Rodagon 50/2.8 older version as good as newer?

[crow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is the older worse, better, or same as the newer version?

[crow]

And just how lower quality than the apo 50/2.8 on the same Durst M301 enlarger?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[joeswe]

To answer your question one would have to know which "versions" you are talking about. How old is "older"? Personally I would say, any Rodagon 6 element lens from the 80s or younger in should be fine as long as it is in good condition. If you prefer newer lenses, just get the newest one you can get your hands on. Enlarging lenses are a dime a dozone.

[crow]

the older one looks like the aperture ring resembles a zebra lens.

Don't know exactly what year, only it looks different from the newer lens.

Is it really different from the Apo 50/2.8 Rodagon?

[joeswe]

the older one looks like the aperture ring resembles a zebra lens.

Don't know exactly what year, only it looks different from the newer lens.

Is it really different from the Apo 50/2.8 Rodagon?

 

The Apo is different (but there are two versions of the Apo 50 I think). According to Rodentsock data, the Rodagon 50mm is good up to 15x enlargement (optimum 10x), the Apo Rodago-N 50mm up to 20x enlargement (optimum 10x).

Overview of Rodenstock enlargement lenses

[aesop]

The Apo is different (but there are two versions of the Apo 50 I think). According to Rodentsock data, the Rodagon 50mm is good up to 15x enlargement (optimum 10x), the Apo Rodago-N 50mm up to 20x enlargement (optimum 10x).

Overview of Rodenstock enlargement lenses

 

 

...super link, joeswe - thanks for that.

[crow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Involving an unorthodox use of what could be an enlarger:

enlarging a shot projecting the light vertically, not horizontally, on to a canvas that hangs vertically, is the best way to do it a traditional slide projector?

If so, a Leica Wetzlar, is it sharp depending on the lens, let's say it carries a 50-80mm lens?

I am not interested in huge enlargements so far. I can't bring the canvas underneath the Durst M301 because canvases are too big. I am going to prime the canvas with :

Rollei Black Magic RBM3 Emulsion.

[Richardgb]

The difference between the the ordinary Rodagon and the Apo Rodagon was a 1-stop improvement in performance. The ordinary Rodagon's best performance was at f/11, which the Apo- equalled at f/8.

 

Don't confuse the Rodagon and Rodagon-N. The latter was made for bigger enlargement ratios. This mainly benefited larger film formats, especially sheet film, when used to create 30x40in prints and larger. The 35mm negative is already enlarged quite a lot by 8x10in.

 

As previous posts have said, a Rodagon from the 80s or even the 70s should be OK. It should have an illuminated aperture display, so you can stop the lens down in the dark when the enlarger is switched on. Obviously you should check it for scratches, loose aperture rings and other general condition. A bright mounting thread may mean it was unscrewed from the enlarger a lot; any professional user would have had separate mounting flanges for their lenses.

[Richardgb]

Involving an unorthodox use of what could be an enlarger:

enlarging a shot projecting the light vertically, not horizontally, on to a canvas that hangs vertically, is the best way to do it a traditional slide projector?

If so, a Leica Wetzlar, is it sharp depending on the lens, let's say it carries a 50-80mm lens?

I am not interested in huge enlargements so far. I can't bring the canvas underneath the Durst M301 because canvases are too big. I am going to prime the canvas with :

Rollei Black Magic RBM3 Emulsion.

 

You can't use a slide projector for enlarging because. there's too much light leaking from the cooling- and slide-carrier systems. It would also be a challenge to mount an enlarging lens - the projector lens performance would not be good enough and you cannot stop it down.

[crow]

How about the Rodagon 40mm WA?

Is it better than the Rodagon Apo 50mm 2.8?

Basically, it would be nice to see printed tests, or digitized samples posted on the internet somewhere.

[Richardgb]

The WA Rodagon and Apo Rodagon are different lenses for different purposes.

 

The WA series was - surprise, surprise - a wider-than-normal enlarging lens (i.e. it could acceptably cover the neg format at a shorter focal length). On a given enlarger-head to baseboard distance, it produces a larger image or would allow more selective cropping at extreme magnifications. This presumes that the enlarger lighting system can also direct the light through a steeper angle. With diffuser systems, this is not normally a problem; condenser systems would need testing. Of course, ye cannae change the laws of physics, so there would be more illumination fall-off at the corners. Again, testing would be the only way to know if this is acceptable in practice. The WA performance is comparable to that of a normal Rodagon when stopped down, but again whether this is acceptable to the user only a practical test will decide.

 

The Apo Rodagon, as the name suggests, is a (very) high performance optic. The main practical difference is being able to use it at a wider (not wide open) aperture to get the same performance, or stopped-down for higher performance. The ordinary Rodagon is no slouch - more than good enough to resolve the grain in the corners...

[crow]

I see.

I can't go wrong with the normal Rodagon 2.8.

However the Apo-Rodagon gets higher quality results stopped down.

My enlarger is a Durst m301. Will it work with the 40 WA and larger prints?

Edited April 15, 2014 by crow

[Richardgb]

I see.

 

1. I can't go wrong with the normal Rodagon 2.8.
   
2. However the Apo-Rodagon gets higher quality results stopped down.
   
3. My enlarger is a Durst m301. Will it work with the 40 WA and larger prints?
   

 

1. Yes. The Rodagon was (is) a widely-used and well-respected lens capable of top-quality results.
   
2. Yes. Optimal aperture for the normal Rodagon is f/11, which the Apo-Roadgon achieves at f/8 and improves on slightly at f/11.
   
3. If your Durst M301 has the (CLS 35?) colour head, presumably this is a diffused light source, and so a WA Rodagon should work, within the limits of optical laws.
   

[fotomas]

The 301 might work with the 40 WA. But question is, if you can get a benefit from that.

As far as I remember with the 301 you can reach about 30 x 40 cm with the head full up. With a 40 WA you will get a greater picture. But you have to check if the column might get in the way and if the ground plate becomes to small.

If so you can only get the benefit with a reconfiguration of the enlarger (projecting at a wall or so). Then a normal Rodagon might do the job also.

 

About APO-lenses. I have some focal lengths as APO and normal. I made a comparison with the 50 mm. At least in B&W I couldn't see a significant difference. Maybe in color, but I would say APO is not worth the extra money if you have a good 6-elements lens like a Rodagon or Componon.

I have a Nikkor 50 mm lens from the 80s and performed quite well against the much newer APO-Rodagon.

[crow]

I am new in the field.

I am away from the enlarger during the Easter so can't check on it to see if it is a color one.

I know there is a knob that twisting it brings in a red filter, hence this might be a b+w enlarger.

I also got a Nikon f4 el which doesn't seem to be uniform at the edges-all four corners of the enlarged image. Haven't printed a picture yet, but shouldn't it be uniform on all four corners?

This is what made me think of buying a different el lens. Plus I have found an APO Rodagon at about 70 euro-(not bad?).

I do intend to project with the enlarger on a canvas hanged vertically eventually.

[crow]

And when I speak of the four corners I also mean that the Nikon at f4 is brighter and sharper in the middle of the picture frame than at the corners. It may be just a tad but it is.

[fotomas]

And when I speak of the four corners I also mean that the Nikon at f4 is brighter and sharper in the middle of the picture frame than at the corners. It may be just a tad but it is.

This is quite normal at aperture full open. But if stop down 2 or 3 steps illumination and sharpness should be even over the whole picture.

Otherwise the lens might not be a good one. Of course you should use fully opened aperture only for focussing and expose with 2 or 3 steps closed.

[crow]

Thanks much fotomas,

this is why I love forums,

people receive and offer valuable information.

Can I take advantage and ask you about stopping down with a shift lens?

OK for the el lens, but how about using a perspective control OM Zuiko,

how and why do I stop down?

Edited April 19, 2014 by crow

[fotomas]

Well — I don't know the Olympus shift-lens, but in general most or all lenses should reach their best results in a technical manner if you stop them down 2 or 3 steps.

In the darkroom there is normally no need to use full open aperture since you can adjust the exposure-time. So it is wise to use the aperture with the best image quality.

But while tacking pictures a lot of other wishes or circumstances can lead to another decision.

If there is low light or if you wan't an unsharp background you need fully opened aperture. For great depth of field you stop down often more then 2-3 f-stops.

There are some lens failures that become better while stoping down. Evenness of illumination, chromatic aberration, coma, sharpness especially in the edges i.e. and also the radius of the usable image circle rises. This is important for using shift-lenses. Normally I would think you use this from a tripod. So exposure time isn't a problem. So I would use this always stopped down.

 

On the other hand there are things that won't turn better while stoping down. With every f-stop you cut the possible resolution of the lens to the half. This don't hurt so much if you work with focus close to infinity. But while close-up work this can become a serious issue. Then, maybe close to 1:1, f 8 or 11 could be the border after that images gets more and more unsharp if stopped down further.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[crow]

Yea, I know about the optimal aperture for every lens being 2 stops down.

I didn't know that f8-11-16 aren't that good for macro shots.

I know for infinity ones 8 or 11 is the optimal. The shift lens should be on a tripod most of the time, and the dof will be deep/infinity for taller buildings, shallower/close to infinity for shorter ones.

I also know that regardless the dof, any aperture more than f11-16 won't work well with any lens.

I've taken shots where I want a bokeh effect, with Leica Tele-Elmarit 90(expensive), or even the Zuiko 50/1.8(cheap lens) and results where great. Sometimes you want a bokeh effect, or even buy a lense because of the character of its bokeh, like the Summar 50/2

which I haven't let go because its bokeh you can't find on any other lenses-not great but of a special swirling quality.

I haven't gone for a 50/f1.4 or f1.2 lens cause I am not in need for one yet, but when I will it is going to be a Zuiko.

 

It is rather a difficulty to understand special photographic terms, like "stop down", rather than a very early stage of learning in photography. I know the basics, new in the field means in my case new to the darkroom technique, but I am moving on gradually.

I have the most stable basis cause I have been a painter for 25 years so formally and as far as the pictorial visual elements is concerned, I am ahead most professional photographers who can't draw a line.

 

F11-16 on the EL LENS in the darkroom printing/exposing paper, means shorter exposure time therefore more difficult to control. F5.6-8 will require longer paper exposure therefore more time frame for control. This is coming from someone who hasn't got experience in the darkroom and is a little bit afraid cause I am not in control yet. I bet once having printed a dozen of times I will begin to think differently of all enlarging lenses.

The Nikon El 50/4 is not a six element lens, the 50/2.8 is though, but is there such a big difference between the Apo Rodagon 50-2.8 and the Nikon 50/2.8? One thing about the price the Nikon costs 1/3 of the Rodagon.

Question:

Is the older Nikon 50/2.8 lens a 6 element one?

Sorry about the blur, it ain't my picture.

Actually found a site, and read about it, it is a 6 element lens, however the 2.8N newer version is more contrasty.

Since owning the Nikon 50/4 4 element student grade lens I will go either for 40WA or Apo 50/2.8 both of which Rodagons.

As far as the vertical column on the M301 enlarger, even if it obscures part of the enlarged image of the 40WA Rodagon it still won't get in the way when priducing slightly larger images than a 50mm Rodagon. The question is:

Is it worth spending 140 euro on a 40 WA, when I can probably get a larger enlarger with a 75mm Rodagon capable of enlarging 8x10inches images?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 20, 2014 by crow