I am just getting into printing and purchased a Beseler 23 enlarger. I am currently looking for a lens, and am not sure how to choose. I am looking for a 50mm lens. I was considering a Nikon 50mm/2.8 or a Rodenstock APO. The Rodenstock looks to cost about 2-3 times what the Nikon lens does.

Is this extra cost justified? I would rather buy good lenses up front and have them for life, but is the Rodenstock really that much better?

-- Richard Nishimuro (nishimuror@dvd.panasonic.com), May 16, 2000

Answers

Can't answer your exact question, but consider your magnification and print size. For smaller prints (say, up to 8x10), you might not see a difference. If you shoot "soft" subjects or rarely have sharp in- focus stuff at the corners of the frame, you might not see a difference. OTOH, if you make large murals of very detailed sharp subjects, you might see a difference. Check the data sheets for each lens and see what it's optimized for, then think about your exact use.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), May 17, 2000.

I use a Nikon 50mm lens for 35mm negatives and a Rodenstock 90mm lens for 6x9cm negatives.When I first got the nikon made prints with the same image size from the same neg with each lens.I saw no difference. Both lenses have flat fields and even ilumination. Granted this is not very scientific,but I challenge anyone to tell the difference.

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), May 17, 2000.

I have 4 enlarging lenses left after retirement: 7 1/2 in. 4.6 Eastman Anastigmat El-Nikkor 50 mm 2.8 Rodenstock 150mm 4.5 Rodenstock 50mm 3.5

Make offer. They are just gathering dust in garage

-- Sid (jmp412@aol.com), May 18, 2000.