EL-Nikkor vs. Componon-S

[Old-N-Feeble]

Just to mess up your choices even more, for 6x7 the sharpest lens I have used is a 90mm Fuji EX, and that will supposedly do for 6x9 too . . .

At what magnification?

[Nige]

90mm Fuji EX

I have one of those (came with a cheap enlarger!) and do agree it seems good, however I generally use the Componon-S for it's usability functions (stop down lever) I like.

[DREW WILEY]

Given the superb results I've had in general with Fujinon lenses, as well as what I've heard about their
enlarging lenses in particular, they seem like an excellent option. But they're not as common as some of the others, and I've never personally tested one.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I've just acquired the newer design El Nikkor 150 (newer, that is without a knobbly aperture ring, and with a 50mm and 39mm threads). I'm going to compare it to my Rodagon 150, and perhaps 135, all for use with 4x5 black and white.

I was wondering if there is a disadvantage/advantage to mounting this newer El Nikkor using its 50mm thread, without the 39mm adapter. When the 50mm thread is used, the rear element is more exposed, and when using the 39mm adapter, the rear element is more concealed, visible only through the adapter and what looks like its flare-reducing barrel. I can mount both ways, I wonder if anyone has compared the two approaches with this lens?

[ac12]

Rafal
Is that a 50mm or 53mm thread when you remove the adapter?
My notes show the version before your 150 had a 53mm thread.
If 50 it would match the Componon-S thread, if 53 then the harder to find 53mm adapter.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Ac12, it is the newer 50mm thread, and it comes with a reducer that brings it to 39. I have both panels on hand, and I'm just curious if there is an observed benefit of one over the other, mainly because the rear element gets very exposed when used without the reducing ring.

[RidingWaves]

I've had and seen the Sample Variation on 3 Nikkor 50mm 2.8 EL. One was improved after a dismantle and cleaning, one of the retaining rings holding on set of elements was somewhat lose. After cleaning, I tightened that retaining ring to what I thought was a proper torque and the lens was much sharper.

[Klainmeister]

Well, smelling fresh of fixer, I just emerged from the darkroom doing a couple of prints from 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5 (yes, long, cold night in the shed) and I couldn't see any perceptible quality difference in the print between and of the brands. I have a 50mm 2.8 El-nikkor, 105 Componon-s, and a 150 El nikkor. All are perfect as far as I can tell.

By the way, I did an enlargement of a 35mm neg shot with the Nikon E series 50mm 1.8 on Fuji Acros developed in Pyrocat and am convinced it could go to 16x20 easily. Brilliant little lens/film/developer combo.

[kobaltus]

Both brands are good. Maybe to good for our negatives. But the visual look of print, enlarged with different brands, is different. I must admit that I prefer Rodagon lenses over other brands.

[MartinP]

At what magnification?

I've made prints from parts of negatives with the head at the top of the column, so the total image would be a little over 50cm. Umm, so magnification of about seven times or so. It worked better, all over, than the borrowed Componon-S I was previously using, but these are all relatively old lenses and I doubt one can exclude sample variation from the results.