I'm thinking about buying an enlarger lens for 6x6 and the El-Nikkor seems to be a good choise. Which one is the best between the 75/4 and the 80/5,6?

Are there any other brands in the same price range that are better then the El-Nikkors?

I have a Rolleiflex 3,5F with a Zeiss Planar lens and want to get the most of the extreme sharpness on paper!

-- T. Heimlich (tobias999a@hotmail.com), September 28, 1999

Answers

I use the 75/4 at the photo-club for 6x6. It is quite good for black & white in the center of the image, most of the image actually, but looses noticably in the corners. I read it was designed for 6x4,5 users. The 80 should be better in the corners and you only use one f-stop which means a little less bright focusing. I haven't tried the 80 though, but since it's longer it should work better with 6x6 than the 75. I don't like the 75 for colour enlargements, noticable colour fringing on, for instance, branches against a clear sky.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), September 29, 1999.

I use the 100mm f/5.6 Componon-S for 6x6 and 6x7. It's the best. I compared it to the *superb* 105mm El-Nikkor and it beat it out by a slim margin. I've heard good things about the 80mm El-Nikkor and bad things about the 75mm, but have not personally tried either one. For my money, the Componon-S's are where it's at. You might think about a 100mm rather then an 80mm, just in case you ever decide to get a 6x7 camera. Of course, you'll have to raise the enlarger head some, which will limit your maximum print size.

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

-- Peter Hughes (leonine@redshift.com), September 29, 1999.

I bought the 80mm f5.6 el-nikkor and sold my 75mm f4 el-nikkor. The 80 is an outstanding lens and covers 6x7 pentax negatives with excellent corner-to-corner sharpness. It will do an outstanding on your 6x6 Rollei negatives.

The 75 is a four element lens, while the 80 is a six element lens. So one would expect it outperform the 75.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), September 29, 1999.

Gene's right, the 75/4 is a second tier lens. I've used the EL-Nikkor 80/5.6, Schneider Componon-S 80/4 and the Rodenstock Rodegon 80/4. Optical performance of the 3 seems practically the same. My favorite is the (somewhat more expensive than EL-Nikkor) Componon-S, because of the way the f-stop lever works and it's a stop faster than the EL-Nikkor 80/5.6.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), September 29, 1999.

Thank you for the good answers! By the way, my enlarger can take 6x7 negs at max, but since I have a couple of 6x9 folding cameras I'm thinking about buying a 6x9 enlarger someday. What if I buy a 105/5,6 El-Nikkor or Schneider Componon instead of the 80mm? Can I use it for 6x6 negs with good results? I'm not going to make larger photos than 30x40 cm. Are the 105mm El-Nikkor and Schneider Componon equal six element lenses?

-- T. Heimlich (tobias999a@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999.

FWIW, an answer to one of your latest questions. A 105 does an OK job on 6x6. I used a 105 on an Omega D3 (4x5) enlarger and found to get a large print say 30x40 cm it had to be racked out all the way. It did not allow for much if any cropping. Since you have a 6x7 enlarger I suspect you will not be able to get the height needed to give you large prints.

I can't comment on the various competing lenses other than to say they are all probably similar in performance. 6 of 1 and 1/2 dozen of another. I snagged an 80 Componon-s for a great price and quite like it. One thing is that Schneider does not spec it for 6x7 whereas I believe Rodenstock & Nikkor do for their equivalent lenses.

Cheers,

-- (dkucheran@creo.com), September 29, 1999.

A fine point, but one worth mentioning: I always use the longest enlarging lens my enlarger column will allow, regardless of format. Not only are you only using the center of the lens, but the light is more even, entering the lens at a narrower angle from a greater distance from the negative. You will also have more depth-of-focus with a longer lens, meaning that minor innacuracies of alignment will matter less. So, I make small prints from 35mm with a 100mm lens, switching to a 50mm only when I need more magnification. If I could afford it, I would invest in an 80mm of equal quality to my 2 Componon-S's, so I would have to go to the 50mm only for very big enlargements.

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

-- Peter Hughes (leonine@redshift.com), October 02, 1999.

I agree with Peter to always take the longest possible lens. I always use a 80 Componon for 35mm. Besides the advantges that Peter mentioned a longer lens requires longer exposures which is good for dodging an d burning. I'd say an 80 is a bit short for 6*6.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), October 02, 1999.

I've started printing 8x11 inch prints from 35mm negatives with my 80mm el-nikkor. The illumination is more even with this set up.

When I received my 80mm el-nikkor, the first thing I did was make a 16 x20 inch print from a grainey 6x7 cm Tri-x negative to check for corner-to-corner sharpness. WOW. I had just sent back a used 90mm Beslar lens to B&H because it was not sharp corner-to-corner with 6x7. So, yes, some 90mm and longer lense won't adequately cover 6x7, but I can assure you that at a least my sample of the newest 80 mm nikkor sure does!

-- Gene Crumpler, NC, USA (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), October 03, 1999.

I wrote: "you only use one f-stop which means a little less bright focusing". What I meant to write was "LOOSE one f-stop" (not "use").

About using longer lenses than 40-50 mm for 35 mm film: I always get sharper and more contrast in the details with 35 mm film when using the El-Nikkor 50/2,8 than with the El-Nikkor 75/4. When the focal length of the enlarging lens is significantly smaller the MTF:s improve and makes a visible difference on print.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), October 05, 1999.