Re: Mystery El Nikkor Enlarging Lens

> > Nikon has changed it's El-Nikkor lenses over the years. The main
difference
> > was lens barrel material (metal vs. plastic), but the aperture mechanism
has
> > also changed (although most have the same aperture range). The actual
lens
> > design itself has not changed. Probably the multi-coating is better on
the
> > newer lenses.
> >
> > What difference does it make? The lens is a genuine El-Nikkor. No one
would
> > bother to create a forgery of a 4-element lens.
>
> What is it with you and your constant (and annoying) rant against
4-element
> lenses in favor of 6-element ones? How bad are 4-element lenses, anyhow?
(I
> have plenty of excellent 4-element taking lenses, aka Tessars, so how bad
> could a projection lens with that many elements be?)
>
> Richard, can you enlighten us on this subject?
>
You are starting to sound delusional, as if you discovered a rare and
valuable El-Nikkor 50mm f/4.

I am not on a rant, just trying to educate people that the difference is
more than the maximum f-stop. Many newbies don't know about the difference
between 4-element and 6-element enlarger lens design, and at one time many
f/4 versions sold for about the same price on ebay as the 2.8 version.

Given that an excellent condition El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 sells on ebay for
about $50-$60, why would anyone want an inferior 4-element lens like the
50mm f/4 for just a few dollars less? Many people have remarked that the
difference in edge resolution is observable in medium to large size prints.

Even if the f/4 is only slightly inferior, why would anyone want it? Nikon
no longer sell the f/4 version.