Enlarger lens comparison

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread

I have a El Nikkor f4 lens purchased about 20 years ago and a used Rodenstock Omegaron bot in good condition. Are these about comparable in quality?

-- Rich (mrw@cape.com), January 31, 2000

Answers

Print the same b/w negative with both stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8... I doubt you'll see a difference!

There's an awful lot of gadgeteer snobbery about enlarger lenses, but for most purposes, the difference between an excellent lens and a halfway-decent lens nearly disappears when you stop down two or three stops! (This isn't to say there aren't differences in light transmission, contrast, color rendition, edge sharpness, or "character" - there definitely are, but they may be more subtle than you'd expect.)

-- Michael Goldfarb (mgoldfar@mobius-inc.com), February 01, 2000.


I used the EL-Nikkor f/4 for many years with no complaint. When I bought the new f/2.8 EL-Nikkor, there was a detectable improvement, but not so much that I'd ever go back and reprint anything. A couple years ago I noticed that the f/4 had a very subtle separation in the cementing of two elements. Being a tinkerer and already having another lens, I disassembled, cleaned, and recemented the f/4 with modern UV cure optical cement. It is now *very" close in performance to the f/2.8. Not equal, but you'd need a very good test to tell them apart for normal 8x10 work. Moral of story- if you look through your f/4 and can't detect any separation, and if the prints look good, use it. It's probably better than the Omegaron, though you should do a side by side test to be sure.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), February 01, 2000.

There most definitely IS a difference between a top-quality lens and a "halfway-decent" lens! And I wouldn't stop any enlarging lens down three stops, unless I absolutely had to. Most are best at one or two stops down from maximum.

As for your particular question, the Omegaron is a cheap entry-level lens. I'm presuming the Nikkor is a 50mm if it's an f/4. This is a very good lens, despite its age, much superior to the Omegaron.

In general, there are three quality lens lines out there: the Nikkors, the Rodagons and, my choice, the Componon-S's. Stick with these and you won't be sorry.

-- Peter Hughes (leo948@yahoo.com), February 01, 2000.


In their MTF test, I believe Schneider and Rodenstock both call f/ll the optimum aperture for their f/5.6 lenses and f/8 for their f/2.8s.

-- Brian Hinther (BrianH@sd314.k12.id.us), February 03, 2000.

I did a similar test this year. I had a Schneider Componar-C f2.8 and I purchased a Componor f4 and did a comparison with a same neg at various stops and was pleasently suprised!

The Componor was noticably sharper, but where it was noticable was at the edges of the image. After that test I traded in my 75mm Componar f4.5 for a EL Nikkor f4 and the results were better. Not as obvious as the first comparison but noticably different.

A good rule is get the best you can afford. Not to be a glass snob, but if you think about it I was shooting with a expensive nikon glass but printing with a $100.00 enlarger lens - definitely the weak link. Just my $0.02 worth.

John www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Meadows/8847

-- John W (zaphod1@hotmail.com), March 03, 2000.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ