just like the 50mm lens. Cheap! Cheap! Plenty good.

150mm Schneider Componon-S. Same as above.

 

[sepiareverb]

I've not used a Focotar (yet- I'm watching for one), but for 35mm have used the Nikkors, the Componon-S and the APO-Rodagon. Both the 50/2.8 and 63/2.8 Nikkors are excellent lenses. At 810 and 1114 you won't do wrong with either of them. I'd stay away from the 50/4- not nearly as good and with the 2.8's going so cheap these days not worth saving the $5. I use Nikkors for all MF and LF negs- from the 80/4 to a 240/5.6. They are excellent lenses indeed.

The Componon S has always made prints that look a bit funny to me, I can't quite describe what it is, but I just don't generally like them as much. I've had two different examples and both performed the same way, so I'm supposing it is the design. Just doesn't fit with my desires. I've recently started printing with the APO-Rodagon, and even in 810 prints there is a sparkle and clarity that betters the Nikkors. For 1620 prints it has become my first choice.

Much as one chooses a lens for shooting the choice of lens can influence the way your prints look, but that said, enlarger alignment must be dead nuts on to get the best out of any lens. If you don't align regularly worrying about which lens is moot.

 

[aparat]

My personal favorite is Schneider Componon-S 50mm f/2.8 but you should have excellent results with EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 or Rodenstock Rodagon 50mm - the APO version is going to cost you significantly more, but I doubt you will see improvement over the lenses I mentioned. For more complete (and excellent) review, check out Ctein's book "Post Exposure."

 

[Erik L]

well everyone mentioned thier favourites, what are some of the ones to avoid?

 

[venchka]

Not sure about ones to avoid. There are a few sleepers around. I have a 50/2.8 Durst lens that internet legend says was made by Pentax. I haven't used it yet. It might be ok.

I suppose that just about any lens that was supplied as part of an enlarger kit would be of lower quality than the Big 3 enlarger lens makers. Voss & Omegaron come to mind. I have a 50 & 75 Omgearon. Unused. I robbed the retaining rings to use on my Nikkors.

Earlier I mentioned the El-Nikkor 80/5.6. It could be an 80/4.0 as someone else mentioned. I guess I better look at it tonight. Not sure what the aperture is.

 

[Tom A]

Most enlarging lenses are good designs - the manufacturing leaves a bit to be desired! I did go through several, expensive, Apo lenses for 120film and also for 4x5 and several had alignment problems with elements.
In the end I bit the bullet and had two recollimated and centered - at a substantial cost (late 70's and $200+ each). Turns out that about 1 in 3 of this manufacturers lenses shipped had this problem. If you are paying premium prices for APO lenses - have a "money back" or return policy included in the deal - and check the lens carefully when you get it.

 

[ZeissFan]

I agree. I had a very old Wollensack with cleaning marks, and it knocked out very sharp prints.

I even have a Spezial Anastigmat from the 1930s that has a fixed aperture (f/4.5), and those prints are sharp as well.

More recently, I used an El-Nikkor that was very nice. Currently, I have a Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-S.

 

[tedwin]

I have been using a 50mm f4 nikon, and a 80mm f5.6 nikon. Had my eye out for ages for a rodagon and finally found one. Its not made as nicely as the Nikons and I can't see any difference in prints (actually between any of them) provided not used wide open.

So I can recommend all of the above.

I tend to make small prints (up to 8X10) and find that using the 80mm gives me a good exposure duration at a preferable f stop due to the height of the enlarger head.

For example, when making a smaller print, the 50mm is so close to the board that it has to be stopped down completely (not good) in order to get a long enough exposure for complete control. Plus its 'in the way' Whereas with the 80mm the extra distance gives me 2 stops from wide (perfect) and exposure in the range of 10 to 25 seconds (perfect for me) Worth considering.

 

[Dogman]

I've used a Leitz 50/4.5 Focotar and a Nikkor 50/2.8 and I was very satisfied with the results from both. Then a "like new" Rodenstock Rodagon 50/2.8 (non-APO) that was a bargain turned up and I found it to be an even sharper lens. There's not much of a market for enlarging lenses these days so you should be able to find a good used lens at a very good price.

"Voss & Omegaron come to mind. I have a 50 & 75 Omgearon. Unused."

Me too. I did try to use the 75mm Omegaron and soon thereafter ordered an 80mm Componon-S.

 

[fotobiblios]

Fujinon EX 50f2.8, Nikkor 63f3.5 or Kowa 65f3.5 (they are the maker responsible for Computar in USA).

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I also do have a Focotar-3, a 50f4.5 prototype for the Focotar 35 V enlarger (the one that looks like a mix-master kitchen utensil!).

The 50mm Focotar-3 glass is identical with the Focotar-2. The main difference between them was the inclusion of a more modern housing with illuminated f-stops. The Focotar-2, one needs to recall, was intended not just for enlarging but was considered more a copy/repro objective. The Focotar-3 idea was to make something specific to enlarging.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

My college darkroom had EL-Nikkors; when I moved to the Schneider Componon-S's I really saw a jump in quality. Later, when I got paranoid about enlarger alignment, I saw another jump in quality with the same lenses. If I were going to try something else it would be the Rodenstock APO-Rodagon 50mm. As I learned, though, to really get the best out of the lens, you have to give some thought to alignment of the light/film/lens/paper stages. It is the very last stage in the process, but it seems silly to blow a lot of money on expensive equipment and obsess about selection of the right developer only to give away your image quality in the final gasp before you produce the print.