APO Rodagon 90 vs Schneider 105.
JANIEP
Hello all,
I have a choice between an APO Rodagon 90 mm enlarging lens or 105
Schneider. Anything that would make me use one over the other as and
enlarging lens for B&W prints? (6X7 negs)
Jan
Russell Brooks
> I have a choice between an APO Rodagon 90 mm enlarging lens or 105
>Schneider. Anything that would make me use one over the other as and
>enlarging lens for B&W prints? (6X7 negs)
I have a 105mm Rodagon. According to the Rodenstock web site, their 80mm APO
is designed for 6x7, which would be great because then I don't have to raise
the enlarging head to the roof. So I would go with the shorter focal length.
My buddy has a Schneider 40mm APO for 35mm negs and it is a wonderful lens.
Bob Salomon
In article <3523A354...@home.com>, JANIEP <jan...@home.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a choice between an APO Rodagon 90 mm enlarging lens or 105
> Schneider. Anything that would make me use one over the other as and
> enlarging lens for B&W prints? (6X7 negs)
>
> Jan
Please bear in mind that the 90mm Apo Rodagon was replaced several years
ago by the 80mm Apo Rodagon which was then replaced about 5 years ago with
the 80mm Apo Rodagon-N.
Bob
Howard
Hi,
Been following this thread with interest. Not sure what the info you
just gave Bob means..?? Didnt answer Jan's question. The fact that
Rodagon has come out with some new products means...??? <S>
Sincerely,
Howard
Bob Salomon
It means that comparing a new Schneider to a Rodenstock design that has
been replaced twice may not be a fair comparison.
Bob
In article <3523D775...@swarthmore.edu>, Howard
Howard
Hi Jan,
I just made a call to Rodenstock for you. Spoke to Dan Gillespie. He
asserts that the 90 mm APO was a 'superb lens' and that the new 'top of
the line' 80 mm APO is only 'slightly' better. So I would imagine that
the 90mm APO is quite a bit better than the Schneider.
Howard
Heattec
Hi,
The APO designation is what you want if;
1. your enlarger is correctly aligned.
2. your negitive carriers are glass.
This is what you need in order to get the best out of an APO. and the results
will truly be, much better. However, if your negitive carriers are not glass,
then the schneider will perform about the same (both are excellent). Focal
lenth is also a consideration. I like the shorter. And then there is cibachrome
(color) where the APO would be much better.
Bob
Rick Schiller
Why would the glass carrier make a difference? And now four more
surfaces to keep dust free!
Rick
In article <199804031559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hea...@aol.com says...
Marc F. Hult
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 09:40:20 -0500, JANIEP <jan...@home.com> wrote in message
<3523A354...@home.com>:
>Hello all,
>
> I have a choice between an APO Rodagon 90 mm enlarging lens or 105
>Schneider. Anything that would make me use one over the other as and
>enlarging lens for B&W prints? (6X7 negs)
>
>Jan
Hi Jan:
Schneider makes or has made Componar, Componon-S, Apo-Componon, and Componon
enlarging lenses. However they no longer list _any_ 105mm enlarging lens.
There have already been six or seven responses to your question. Bob S clarified
how the Apo Rodagon fit it, but I didn't see any clarification of what you meant
by "105 Schneider". Perhaps this uniquely identifies a single model and I'm the
last person on earth to know that ...;-)
Please take a peek at the Schneider (the model name is written on it) and post
the information to this thread.
HTH ... Marc
--
Marc F. Hult
hu...@cinternet.net
Heattec
Hi Rick,
Why I like the anti-newton glass carrier over the plain carrier is that, when
I have longer expoures (which are more often than not because of dodging etc.)
the glass carriers prevent the negatives from buckling with the additional heat
of the longer expoures, sure you have to clean them, but I don't mind. I feel
that since I eliminated the film buckle issue my APO rodagons performed better
than my nikkors, I have since sold my nikkors. I now have both a 50mm F:2.8 and
a 80 mm F:4 APO Rodagons and I'm very
happy with them. I also think that the Schneider APO's are just as
good.
Bob
Michael Gudzinowicz
Rick Schiller <rsch...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Why would the glass carrier make a difference? And now four more
>surfaces to keep dust free!
The focus error from negative curvature will compromise the performance
edge of the APO lens over a standard lens.
The only Schneider 105 of which I'm aware is the Componar, so if that's
the lens in question, the APO Rodagon is a far better choice.
Howard
FYI, Schneider USED TO make a 105mm enlarging lens...about 10 years ago.
Howard
:)
Howard
Agreed...the Rodagon APO is far better choice than the Schneider.
But, is the NEWER 80mm APO slightly, somewhat, or LOTS better than the
10 year old 90 mm APO lens?
Howard
Bob Salomon
In article <199804031559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hea...@aol.com (Heattec) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The APO designation is what you want if;
> 1. your enlarger is correctly aligned.
> 2. your negitive carriers are glass.
> This is what you need in order to get the best out of an APO. and the results
> will truly be, much better. However, if your negitive carriers are not glass,
> then the schneider will perform about the same (both are excellent). Focal
> lenth is also a consideration. I like the shorter. And then there is
cibachrome
> (color) where the APO would be much better.
>
> Bob
1 and 2 are what you need for maximum performance from any enlarger lens.
Bob
--
PLEASE SEND ALL E-MAIL TO ME AT:
bobsa...@mindspring.com
HP MARKETING CORP. Gepe, Giottos, G-O light, Heliopan, Kaiser, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Rollei, Sirostar
JANIEP
This is preceisely my question NOW. I have an offer to trade my
Schneider 105, the 90 mm APO Rodagon for a brand-new 80mm APO-N Rodagon.
Think I'm gonna take that trade....
Jan
Howard wrote:
>
> Agreed...the Rodagon APO is far better choice than the Schneider.
> But, is the NEWER 80mm APO slightly, somewhat, or LOTS better than the
> 10 year old 90 mm APO lens?
> Howard
>
> Michael Gudzinowicz wrote:
> >
> > Rick Schiller <rsch...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > >Why would the glass carrier make a difference? And now four more
> > >surfaces to keep dust free!
> >
> > The focus error from negative curvature will compromise the performance
> > edge of the APO lens over a standard lens.
> >
> > The only Schneider 105 of which I'm aware is the Componar, so if that's
> > the lens in question, the APO Rodagon is a far better choice.
> >
> >
> > >In article <199804031559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> > >hea...@aol.com says...
Howard
You raise an interesting point here Bob...one I was not aware of. (The
need for USING and glass carrier) I have not used one until now, because
it seemed to represent 4 more surface that would need cleaning. I have
been using a custom negative carrier of black metal that allows me to
place a strip of 3 6X7 negs in it and slide them across the mount in the
enlarger. Think the company is called Colwyn.
Could you please elaborate on the benefit of a glass carrier over this
system?
Thanks,
Howard
Bob Salomon wrote:
>
> In article <199804031559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> hea...@aol.com (Heattec) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The APO designation is what you want if;
> > 1. your enlarger is correctly aligned.
> > 2. your negitive carriers are glass.
> > This is what you need in order to get the best out of an APO. and the results
> > will truly be, much better. However, if your negitive carriers are not glass,
> > then the schneider will perform about the same (both are excellent). Focal
> > lenth is also a consideration. I like the shorter. And then there is
> cibachrome
> > (color) where the APO would be much better.
> >
> > Bob
>
JANIEP
What do you consider the 'optimum' aperture range of the 3 lenses
we've chatted about. please?
Thanks,
Jan
Bob Salomon wrote:
>
> In article <352571B9...@swarthmore.edu>, Howard
> <hpos...@swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>
> > You raise an interesting point here Bob...one I was not aware of. (The
> > need for USING and glass carrier) I have not used one until now, because
> > it seemed to represent 4 more surface that would need cleaning. I have
> > been using a custom negative carrier of black metal that allows me to
> > place a strip of 3 6X7 negs in it and slide them across the mount in the
> > enlarger. Think the company is called Colwyn.
> > Could you please elaborate on the benefit of a glass carrier over this
> > system?
> > Thanks,
> >
> >In order to receive the maximum quality a lens can deliver several
> criteria must be met:
>
> A: you have an excellent negative/slide to print
> B: You have a quality enlarging lens
> C: You are making a print within the optimization range of the lens
> D: You are printing within the optimum aperture range of the lens
> E: The enlarger is properly aligned
> F: The film is as flat as possible at the start as well as the end of the
> exposure.This is only possible with a glass carrier.
Bob Salomon
Howard
Dear Bob,
I notice in Jan's original post that he/she is printing 6X7 negs.
Wouldn't she be better off with the 105 APO? I've always read that 105
is kind of an optimum lense for 6X7. Perhaps you could explain why that
lens is better than 80 or 90? I'm not quite sure......
<scratching head>
Howard
Bob Salomon wrote:
>
> In article <199804031559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> hea...@aol.com (Heattec) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The APO designation is what you want if;
> > 1. your enlarger is correctly aligned.
> > 2. your negitive carriers are glass.
> > This is what you need in order to get the best out of an APO. and the results
> > will truly be, much better. However, if your negitive carriers are not glass,
> > then the schneider will perform about the same (both are excellent). Focal
> > lenth is also a consideration. I like the shorter. And then there is
> cibachrome
> > (color) where the APO would be much better.
> >
> > Bob
>
> 1 and 2 are what you need for maximum performance from any enlarger lens.
>
Bob Salomon
The Apo Rodagon N series hit optimal aperture 1 stop from wide open and
holds it for 2 stops. So the 80mm N hits optimum aperture at 5.6 and hold
it to 11.
The 90 had to be stopped down further and the reports onm the non
Rodenstock lens indicated that it did not have as wide a range of uable
apertures within the optimal range.
BobIn article <3525BC97...@home.com>, JANIEP <jan...@home.com> wrote:
> What do you consider the 'optimum' aperture range of the 3 lenses
> we've chatted about. please?
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
>
> Bob Salomon wrote:
> >
> > In article <352571B9...@swarthmore.edu>, Howard
> > <hpos...@swarthmore.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > You raise an interesting point here Bob...one I was not aware of. (The
> > > need for USING and glass carrier) I have not used one until now, because
> > > it seemed to represent 4 more surface that would need cleaning. I have
> > > been using a custom negative carrier of black metal that allows me to
> > > place a strip of 3 6X7 negs in it and slide them across the mount in the
> > > enlarger. Think the company is called Colwyn.
> > > Could you please elaborate on the benefit of a glass carrier over this
> > > system?
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >In order to receive the maximum quality a lens can deliver several
> > criteria must be met:
> >
> > A: you have an excellent negative/slide to print
> > B: You have a quality enlarging lens
> > C: You are making a print within the optimization range of the lens
> > D: You are printing within the optimum aperture range of the lens
> > E: The enlarger is properly aligned
> > F: The film is as flat as possible at the start as well as the end of the
> > exposure.This is only possible with a glass carrier.
> >
Bob Salomon
Why don't I just send you the rather complete documentation from
Rodenstock that details the characteristics of the lenses?
Then, at one time, you will have all of your answers.
Briefly Rodenstock 80mm lenses are designed to cover 6x7. And they do so
very well. The 105 also covers 6x7. It is a better performer for 6x7. But
it can not make as large a print as the 80 due to the longer focal length.
Which is better for an individual depends largely on the column height of
the enlarger and the largest print size required.
Howard
Dear Bob,
One of the reasons I greatly appreciate all your 'plain-talk' input
and guidance here is that it is quite likely that the 'tech' sheets will
not help me! <S> We'll see...I often can't grasp the day-to-day meaning
in tech sheet figures.
Appreciatively,
Howard