# Enlarger Lens



## aggiezach (Jan 29, 2005)

So what is the general opinion of Schneider Componon Lens. I'm looking at a 50 mm / f2.8 lens. I've heard that there is a huge difference when you go from lets say an EL-Omegar 50mm / f3.5 lens. Is the different that noticeable 

Thanks for the info in advance...

Zach


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jan 30, 2005)

Enlarging lenses are like camera lenses - the difference between the cheap ones and quality ones can be staggering. I am always amazed that a lot of people who have really expensive cameras and lenses print with cheap crapolas and wonder why they can't get 'quality' in their work. They are quite willing to spend enormous amounts on taking the picture but resent paying anything to print them.
The most important difference you will find with a good enlarger lens is 'punch'. This is actually to do with lens flare and contrast. Expensive lenses control this better so you get a better dynamic range on your prints - and you start getting detail in the highlights and the shadows (these are usually muddied out by flare).
Schneider do a range of lenses - KSMatt explained the difference between comparon, componon etc 'cause I get them mixed up (I just look at the price! ;-) ) somewhere in another thread. Personally I use Nikon lenses - but Minolta do a good lens as well.
Unfortunately enlarging lenses are like so much else in Photography - personal preference rules and the overall set-up makes a difference too. I used some pro colour facilities to do some prints once and they used Minoltas. I couldn't believe the quality. When I could afford it I bought a Minolta lens but on my enlarger it didn't match up to my Nikons. I learned that the enlarger and light source make a difference to the lens. My enlarger is a big old Durst. The ones at the lab were Besselers.
That aside - any high quality lens will knock spots off a cheap one.


----------



## terri (Jan 30, 2005)

Zach: I've read and heard that the big three in what is considered "top of the line" enlarger lenses are Schneider, Rodenstock, and Nikon (EL-Nikkor).  But like Hertz has pointed out, you will get some variations in results depending on your enlarger.   The rental darkroom I used at the school used all Beseler enlargers and all three of the above lenses were in use.   At home I have a Chromega D-5 and we use a Schneider 150 and 50, and a Nikon 80.  They're all excellent.


----------



## aggiezach (Jan 30, 2005)

Thanks for all the info guys and gals. I have an Omega B-22. I think I'm gonna try out the schneider lens. I'm bidding on one right now that I should win for about $50. I'm also going to look into the EL-Nikor lenses as you have both recomended them 

Thanks again!
Zach


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 30, 2005)

I usually use Hertz's method of differentiating between the Schneider lens types; the expensive ones are the good ones    Componon is the best, Componar is an older design, and then there is still another kind that's not as common as the two I mentioned.  I switched from a 135mm El-Omegar to a 135mm Schneider Componon, and noticed the difference right away.  Of course the El-Omegar lens I had was a little beat up, and the Schneider was in great condition.  I also use a 150mm Schneider Componon, and I have a couple of El-Nikkors for my medium format and 35mm enlarger.  I like the Nikons too.  And I've always heard much praise for the Rodenstock enlarging lenses.


----------



## aggiezach (Jan 30, 2005)

I just won an auction for a EL-Nikkor 50mm / f2.8 lens  got it for right at $50 It looks to be in pretty nice condition! We'll see in a few days!

Zach


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 31, 2005)

Good deal.  I think the biggest differences you'll notice between your El-Omegar and the El-Nikkor will probably be sharpness at the edges and corners of your prints, and the El-Nikkor may have a bit more contrast.


----------

