The flat field is not the problem using enlarger lenses for photography, the issue is the general design. Normal camera lenses are optimized for best performance at great distances, whereas enlarger lenses for rather obvious reasons are optimized for quite short distances. Enlarger lenses can be used very effectively in close-up photography. As far as quality goes, the real bargain is the Durst Neonon. They were made by Pentax for Durst, who at the time Durst said they could not find enlarger lenses of high enough quality to fit their enlargers. Photo Technique magazine did a large enlarger lens test and they came out equal top with the famous Schneider Componon S lens. Another worthy mention is the Minolta CE Rokkor lens. Basically, any of the six-element lenses perform really well. The extra quality of apochromatic lenses will show on really large enlargements but there are many other things that will affect the quality of your enlargement, starting with the taking lens. One cheap hack is the Paterson focus finder which I have used for many years, a wonderful piece of kit. Well, I have finished my rant. I rather did enjoy the video and well done for helping keep darkroom work alive. More, please!
There are an number of representations here which are not very accurate. For example, El-Nikors are not all the same design of lens. The 50mm 4.0 and 75mm 4.0 were "budget" 4 element lenses which do not yield the quality expected from the line. The statement that enlarging lenses perform best if shut down to f 8.0 may have been true with cheap lenses from the 1950s, but hasn't been true for top quality lenses for more than 50 years. Example: the 50mm 2.8 El-Nikor (any version) reaches its best resolution and contrast about half way between f4 and 5.6. Closed down further significantly reduces performance. Other lenses of similar specifications perform about the same way. All of the talk about the number of leaves in the iris effecting the sharpness of the lens is nonsense. (There is no "bokah" in enlarging lenses.) " Nikon lenses are too sharp'; "the newer Nikons are less sharp" Total nonsense.
Frankly, I stopped watching about 70% thru the video the first time. Having rewatched this mess, I find there are a few points he totally skips regarding selection of a lens. First, no major lens maker has made a new lens in over a decade, so any lens you buy is going to be "not new". Secondly, his push of "apochomatic" lenses is unwarranted. Generally, they cost three times as much as a quality non-apo lenses and yield almost no optical advantage outside of maybe a one stop setting, and then very little - not worth it. Finally, most major makers, German and Japanese, made two or more lines of enlarging lenses: one being their best quality and the lesser being of lower quality design, imaging, and price. For example, his favorite Schneider made three lines or grades over the years, the Componon, a high quality, 6 element design, optically as good as anything on the market. They also made the Componar, which came in 3 and 4 element designs, quite inferior to most others and useful only for very small enlargements. So, you cannot rely on a maker's name, but you have to know the lens builds which each made. The exception is Nikon, which for a short time made decent but inferior 75mm and 50mm, both f.4, and no other "budget" compromised El-Nikkors. As for the Schneider Componons, the last "S" model, has a body of molded plastic to save money. One of England's most respected darkroom workers in his book describes having bought two, 50mm and 80mm, and had the lens literally split in half at the seams, with Schneider trying to evade their warranty. He dumped his Componons in favor of Meopta lenses made in the Czech Republic, which proved to be of equal optical quality and much better assembled. The nice thing today is that if you shop hard, you can still get superb enlarging lenses from the 1980-90s for a small faction of what they cost new. Brands not normally associated with enlarging lenses but which made excellent lenses, perhaps not sold primarily in the US: Pentax, Minolta, Meopta, Fuji. (I last replaced most of my El-Nikkors with Fujinon EX lenses for routine use.)
I use Schneider, El Nikkor. and Fujinon enlarging lenses but I use them with a bellows with a 2 way focusing rail for macro photography. It is a Spiratone bellows and rail, if that tells you anything about how long I have been doing that! I couldn't afford the Nikon bellows at the time and the Spiratone has worked just fine.
enlarger lenses are actually good as shooting lenses. they might be not perfect at infinity because they are designed to work in close focus, and for any close focus photography they are awesome. (all modern lenses have flat planes of focus and projection. if lens are not flat-field one then you can't shoot a brick wall with it. the only difference in optics between regular lens and enlarger lens is preferred focusing distance.)
Thanks for the video. I am a beginner. In the field of digital and analogue photography. I am building a darkroom. I have already made a few prints. At the first few I thought that is not that difficult. But the longer When I started working on it, I discovered that it is a real profession.
His discussion of the 50mm El-Nikkor lenses is lacking some info and wrong in other respects. The 50mm 2.8 is a 6 element lens; the 50mm 4.0 is a 4 element lens, and its performance in much inferior to the 2.8. The 50mm 4.0 was made along with a 4 element 75mm to target a low priced market, selling for about half their 6 element alternatives. His error is the optimum aperture for using the 50mm 2.8. It is optimum about half way between 4.0 and 5.6. Smaller apertures reduce performance progressively. Everyone will have their favorite line of enlarging lenses. While I used El0Nikkors from 50mm to 135mm for decades, I found my particular copy of the 80mm very disappointing. About 15 years ago I replaced it with a 90mm Fujinon, which is spectacular with color enlargements. Thereafter, I added a range of Fujinon-EX models, and they have displaced my Nikkors. One problem using Fujinon lenses is that Fuji never marketed them strongly, and there are very few available in the used market.
The 80 mm is best for 6 x 6 , 6 x 4.5 and 4 x 4 nnegatives For 6 x 7 and 6 x 8 the 90 mm enlarger lens suits best. A 105 mm lens is best for 6 x 9 , 6 x 8 and 6 x 7 negaatives. For 90 x 120 mm and 4 x 5 inch a 150 mm well be better than a 135 mm lens. APO lenses are for colour printing. Do not forge the Betavaron lens. A lot of 6 x 6 photographers use the Planar 80 mm as a enlarger lens
Apo has advantage in black and white as well- especially in splitgrade and with longer focal lenght. White or combi of magenta/yellow light contain different wavelengths and are focused better with apo correction
You are wrong about using it for taking lens. It's a good solution I'm working on that. With helicoidal adapters, for exemple the 62mm El-Nikkor is working great on full frame. I've tried and Angénieux 48mm f4, very good results too. Even with my 1.5x anamorphic on the front, there is no vignetting.
Absolutely. Some of the most highly corrected lenses are flat field. My 55 micro nikkor makes an outstanding camera lens but also works very well for copying, which is flat field work. I'm currently looking for a Rodenstock Rodagon 105mm f/5.6 lens for use on my bellows. It's known to be very sharp with less chromatic aberration than the Nikon equivalent.
I found it interesting that you said the old glass wasn’t as good as the new and I respect your experience and knowledge, however this isn’t the same in Camera lenses, or should I say it’s not a rule of thumb, yes it depends on what you are trying to achieve in the photograph and again I suppose it’s what look you are going for in the print or darkroom. Very interesting though!
Hi...!! I have a Meopta Opemus 5 (35mm film B&W). What do you think about Meopta Anaret 50 mm f:4.5 lens...? I have the 80 mm but I want larger copies! Thanks!! Fron Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Hey! I just came across your video. Since there is not much knowledge available so it is much appreciated. And also have a question. Is there any difference between the old types of the EL-Nikkor 80mm and the new (er)?
Not much. the newer version probably has a better coating, and the new barrels will have lighted apertures. I have several El-Nikor lenses, but for some reason I never really liked my 80mm. I bought it used, and it may have a problem I didn't notice.
What about the Focotar 2? Everyone says it's the best lens for the Focomat 1C, which is what I have. I also have two El-Nikkor 50mm lenses. Besides Ephraums's test of a scratched developed leader, and judging prints from each with my own eyes, I have no idea what to do. Is it the case that maybe, for important prints, I need to do them with both lenses to make the final call?
Schneider Componon S lens is great. Schneider Componar pretty poor Durst Neonon is great Durst Neotar no so good. Diffuser enlargers give lower contrast than Condenser enlargers. I use 100mm f4. 5 Schneider Componon S lens for 6x6,6x7 and 6x9. I use a Schneider Componon S 50mm f2. 8 lens for 35mm which has aperture illumination.
Can somebody help me? I want to do the oposite of enlarge. I want to reduce an image and project it to a photosensitive coated sheet . Do i need the same lens? Do anyone knows the name of the process?
Very good modern lenses, and tend to sell for less than others. They made a 30mm for half frame and subminature which is the best lens of its type every made.
No. Lenses for focal lengths up to 105mm tend to be the same thread size, 39mm, a/k/a "Leica thread". Lenses from the German makers made in the 1960s and earlier were mostly 25mm.
- nope. (i am Russian) most of Russian enlarger lenses are obsolete. they are 4-5 element designs from 30's-40's. if you want a decent enlarger lens look for those what are 6-8 element symmetric plasmat design. rodenstock, schneider, fuji, nikon (later ones if possible) enlarger lens in not a good thing to experiment with. take the best one you can buy.
The flat field is not the problem using enlarger lenses for photography, the issue is the general design. Normal camera lenses are optimized for best performance at great distances, whereas enlarger lenses for rather obvious reasons are optimized for quite short distances. Enlarger lenses can be used very effectively in close-up photography. As far as quality goes, the real bargain is the Durst Neonon. They were made by Pentax for Durst, who at the time Durst said they could not find enlarger lenses of high enough quality to fit their enlargers. Photo Technique magazine did a large enlarger lens test and they came out equal top with the famous Schneider Componon S lens. Another worthy mention is the Minolta CE Rokkor lens. Basically, any of the six-element lenses perform really well.
The extra quality of apochromatic lenses will show on really large enlargements but there are many other things that will affect the quality of your enlargement, starting with the taking lens. One cheap hack is the Paterson focus finder which I have used for many years, a wonderful piece of kit. Well, I have finished my rant. I rather did enjoy the video and well done for helping keep darkroom work alive. More, please!
There are an number of representations here which are not very accurate. For example, El-Nikors are not all the same design of lens. The 50mm 4.0 and 75mm 4.0 were "budget" 4 element lenses which do not yield the quality expected from the line. The statement that enlarging lenses perform best if shut down to f 8.0 may have been true with cheap lenses from the 1950s, but hasn't been true for top quality lenses for more than 50 years. Example: the 50mm 2.8 El-Nikor (any version) reaches its best resolution and contrast about half way between f4 and 5.6. Closed down further significantly reduces performance. Other lenses of similar specifications perform about the same way. All of the talk about the number of leaves in the iris effecting the sharpness of the lens is nonsense. (There is no "bokah" in enlarging lenses.) " Nikon lenses are too sharp'; "the newer Nikons are less sharp" Total nonsense.
Frankly, I stopped watching about 70% thru the video the first time. Having rewatched this mess, I find there are a few points he totally skips regarding selection of a lens. First, no major lens maker has made a new lens in over a decade, so any lens you buy is going to be "not new". Secondly, his push of "apochomatic" lenses is unwarranted. Generally, they cost three times as much as a quality non-apo lenses and yield almost no optical advantage outside of maybe a one stop setting, and then very little - not worth it. Finally, most major makers, German and Japanese, made two or more lines of enlarging lenses: one being their best quality and the lesser being of lower quality design, imaging, and price. For example, his favorite Schneider made three lines or grades over the years, the Componon, a high quality, 6 element design, optically as good as anything on the market. They also made the Componar, which came in 3 and 4 element designs, quite inferior to most others and useful only for very small enlargements. So, you cannot rely on a maker's name, but you have to know the lens builds which each made. The exception is Nikon, which for a short time made decent but inferior 75mm and 50mm, both f.4, and no other "budget" compromised El-Nikkors. As for the Schneider Componons, the last "S" model, has a body of molded plastic to save money. One of England's most respected darkroom workers in his book describes having bought two, 50mm and 80mm, and had the lens literally split in half at the seams, with Schneider trying to evade their warranty. He dumped his Componons in favor of Meopta lenses made in the Czech Republic, which proved to be of equal optical quality and much better assembled. The nice thing today is that if you shop hard, you can still get superb enlarging lenses from the 1980-90s for a small faction of what they cost new. Brands not normally associated with enlarging lenses but which made excellent lenses, perhaps not sold primarily in the US: Pentax, Minolta, Meopta, Fuji. (I last replaced most of my El-Nikkors with Fujinon EX lenses for routine use.)
Man, talk about inspiring.. at 43 I'm diving in head first with a darkroom set up..I've never been so excited for something
I use Schneider, El Nikkor. and Fujinon enlarging lenses but I use them with a bellows with a 2 way focusing rail for macro photography. It is a Spiratone bellows and rail, if that tells you anything about how long I have been doing that! I couldn't afford the Nikon bellows at the time and the Spiratone has worked just fine.
enlarger lenses are actually good as shooting lenses. they might be not perfect at infinity because they are designed to work in close focus, and for any close focus photography they are awesome.
(all modern lenses have flat planes of focus and projection. if lens are not flat-field one then you can't shoot a brick wall with it.
the only difference in optics between regular lens and enlarger lens is preferred focusing distance.)
I shoot with a rodentstock too on my Sony a6000 and it's pretty good to be honest.
Paused video after he said this, did not agree. Some work well.
Thanks for the video. I am a beginner. In the field of digital and analogue photography. I am building a darkroom. I have already made a few prints. At the first few I thought that is not that difficult. But the longer When I started working on it, I discovered that it is a real profession.
His discussion of the 50mm El-Nikkor lenses is lacking some info and wrong in other respects. The 50mm 2.8 is a 6 element lens; the 50mm 4.0 is a 4 element lens, and its performance in much inferior to the 2.8. The 50mm 4.0 was made along with a 4 element 75mm to target a low priced market, selling for about half their 6 element alternatives. His error is the optimum aperture for using the 50mm 2.8. It is optimum about half way between 4.0 and 5.6. Smaller apertures reduce performance progressively. Everyone will have their favorite line of enlarging lenses. While I used El0Nikkors from 50mm to 135mm for decades, I found my particular copy of the 80mm very disappointing. About 15 years ago I replaced it with a 90mm Fujinon, which is spectacular with color enlargements. Thereafter, I added a range of Fujinon-EX models, and they have displaced my Nikkors. One problem using Fujinon lenses is that Fuji never marketed them strongly, and there are very few available in the used market.
The 80 mm is best for 6 x 6 , 6 x 4.5 and 4 x 4 nnegatives
For 6 x 7 and 6 x 8 the 90 mm enlarger lens suits best.
A 105 mm lens is best for 6 x 9 , 6 x 8 and 6 x 7 negaatives.
For 90 x 120 mm and 4 x 5 inch a 150 mm well be better than a 135 mm lens.
APO lenses are for colour printing.
Do not forge the Betavaron lens.
A lot of 6 x 6 photographers use the Planar 80 mm as a enlarger lens
Apo has advantage in black and white as well- especially in splitgrade and with longer focal lenght. White or combi of magenta/yellow light contain different wavelengths and are focused better with apo correction
You are wrong about using it for taking lens. It's a good solution I'm working on that. With helicoidal adapters, for exemple the 62mm El-Nikkor is working great on full frame. I've tried and Angénieux 48mm f4, very good results too. Even with my 1.5x anamorphic on the front, there is no vignetting.
Absolutely. Some of the most highly corrected lenses are flat field. My 55 micro nikkor makes an outstanding camera lens but also works very well for copying, which is flat field work. I'm currently looking for a Rodenstock Rodagon 105mm f/5.6 lens for use on my bellows. It's known to be very sharp with less chromatic aberration than the Nikon equivalent.
Thank you for the video. Nice to see more darkroom content.
Great video packed with lots of information. Love it!
Any time I got to use the Rodenstock 210mm Rodagon it was just BUTTER!
I found it interesting that you said the old glass wasn’t as good as the new and I respect your experience and knowledge, however this isn’t the same in Camera lenses, or should I say it’s not a rule of thumb, yes it depends on what you are trying to achieve in the photograph and again I suppose it’s what look you are going for in the print or darkroom. Very interesting though!
Not too much competition with darkroom videos. Keep them coming 👍🏻
Hi...!! I have a Meopta Opemus 5 (35mm film B&W). What do you think about Meopta Anaret 50 mm f:4.5 lens...? I have the 80 mm but I want larger copies! Thanks!! Fron Buenos Aires (Argentina)
I just got the 105mm f5.6. Just got it because it looked cool.
I use enlarger lenses for macro. They're fantastic for that.
I have a good set of Rodenstock enlarger lenses please tell me where do I find a.buyer or special website to sell
Hey! I just came across your video. Since there is not much knowledge available so it is much appreciated. And also have a question. Is there any difference between the old types of the EL-Nikkor 80mm and the new (er)?
Not much. the newer version probably has a better coating, and the new barrels will have lighted apertures. I have several El-Nikor lenses, but for some reason I never really liked my 80mm. I bought it used, and it may have a problem I didn't notice.
Great video! Thank you! So, do all enlarger lenses generally fit all enlargers?
What about the Focotar 2? Everyone says it's the best lens for the Focomat 1C, which is what I have. I also have two El-Nikkor 50mm lenses. Besides Ephraums's test of a scratched developed leader, and judging prints from each with my own eyes, I have no idea what to do. Is it the case that maybe, for important prints, I need to do them with both lenses to make the final call?
Schneider Componon S lens is great.
Schneider Componar pretty poor
Durst Neonon is great
Durst Neotar no so good.
Diffuser enlargers give lower contrast than Condenser enlargers.
I use 100mm f4. 5 Schneider Componon S lens for 6x6,6x7 and 6x9.
I use a Schneider Componon S 50mm f2. 8 lens for 35mm which has aperture illumination.
Can somebody help me? I want to do the oposite of enlarge. I want to reduce an image and project it to a photosensitive coated sheet . Do i need the same lens? Do anyone knows the name of the process?
Is that Quebec nordique shirt
hi, is it possible to use the 2 big convex lenses inside a Besseler Enlarger as a lens for a DIY large format camera?
great videos!
the background music is too loud/unnecessary thou.
What about Rokkors?
Very good modern lenses, and tend to sell for less than others. They made a 30mm for half frame and subminature which is the best lens of its type every made.
Is the thread for enlargers all the same ?
No. Lenses for focal lengths up to 105mm tend to be the same thread size, 39mm, a/k/a "Leica thread". Lenses from the German makers made in the 1960s and earlier were mostly 25mm.
@@randallstewart175 thanks for the clarification 🙏
F-Bomb Fotolab thanks for the video. How about Russian lens.... Any good?
- nope. (i am Russian) most of Russian enlarger lenses are obsolete. they are 4-5 element designs from 30's-40's.
if you want a decent enlarger lens look for those what are 6-8 element symmetric plasmat design. rodenstock, schneider, fuji, nikon (later ones if possible)
enlarger lens in not a good thing to experiment with. take the best one you can buy.
@@vasyapupken я купил апо-родагон-н 4/80мм.
thank you very much,best Regards from China
He's just making up most of his talking points
talk and talk. If those lenses are really sharper like you say, but we dont see any proof, i wont buy those. so this was 11 min waste of time :-(