Enlarging lens performance at infinity

Mark Welsh said:

The post I made above is out of date. The information at 16-9.net is no longer being updated because the ETLS (Enlarger Taking Lens Survey) has grown into Delta: a much larger catalogue and archive of 'alt-lens' information and reviews of enlarger, projector, process and industrial lenses at www.DeltaLenses.com - if you have anything you'd like to add, please let me know.

Click to expand...

A lot of empty slots to fill... but a very impressive undertaking.

The "Only logged in customers who have purchased this product may leave a review." thing is a bit strange. Is this supposed to be a lens sale site?

A timely question: we were discussing it this afternoon. The beta version of the site is built with WordPress, and the odd bit of template is still poking out. WP is a versatile, low-overhead, future-proof way to get large amounts of data online and searchable. Because the lens is the hero of its own page, and visitors can add reviews and pictures, it has all the requirements of an e-commerce platform. But I hope it's obvious that it's almost entirely an archive of reviews and information.

The review process does generate significant churn in terms of the number of lens samples, and flooding eBay with them is a nuisance. My view is that there's no downside to Delta also being a venue in which visitors can freely buy and sell the lenses we're trying to 'tell stories' about – and with. But whether we separate 'waste' lens sales entirely, or integrate them into the catalogue is TBC.

If there's sufficient interest, it would nice to addd a discussion forum that could also have classifieds. We're mulling the pros and cons of that now.

All opinions - and reviews - are welcome. Let me just shut up the guard-dog that's stopping registered visitors' contributions! The site contains more data than it appears from the category listings: only 10% of the pictures are in place. You get a better sense from the Quick Browse function in the side menu. Also, the Hall of Fame ranks over 100 reviews.

ThomasB said:

Thanks for posting your examples.
I'm loving my Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 50/2.8 which delivers tack sharp pictures from edge to edge on my A7R II at infinity as well.
It's a very capable lens for landscapes and very easy to adapt.

Click to expand...

:-(

Bank account: -$120

Congrats! I know it's not among the cheapest enlarging lenses, unfortunately...

You can get an almost identical performance at a fraction of the price with a Minolta "C.E. Rokkor 50 mm f/2.8", but the Apo-Rodagon has its good reputation for a reason. It's a very fine lens and it has the advantage of a front-filter thread for easier reversing.











I don't have any shots at some distance, but you can see it scored pretty well in the deltalenses tests so far:

https://deltalenses.com/index.php/hall-of-fame-near-distance-f4-f8-average/



--
Experimenting manual lens enthusiast.

It's nice to see enlarger lenses getting some love as taking lenses.

I've used various enlarger lenses on my Fuji GFX 50R and Toyo VX23D outfit. These days I'm down to two that I use as part of my main kit:

• Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Componon 90/4.5 in Makro-Iris mount
• Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Componon 60/4 in Makro-Iris mount

These are both superb lenses. They're really "enlarger adjacent" because both were designed for industrial applications like scanning printed circuit boards for defects. I really like the Makro-Iris mount because it's all metal, and very flexible. For example, you can attach different threaded adapters to the BV mount, and you can easily reverse them.

Fun fact: when digital became mainstream, Schneider-Kreuznach had to pull a couple fast ones to get some product to market for "digital". This involved rebadging and rehousing existing lenses.

• The optics in the APO-Componon 60/4 are the same as in the APO-Digitar 60/4; the difference is the housing.
• The optics in the APO-Digitar 90/4.5 are the same cells as used in the enlarger version of the APO-Componon HM 90/4.5. This lens came in various "types", each tuned to slightly different distances. Mine is a Type -0024, which according to SK is the same as Type -0025.
• The best deal of all is the Componon-S 80/4 enlarger lens, which is the same optics as the much more expensive APO-Digitar 80/4.

I've also had good results with some of the longer Componon-S lenses, including the 150/5.6, the 180/5.6 and the 210/5.6. The catch with all of these is they're horrendously prone to stray light. A hood is not a solution. Deep hoods help, but you have to handle the stray light at the rear end with a baffle.

Some other enlarger lenses I've used, with mixed results, include these:

• Rodenstock Rodagon-W 120/5.6 is a very nice lens. It's a wide angle design, so the image circle is plenty large for lots of movements
• The Bogen 6x6 60mm f/4 is a sentimental favourite. It was also sold as Hoya and Osawa. The housing is all metal and a delight to hold and use. It's also a wide angle design.
• Slightly better than the Bogen 6x6 is the Rodenstock Rodagon-WA 60mm f/4. It's a wide angle design, so lots of image circle for movements on a 33x44mm sensor.
• The worst of the wide angles is the Schneider-Kreuznach WA 60mm f/5.6. It had the smallest image circle of the wide angle enlarger lenses, and the worst image quality.

All of the enlarger and enlarger-adjacent lenses I've owned and used are for regular photography, in other words, not just for close distances within their design range. Infinity performance is good to excellent, and I haven't had issues with sensitivity to different colours. Or at least I haven't had issues that stood out relative to all the other adapted lenses I use.

I have no experience with enlarger lenses less than 60mm because none cover the 33mm x 44mm sensor on my GFX 50R.

Thanks, Rob.

For old world machining, I like the Wollensak enlarging lenses!

Gesture said:

Thanks, Rob.

For old world machining, I like the Wollensak enlarging lenses!

Click to expand...

There's a whole world of interesting old lenses that I haven't explored!

I confess I'm not much for "character" lenses, so I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of older enlarging lenses. I like my lenses to perform well across the circle of good definition, and not to leave their signature all over my photos. Professional optics from the tail end of the film era seem to be my sweet spot.

Thanks a lot for sharing the interesting information and suggestions! The Apo-Componon 60 mm (Makro Iris) is one of my favorites as well. Very sharp and versatile. I‘m working with Mark (who is part of this thread) on the ambitious deltalenses project and both Apo-Componons did exceptionally well in his tests (https://deltalenses.com/index.php/hall/)!

Have you ever tried the Makro-Symmar 120 mm f/5.6? It‘s available in a Makro-Iris Version as well and it‘s a pretty incredible lens in my opinion. Not sure how it does at distance though… only used it for close-up and macro shots!

simple-joy said:

Thanks a lot for sharing the interesting information and suggestions! The Apo-Componon 60 mm (Makro Iris) is one of my favorites as well. Very sharp and versatile. I‘m working with Mark (who is part of this thread) on the ambitious deltalenses project and both Apo-Componons did exceptionally well in his tests (https://deltalenses.com/index.php/hall/)!

Have you ever tried the Makro-Symmar 120 mm f/5.6? It‘s available in a Makro-Iris Version as well and it‘s a pretty incredible lens in my opinion. Not sure how it does at distance though… only used it for close-up and macro shots!

Click to expand...

My pleasure. It's a great resource you're building with Mark.

Yes, I've used the Makro-Symmar 120mm f/5.9 in Makro-Iris. It's what I bought to replace the Rodagon-WA 120 f/5.6.

The Makro-Symmar is superb at distances around 1.5m from wide open. However, as a general purpose lens, it was terrible at the sides of the frame at long distances until f/11, when it became excellent.

I replaced this one with a Fujinon GX 125/5.6, which I "simplified" for use on my camera. It's a great general purpose taking lens, but not enlarger or enlarger-adjacent.

By the way, I have a repository of "infinity" tests for most of the lenses I've used on my 50R, including the Makro-Symmary 120/5.9. It's at this Drive folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mIInzlyRvnMKS-MLOEdVjwX5gkNY3Xqn?usp=sharing

There's a document in the folder with an explanation of how I tested. For most of the lenses, I provide full resolution JPEG images at all apertures, or in some cases just the main shooting apertures I used.

Thanks a lot for sharing your findings and assessment - that's very interesting! I'm glad you like the project! There are still so many gaps to fill and - what's also really important - many more personal experiences and stories of different manual lens enthusiasts and experimenters to be told...

I somewhat suspected, that the Makro-Symmar wouldn't be very good at distance, as these lenses seem to be very much optimized to a certain magnification range (as even their different labeling shows).

It's a real treat to use at close distances in my experience though:









Have you ever tried any of the more modern large format taking lenses? The Apo-Digitar is of course identical to the Apo-Componon you use (even though I'm not sure if there isn't some different fine-tuning applied...) but what about the Rodenstock Apo-Digaron series? They all seem really expensive though...

--
Experimenting manual lens enthusiast.

simple-joy said:

Have you ever tried any of the more modern large format taking lenses? The Apo-Digitar is of course identical to the Apo-Componon you use (even though I'm not sure if there isn't some different fine-tuning applied...) but what about the Rodenstock Apo-Digaron series? They all seem really expensive though...

Click to expand...

I have not used the Rodenstock HR Digaron S lenses. They are extremely expensive, and, more importantly for my outfit, I can't mount them. The Toyo VX23D I use was designed for medium format backs, but I use a GFX 50R, which has a flange distance of 26.7mm. That plus the mount pushes the sensor far enough back that I can't get the standards close enough together.

I'm actually very pleased with the results I get from the lenses I use. There's remarkably good value out there for reasonable amounts of money. With my current lineup, I have excellent image quality and a full range of movements (rise/fall, left-right shift, tilt, swing -- on both front and rear standards) at 35mm, 50mm, 60mm, 75mm, 90mm, 125mm, 150mm, 210mm and 250mm. At 24mm, I have very good image quality if I stick to f/8 (or better f/11). I rarely shoot wider than 35mm so I'm willing to live with some compromises at the really wide end.

In case you're curious, this is the outfit: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Toyo-VX23D-and-Fuji-GFX-50R

Rob de Loe said:

I have not used the Rodenstock HR Digaron S lenses. They are extremely expensive, and, more importantly for my outfit, I can't mount them. The Toyo VX23D I use was designed for medium format backs, but I use a GFX 50R, which has a flange distance of 26.7mm. That plus the mount pushes the sensor far enough back that I can't get the standards close enough together.

I'm actually very pleased with the results I get from the lenses I use. There's remarkably good value out there for reasonable amounts of money. With my current lineup, I have excellent image quality and a full range of movements (rise/fall, left-right shift, tilt, swing -- on both front and rear standards) at 35mm, 50mm, 60mm, 75mm, 90mm, 125mm, 150mm, 210mm and 250mm. At 24mm, I have very good image quality if I stick to f/8 (or better f/11). I rarely shoot wider than 35mm so I'm willing to live with some compromises at the really wide end.

In case you're curious, this is the outfit: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Toyo-VX23D-and-Fuji-GFX-50R

Click to expand...

It looks like an excellent setup with lots of possibilites - really interesting and well documented. It's also quite fascinating how different all the lenses are.

My setup is very minimalistic in comparison - mainly because I decided at some point that I wanted to be able to handhold it for extended periods of time...

I really like the thought of giving lenses a second life in an area where they would never have been used originally. A good amount of my lenses would probably have ended in a dumpster otherwise.

simple-joy said:

Rob de Loe said:

I have not used the Rodenstock HR Digaron S lenses. They are extremely expensive, and, more importantly for my outfit, I can't mount them. The Toyo VX23D I use was designed for medium format backs, but I use a GFX 50R, which has a flange distance of 26.7mm. That plus the mount pushes the sensor far enough back that I can't get the standards close enough together.

I'm actually very pleased with the results I get from the lenses I use. There's remarkably good value out there for reasonable amounts of money. With my current lineup, I have excellent image quality and a full range of movements (rise/fall, left-right shift, tilt, swing -- on both front and rear standards) at 35mm, 50mm, 60mm, 75mm, 90mm, 125mm, 150mm, 210mm and 250mm. At 24mm, I have very good image quality if I stick to f/8 (or better f/11). I rarely shoot wider than 35mm so I'm willing to live with some compromises at the really wide end.

In case you're curious, this is the outfit: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Toyo-VX23D-and-Fuji-GFX-50R

Click to expand...

It looks like an excellent setup with lots of possibilites - really interesting and well documented. It's also quite fascinating how different all the lenses are.

My setup is very minimalistic in comparison - mainly because I decided at some point that I wanted to be able to handhold it for extended periods of time...

I really like the thought of giving lenses a second life in an area where they would never have been used originally. A good amount of my lenses would probably have ended in a dumpster otherwise.

Click to expand...

It's a bit of a motley crew of lenses, that's for sure. I shoot for black and white, almost exclusively, so I'm less worried about differences in how colours are rendered among different lens families. It's not ideal, but it works.

Your point about a second life for lenses resonates. It's not documented on my site yet, but I've just adopted (and adapted) some Fujinon GX lenses for the old Fuji GX680 medium format camera system. These are good quality optics that languish on eBay because you can't adapt them without "simplifying" them (my polite word for tearing them apart and re-housing them). https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/fujinon-gx-lenses-on-digital-medium-format.72331/

Thanks for your views and feedback about your favorites. These lenses are probably at a rate than makes then pricy in some way, but probably very cheap compared to their performance. It's great to have this reference.

I am ok to assume all these cover GFX image circles? Which would make them more interesting for that particular use in mind in the future.

fferreres said:

Thanks for your views and feedback about your favorites. These lenses are probably at a rate than makes then pricy in some way, but probably very cheap compared to their performance. It's great to have this reference.

I am ok to assume all these cover GFX image circles? Which would make them more interesting for that particular use in mind in the future.

Click to expand...

All the ones I use cover GFX. The "tightest" image circle is on the APO-Componon 60mm f/4; it's only good for around 8mm of shift in landscape on GFX. For wider than 60mm, people often switch to medium format lenses (e.g., Pentax 645 is my favourite). At 50mm I adapted a Mamiya G 50/4, which is just superb; but that was a bit of a project.

In the enlarger and enlarger-adjacent lenses, generally the image circle gets bigger with focal length. The 60mm and 120mm "wide angle" lenses that were designed for short column enlargers are the exception. They have image circles much larger than their focal length would suggest.

Interestingly, on a GFX camera, there's a point at which the real limitation on shift potential is not the image circle but the edge of the cavity that contains the sensor. The sensor is buried deep inside a rectangular cavity; the outer rim of that cavity causes mechanical vignetting at around 30mm of shift.

Price-wise, the lenses I use are actually very economical (if you shop around). The APO-Componon 60mm and 90mm tend to be modestly pricey, but deals can be had. I got my APO-CPN 90/4.5 for around $200 USD because the housing was a bit beat up. The optics were pristine.

Rob de Loe said:

fferreres said:

Thanks for your views and feedback about your favorites. These lenses are probably at a rate than makes then pricy in some way, but probably very cheap compared to their performance. It's great to have this reference.

I am ok to assume all these cover GFX image circles? Which would make them more interesting for that particular use in mind in the future.

Click to expand...

All the ones I use cover GFX. The "tightest" image circle is on the APO-Componon 60mm f/4; it's only good for around 8mm of shift in landscape on GFX. For wider than 60mm, people often switch to medium format lenses (e.g., Pentax 645 is my favourite). At 50mm I adapted a Mamiya G 50/4, which is just superb; but that was a bit of a project.

In the enlarger and enlarger-adjacent lenses, generally the image circle gets bigger with focal length. The 60mm and 120mm "wide angle" lenses that were designed for short column enlargers are the exception. They have image circles much larger than their focal length would suggest.

Interestingly, on a GFX camera, there's a point at which the real limitation on shift potential is not the image circle but the edge of the cavity that contains the sensor. The sensor is buried deep inside a rectangular cavity; the outer rim of that cavity causes mechanical vignetting at around 30mm of shift.

Price-wise, the lenses I use are actually very economical (if you shop around). The APO-Componon 60mm and 90mm tend to be modestly pricey, but deals can be had. I got my APO-CPN 90/4.5 for around $200 USD because the housing was a bit beat up. The optics were pristine.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your posts. I'll bargain hunt them, as they seem to be excellent optics worth having.

Are process lenses in a similar territory for using in general photography?

Gesture said:

Are process lenses in a similar territory for using in general photography?

Click to expand...

Not exactly -- they vary a lot more.

Most process lenses are expected to be used stopped way down, so they often are terrible near wide open. Many are also tuned only for a single wavelength of light, and which wavelength depends on what they were intended to be used for.

However, some process lenses are fantastic. For example, my C. P. Goerz Apochromat "red dot" Artar 19in f/11 is a true APO lens optimized for color process work. That said, it's pretty darn inconvenient to mount a lens with and approximately 19" rear focus on a digital camera... it even needs an extension bellows on my 4x5. (It was intended for a much larger image format.)

Gesture said:

Are process lenses in a similar territory for using in general photography?

Click to expand...

Depends on which kind of process, as Hank commented, one would need to do the research beforehand, so to avoid all that, I will stick to some recommendations. Enlargers for color negatives I assume will be good for color photos, may need to be stopped down, so they may be good for landscape, possibly macro. However, I think discovering them and how they are different, while an expensive joy, can be nice. One key is what they were used for, so one for medium format or wide will have a much larger image circle. If used on 35mm, the key is, how much of the light that will never make it to the sensor can you mask out? You don't want a lot of light that cannot make it to the sensor directly to end up there by mistake after bouncing inside the barrel and camera chamber. But say one day, you have a GFX or another semi medium format (eg 44 x33mm or a bit larger) then these lenses can be really useful.

What about process lenses? If they are tuned for an application that worked with infrared light, then may be great for infrared cameras, or in the UV spectrum, or in just one color/wavelength. I think it opens up the hobby for odd things, which is something many want to do, as it isn't the case we look for these because there aren't any cheap good lenses for general photography!

One interest for me is is brutally high resolution that's completely great extreme corner to extreme corner, with movements. Why? No reason, other than for real quality landscape work, it's great to capture the exuberant nature without any degradation, corner to corner. I don't like "vintage" as in resolving little with lots of distortion when talking about landscapes. However, the biggest limitation is the cost of a medium format backs, especially the 77mm ones, but even 44mm, can give a good boost to clarity of the image. Absent that, i think there are ways to make these images so stunning. For some reason, I've seen, over and over and over, the most convincing, most gorgeous landscapes, are from people that use ND or longer exposures. Don't ask me why, but it does something to color, as if a slower fill rate helped rid of all the noise, or somehow helped get the gorgeous look out of the images.

I tend to avoid process lenses when i don't know anything about them, except maybe Dagor lenses, which I may buy just because the lens looks good. I really like completely almost symetric lenses with just 4 surfaces. I think it's cool, awesome, it has something to it as opposed to very asymmetric designs.

fferreres said:

I tend to avoid process lenses when i don't know anything about them, except maybe Dagor lenses, which I may buy just because the lens looks good. I really like completely almost symetric lenses with just 4 surfaces. I think it's cool, awesome, it has something to it as opposed to very asymmetric designs.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. Your preference is very interesting - which symmetrical 4 element lenses do you like in particular?