Best enlarging lens?
Phil Stiles
enlarging lens which I stop down two or three stops. My prints were
satisfactory. Recently, I borrowed a Rodenstock Rodagon-N APO 50/2.8
and made some prints. I was surprised to find a noticeable improvement,
especially at higher enlargements, so I decided to buy myself a Rodagon
for Christmas.
The Rodenstock web site lists three levels of Rodagon, and B&H
sells
them: the Rodagon ($180), the APO Rodagon ($350), and the
Rodagon-G ($550). According to Rodenstock, the APO is recommended for
enlargements up to 10X, the "G" for 15X to 25X enlargements.
I would assume that a lens which is recommended for higher
enlargements would be sharper at lower enlargements. So perhaps the "G"
is the ultimate lens? The law of diminishing returns often comes into
play with this kind of item. One spends an increasing amount of money
to obtain marginal amounts of improvement. A Leitz 50mm/f2 Summicron at
f/8 may be a little better than a Nikon 50mm/f1.8 at f/8, but the fact
is most people won't see the difference, and the Leitz is ten times the
cost of the Nikon.
But I do see the difference between the Rodagon APO and the El
Nikkor, and it's worth moving up. My question: does anyone have any
familiarity with the "G"? and is it recommended as even better than the
APO?
Phil Stiles NH USA
Phil Stiles
Bob Salomon
incorrect. So are the number of Rodagon lens types.
There are 4 types of Rodagons.
Using the normal lens for a 35mm negative as a reference:
40mm Rodagon WA 4.0 optimized for 4 - 20X magnification
50mm Rodagon 2.8 optimized for 2 - 15X magnification
50mm Apo Rodagon N 2.8 optimized for 2 - 20X magnification
50mm Rodagon G 2.8 optimized for 15 - 50X magnification
For any prints under 15x the G will be an inferior performer compared to the
others. It will have less contrast, less resolution and at small sizes could
color fringe. It is a specialty lens for mural work and is unsurpassed at
that purpose. It will be a very disappointing lens for smaller sizes.
Conversely the other lenses will have the same problems as the G when trying
to make mural prints.
The WA is designed for use when your enlarger does not have a long enough
column for the print size you need to make. Using the WA you will get a 30%
larger print at the same column height as the 50mm and with the same quality
as the Rodagon. This also lets you keep the head closer to the paper which
will result in shorter exposure times which can be important with low output
heads if you are in the reciprocity area in your exposures.
It is also important to note that the Apo N and the G reach optimal aperture
one stop from wide open and hold it for several stops. The Rodagon and WA
lenses will hit optimal aperture 2 stops down and then hold it.
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO
Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,
Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000
----------
In article <36532590...@worldpath.net>, Phil Stiles
Bob Salomon
the size of the negative. The N is better than the G if the prints are less
than 20X the size of the negative.
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO
Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,
Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000
----------
In article <36532663...@worldpath.net>, Phil Stiles
lemonade
<bobsa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Using the normal lens for a 35mm negative as a reference:
>
> 40mm Rodagon WA 4.0 optimized for 4 - 20X magnification
> 50mm Rodagon 2.8 optimized for 2 - 15X magnification
> 50mm Apo Rodagon N 2.8 optimized for 2 - 20X magnification
> 50mm Rodagon G 2.8 optimized for 15 - 50X magnification
> It is also important to note that the Apo N and the G reach optimal aperture
> one stop from wide open and hold it for several stops. The Rodagon and WA
> lenses will hit optimal aperture 2 stops down and then hold it.
>
> >For twenty years I have been enlarging 35mm B&W using a Nikkor 50/2.8
> >enlarging lens which I stop down two or three stops. My prints were
> >satisfactory. Recently, I borrowed a Rodenstock Rodagon-N APO 50/2.8
> >and made some prints. I was surprised to find a noticeable improvement,
> >especially at higher enlargements, so I decided to buy myself a Rodagon
> >for Christmas.
Well, all the Rodagons are really fine lenses. But, since the EL-Nikkor you
were using is 20 years old, I suspect you would get a similar improvement
from a current EL-Nikkor 50mm f2.8, if you are enlarging within its optimum
magnification range.
I've seen many posts on enlarging lenses here, and in the comparison
everybody wants to know about, namely the latest EL-Nikkor, Rodagon, and
Componon-S, no one seems to have supplied any test data that distinguishes
between them, their strong points, weak points, peculiarities. There've
only been a few comments about the quality of the plastics.
As for the Apo-Componons and Apo-Rodagons, from these posts the main
advantage seems to be that they have one more optimum f-stop, and perhaps,
as Bob indicates above for the Apo-Rodagon, a higher usable magnification
range. I haven't seen any posts that establish that they are any better
when all are compared at their optimum f-stops and typical magnifications.
For some reason, nobody is as interested in comparison testing enlarging
lenses as they are camera lenses.
--
Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
valid email address.
NYCFoto
and I have to say that the APO rodagon is signicantly better than the componon.
Richard J. Fateman
>
>I've seen many posts on enlarging lenses here, and in the comparison
>everybody wants to know about, namely the latest EL-Nikkor, Rodagon, and
>Componon-S, no one seems to have supplied any test data that distinguishes
>between them, their strong points, weak points, peculiarities. There've
>only been a few comments about the quality of the plastics.
I think that the 3 lenses that you are referring to are all the
same design (Gauss doublet? 6 element), and that they
differ in price, with El Nikkor being less expensive,
cosmetics (click stop, preset, "illuminated", plasticness, number
of blades in the diaphragm etc.),
exact nature of coating (all are, I think multicoated).
Any other differences among them may be dominated by
sample-to-sample variations, and difficult to detect
except under circumstance of precise alignment, extremely
sharp corner to corner images, perfectly illuminated.
We have seen reports (Barry Sherman?) of comparisons of
these with more expensive APO lenses, showing the APO
lenses may have advantages especially wider open.
Cheaper lenses (typically 4 element) stopped down seem to be
adequate for a lot of people.
More interesting to me is how some of the other
lenses stack up. We've heard, from time to time,
that some other lenses (e.g. Vivitar?) are really re-branded
Rodogon.
I'm curious about the Beseler HD lenses, and perhaps
even more so, the Meopta (Czech) lenses from Freestyle,
(www.freestyle.com)
which come in 2 grades. (I have good memories of a
Meopta 66 enlarger). For example,
Anaret S 80mm f4.5 for $80
Meogon 80mm f2.8 for $180
Freestyle usually has good prices ...
Componar-s 80mm 4.5 $134
Componon-s 80mm 4.0 $274
EL Nikkor 75 4.0 $180 (This is 4 element, I think)
EL Nikkor 80 5.6 $230
Rogonar-s 75 f4.5 $190
Rodogon 80 f4.0 $220
The EL Nikkor prices are lower at B&H, and about
the same for Componon, but Freestyle
beats B&H on Rodogon $220 to $235.
Since Freestyle pays shipping, this may tip
the advantage even further.
Note that the Meogon is less $$ and is TWO STOPS
faster than El Nikkor.
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/
Tim Shoppa
> More interesting to me is how some of the other
> lenses stack up. We've heard, from time to time,
> that some other lenses (e.g. Vivitar?) are really re-branded
> Rodogon.
Wouldn't surprise me - I've got two lenses (Rodagon 80mm 5.6
and Rodagon 50mm 5.6) that are poor compared to the "better"
Rodagons and to the El Nikkor's in my collection. These cheaper
Rodagons have excessively high flare, for most of my purposes
(though there are times when I do use them when I want a
particularly dull-looking print...)
Tim.
Phil Stiles
benefit of the group, I'm posting the remarkably uniform consensus:
1. Lenses are optimised for distance, so the cheaper Rodagon-N APO is
better for normal enlargement sizes than the "G."
2. A newer Nikkor might be a lot better, as coatings and optics have
improved over the last twenty-five years.
3. Unless a glass carrier is used, the regular Rodagon will look as
good as the APO. The latter is most noticably better in the corners,
which won't be in focus unless the negative is flat.
4. There is variation from lens to lens; a new lens should be tested,
and possible returned if not up to spec.
Phil Stiles
Phil Stiles wrote:
>
> For twenty years I have been enlarging 35mm B&W using a Nikkor 50/2.8
> enlarging lens which I stop down two or three stops. My prints were
> satisfactory. Recently, I borrowed a Rodenstock Rodagon-N APO 50/2.8
> and made some prints. I was surprised to find a noticeable improvement,
> especially at higher enlargements, so I decided to buy myself a Rodagon
> for Christmas.
Bob Salomon
carrier and a properly aligned enlarger.
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO
Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,
Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000
----------
In article <3654DFB8...@worldpath.net>, Phil Stiles
Bob Salomon
Yes it is more work, but you simply get better results.
Yes if you put AN glass in contact with the emulsion it may diffuse
slightly, that's why AN glass is normally on the base side.
Very few enlarging lenses are really made to work at small apertures as you
can easily end up in a reciprocity problem with the longer times. Especially
when large prints are involved.
That's why mural lenses like the Rodagon G and high performance normal print
size lenses like the Apo Rodagon N hit optimal aperture when stopped down
one stop.
Even very basic lenses like the Rogonar will hit optimal aperture before f8
to 11 with the 50mm lens.
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO
Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,
Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000
----------
In article <73520v$7b6$1...@mimir.ifi.uio.no>, "Erik Arisholm"
<eri...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>Bob Salomon wrote in message <733f62$7hi$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>>No. All lenses, regardless of manufacture, only perform optimally in a
>glass
>>carrier and a properly aligned enlarger.
>
>
>Hi,
>I use a glass carrier in my enlarger and a Rodagon 105mm/f5.6 lens for 6x7cm
>negatives and I think it works fine. However, some people claim that glass
>carriers reduce system performance unless you enlarge 6x9 cm or larger
>negatives.
>I would think it depends on the f-stop you're using since I suppose it is a
>matter of depth of focus? So perhaps in the f8-f11 range you may be better
>off without a glass carrier with formats smaller than 6x7cm??
>
>Regards,
>Erik Arisholm
>
>
eichler
<bobsa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> No. All lenses, regardless of manufacture, only perform optimally in a glass
> carrier and a properly aligned enlarger.
>
Bingo, Bob. You are right on the mark.
One point that is never brought up -
If you look at the distortion of the film plane as the negative rests in a
glassless holder, you will notice that no camera manufacturer would ever
allow such slop in their camera's film plane.
A great lens, great processing, etc. will not correct a distorted
projection of the film's plane.
eichler.
Erik Arisholm
glass
>carrier and a properly aligned enlarger.
Bill Lawlor
the spectrum of quality, price, and vintage?
Thanks, Bill Lawlor