Computar dL vs. El-Nikkor?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Stephan Goldstein - 11 May 2006 00:47 GMT

I have the chance to acquire a 105mm f/4.5 Computar-dL enlarging
lens. I already have an El-Nikkor in this focal length that I use with
6x6 and 6x7 black-and-white negatives. Both lenses are in essentially
mint condition. Since my darkroom time is more limited than I'd like,
I'm wondering if anyone has any significant experience that might save
me the time and effort of running my own comparison. I've never had
any issue with the El-Nikkor, but I'm curious about the Computar
since some folks seem to give them cult status.

Thanks for your opinions.

Steve

Reply to this Message

tlianza - 11 May 2006 03:12 GMT

Hi,

Man, did that bring back some memories. I used some computar's in an early
scanner design. As I remember, they were good designs and very well
documented for MTF and critical points such as nodal point locations and
flange focal distance. If I remember correctly, they were double gauss
designs and they were multi coated (not so common at the time) . I don't
think that you will see any improvement of the El-Nikkor. You really aren't
pushing the performance envelope with the 105 on a 6X6 negative. Both of
these lenses should perform well with that format.

I have some Minolta Enlarging lenses that I have yet to test...they are true
cult lenses. I got them in a pawn shop for 12 dollars for the pair. (50 and
80mm) . These were designed for the minolta color enlarger.

Signature

Tom Lianza
Director of Display and Capture Technologies
GretagMacbeth LLC
3 Industrial Drive
Unit 7&8
Windham, NH 03087
603.681.0315 x232 Tel
603.681.0316 Fax

>I have the chance to acquire a 105mm f/4.5 Computar-dL enlarging
> lens. I already have an El-Nikkor in this focal length that I use with
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Steve

Reply to this Message

Malcolm Stewart - 21 May 2006 22:55 GMT

> I have some Minolta Enlarging lenses that I have yet to test...they are true
> cult lenses. I got them in a pawn shop for 12 dollars for the pair. (50 and
> 80mm) . These were designed for the minolta color enlarger.

I have the 30 as well. I've used the 50 f2.8 CE as my standard lens over
several years, but whether it equates to better known lenses, I've no idea.
Would love to hear your views.

Signature

M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Reply to this Message

Bob Salomon - 21 May 2006 23:26 GMT

> > I have some Minolta Enlarging lenses that I have yet to test...they are
> true
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> several years, but whether it equates to better known lenses, I've no idea.
> Would love to hear your views.

The 50mm 2.8 was a relabled Schneider from 1973/74.

Signature

To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Reply to this Message

Malcolm Stewart - 23 May 2006 02:04 GMT

> > I have the 30 as well. I've used the 50 f2.8 CE as my standard lens over
> > several years, but whether it equates to better known lenses, I've no idea.
> > Would love to hear your views.
>
> The 50mm 2.8 was a relabled Schneider from 1973/74.

Thanks, Bob.
And to think I was naive enough to believe that Minolta really did make all
their lenses as well as the glass....
(It's as bad as discovering that my Leitz Pradovit 253 IR is a Kindermann
under the skin.)

Signature

M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Reply to this Message

arraga@gmail.com - 23 May 2006 02:27 GMT

> I have the 30 as well. I've used the 50 f2.8 CE as my standard lens over
> several years, but whether it equates to better known lenses, I've no idea.
> Would love to hear your views.

I've got three 50mms: a f/2.8 minolta CE, an old metal barrel f/2.8
El-Nikkor (The Wakimoto design, not the Mori design that's sold today),
and a Fujinon EP f/3.5. The minolta was bought new, the others are
used, but in excellent optical shape.

At 6-8x there's no difference in resolution, but the nikkor is slighty
more contrasty than either the fuji or the minolta, and so looks more
sharp.

At 15x, the minolta lags a bit behind in resolution and grain is not as
sharp as the others. The nikkor goes second, and the best is the
fujinon, by a small margin.

Tested all apertures from wide open to f/8, in all lenses, in a
dichroic and a condenser. Results the same in all cases. I also
pestered two other photographers asking for their blind opinions.

Results are anecdotal, and apply only to my particular samples. I
wouldn't mind printing with any of them; differences are minor, and
negligible at normal enlargements. I have had experiences on not too
good lenses - a very old meopta belar comes to mind :\ - and they're in
another class.

HTH

Reply to this Message