Leitz 60/4.5

Prototype Leitz/Leica enlarger lens with serial numbers in the format 0000xxxx.

Dimensions 60 mm
Focal Length (mm)

Max Aperture (f)

Rear Mount


Serial Numbers


  1. 16:9

    “I just finished testing two Leitz enlarging lens prototypes I acquired a while ago and want to share my impressions with you. One is the Focotar-3 4.5/50mm and the other is a 4[.5]/60mm lens without name. Both have typical Leitz serial numbers for prototypes (0000xxx).

    The Focotar-3 has a full metal mount, it is possible to switch off the click stops of the diaphragm so that the aperture works non-gradually. In this function the aperture scale is illuminated.

    In direct comparasion the Focotar-3 seems to have the same optical formula like the Focotar-2 4.5/50mm lens, which I also bought recently. Prints enlarged with both lenses seem to confirm this conjecture. The performance of both is absolutely identical.

    The 4/60mm has also a metal mount, but no illuminated aperture scale and the click-stops cannot switched off. It seems to be a Gauss design.

    For 35mm, I own and use some different enlarging lenses, like the Nikkor-EL 2.8/63mm, the Nikkor-EL 2.8/50mm, the Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50mm, the Apo-Rodagon N 2.8/50mm, the Focotar 4.5/60mm, the Focotar 4.5/50mm (2nd version, Schneider-design), the Meopta Anaret 4.5/50mm and new the Focotar-2 4.5/50mm, the Focotar-3 4.5/50mm and the Leitz 4/60mm.

    Until now, I was convinced that the Nikkor-EL 2.8/63mm is the best of all. It is by far better (and cheaper) than even the two Apo-Rodagons, very sharp in the corners (where the Apo-Rodagons and most of the other lenses are quite weak) and very contrasty.

    After my last “test” (btw: I compared 11′ x 14′ b/w prints, made with a Durst Laborator 1200, enlarged at f8) including the Focotar-2 4.5/50mm, Focotar-3 4.5/50mm and Leitz 4[.5]/60mm lenses, my opinion changed a little bit: I used to be always disappointed by Leitz enlarging lenses: the Focotar 4.5/60mm is very weak in the corners, the Focotar 4.5/50mm (2nd version, made by Schneider) is much better, though the sharpness in the corners is also a little bit weak (but much better than the Focotar 4.5/60mm).

    Concerning the sharpness, my three new Leitz lenses , which perform identically, are on a par with the Nikkor-EL 2.8/63mm. The Nikkor seems to have a little bit more contrast than the Leitz lenses, but the look of the prints made with all three Leitz lenses are creamier and have a nicer glow.

    Now, my personal ranking list of my 35mm enlarging list is the following:

    1. Nikkor-EL 2.8/63mm, Focotar-2 4.5/50mm, Focotar-3 4.5/50mm and Leitz 4[.5]/60mm
    2. Nikkor-EL 2.8/50mm
    3. Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50mm and Apo-Rodagon N 2.8/50mm
    4. Focotar 4.5/50mm (2nd version, made by Schneider)
    5. Meopta Anaret 4.5/50mm
    6. Focotar 4.5/60mm

    This test is not scientifical at all, it only renders my personal experience. Nevertheless I hope it is of some interest for you.”

    – Extracted from photo.net – by Roland Schmid, 2003. NB: original post declared prototype to be 60mm f4, but the author later corrected himself: the correct title of the lens is Leitz 60mm f4.5.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related to . . .