Are Rodenstock Omegaron lenses any good?

[david b]

I just got a bunch of Rodenstock Omegaron lenses (50/3.5 & 75/4.0 & 105/4.0) as part of a small package and I am wondering how good they are? I've never even heard of them. Any idea of age and quality?

Thanks.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I do not have any real information about age other that they are probably early Rodenstock "Rodagons", rebranded (slightly) as "OmegaRONs".
Most likely sold aftermarket by Omega, or furnished as a package with new enlargers.

Omega had two grades of enlarger lenses ... the OmeGAR and OmegaRON. The "Rons" are identical to the early Rodagons ... and indeed are *fine* lenses.

Uh ... I mean ... er ... well, you can always send them to me. I'll figure out some way to dispose of them. It'll be tough, but I won't charge you anything.

Nice try?? Any chance of it actually working?

 

[raucousimages]

I had some Omegaron,s and after testing them against Nikkor and rodagon I felt they were junk and donated them to a high school. The focus was not as sharp.

 

[dphphoto]

If I remember right, the Omegarons are 4 element lenses. With the prices of enlarging glass what they are on eBay right now, I'd pick up a Rodagon. Dean

 

[david b]

I bought them because they were attached to boards that I needed. So it was a package deal. Maybe I'll just give them away when they arrive.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening David,

I use a 90mm Omegaron for my 6 x 7 negatives; I think it would also cover 6 x 9, but that's not a size I normally use. The lens gives excellent prints, at least up to 16 x 20. I'm glad to have it, because 90mm enlarging lenses seem to be much less common than 75mm, 80mm, and 105mm lenses. I purchased it on E-Bay a couple of years ago for a very low price and I find it totally satisfactory.

Konical

 

[psvensson]

I had an Omegaron 50/3.5 that was absolute trash. It rendered unsharp 4x6 inch prints.

 

[minotaur1949]

I own and use a 90mm f3.5 Omegaron enlarging lens. It covers up to 6x9 cm. It was bougt new in 1968 with my Omega B8XL. As I recall there were 3 options for lenses offered by Omega. The 105mm Omegar with 3 elements and no additional branding was the least expensive. The 90mm Rodenstock Omegaraon with 4 elements was the mid range. The 105mm Rodenstock Rodagon with 6 elements was the top of the line. We (my dad, brother & I)chose the 90mm because it would cover 6x9 which Dad used, 6x6 used by my Brother and combined with the xl girders the 90mm gave slightly cropped 11x14 with 35mm (which I used.) It is a sharp lens even at the extreme elevations I was using. Several years later I bought a 50mm EL Nikkkor. I'm still using the B8 on a regular basis.

 

[titrisol]

I bought a couple of those (75 and 90mm) as part of a package I wanted on weBay... I wanted the Rodagon 50 only
The 75 is a decent lens, it rendered pretty sharp enlargements.
I never compared it to a Nikkor or such but I'm quite happy with it and specially for what I paid for it.

My advice would be to test them yourself and decide.

I just got a bunch of Rodenstock Omegaron lenses (50/3.5 & 75/4.0 & 105/4.0) as part of a small package and I am wondering how good they are? I've never even heard of them. Any idea of age and quality?

Thanks.

 

[david b]

I've now listed these in the classifieds.

 

[GaryFlorida]

I had an Omegaron 50/3.5 that was absolute trash. It rendered unsharp 4x6 inch prints.

Has anyone ever said this about Schneider Componons? I think not.

 

[Bill Burk]

For a long time I considered the Omegaron 50/3.5 to be the best enlarging lens in my collection.

I think I have some better ones now, but it was very happy with results from it, while other lenses bothered me.

 

[mgb74]

Has anyone ever said this about Schneider Componons? I think not.

I have a componon that gives lousy results. The iris is broken. Point being that unless you know that the lens was never subjected to abuse (like dropping) or incompetent repair its hard to say whether its your sample or not.

 

[randyB]

Omegaron lenses

Ditto on the 3 options of Omega/Rodenstock lenses. I sold buschels of them back in the 70's-80's. The 3 element was the basic lens sold with enlarger kits, the Omegaron was the next upgrade and does a fine job for small prints (3x5 to 8x10 on 35mm), the Rodagon was top of the line, made for bigger enlargments and overall much better quality enlargments of any size. The Omegaron makes a fine cheap macro lens when cobbled together with a bellows or extension tubes, the Rodagon is even better. Using an enlarging lens for macro shots is handy when you don't have the funds for a true macro lens. I have several Omegarons in my darkroom along with Rodagons, Componons, el-nikors.

I own and use a 90mm f3.5 Omegaron enlarging lens. It covers up to 6x9 cm. It was bougt new in 1968 with my Omega B8XL. As I recall there were 3 options for lenses offered by Omega. The 105mm Omegar with 3 elements and no additional branding was the least expensive. The 90mm Rodenstock Omegaraon with 4 elements was the mid range. The 105mm Rodenstock Rodagon with 6 elements was the top of the line. We (my dad, brother & I)chose the 90mm because it would cover 6x9 which Dad used, 6x6 used by my Brother and combined with the xl girders the 90mm gave slightly cropped 11x14 with 35mm (which I used.) It is a sharp lens even at the extreme elevations I was using. Several years later I bought a 50mm EL Nikkkor. I'm still using the B8 on a regular basis.

 

[outwest]

Way back when, I had a 135 Omegaron that I thought was a pretty good lens and that gave good results. Then I started acquiring and comparison testing a large number of enlarger lenses in different focal lengths and from different makers. I learned that there were better lenses and that specimen variation within the same lens could be greater than the variation between different lenses. Moral: Test.

 

[Bill Burk]

I was organizing my darkroom and Googled the names of some lenses so I could note a few details on a tag to identify the lens as I cleaned them and put them away. I wanted to write something like '4 elements in 3 groups, optimized for 4x enlargement' etc.

I thought for sure Google would return useful information. Instead, every search wound up here.

 

[markjwyatt]

I was organizing my darkroom and Googled the names of some lenses so I could note a few details on a tag to identify the lens as I cleaned them and put them away. I wanted to write something like '4 elements in 3 groups, optimized for 4x enlargement' etc.

I thought for sure Google would return useful information. Instead, every search wound up here.

Here is the best resource I have found on the web: http://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html

 

[ic-racer]

Bill, you are the guy that can figure it out [if they are any good].

 

[Paul Howell]

https://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html only lists the EL which are 6 elements in 4 groups. I had a 3 element 50mm that came with Durst I bought like 20 years ago, very poor lens, even for a 3 element.
Omicron EL 50, 2.8/50 6-4 2-20[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 75, 4.5/75 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 90, 5.6/90 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 105, 5.6/105 5.6-45[52] 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 135, 5.6/135 5.6-45[52] 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]

 

[MattKing]

https://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html only lists the EL which are 6 elements in 4 groups. I had a 3 element 50mm that came with Durst I bought like 20 years ago, very poor lens, even for a 3 element.
Omicron EL 50, 2.8/50 6-4 2-20[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 75, 4.5/75 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 90, 5.6/90 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 105, 5.6/105 5.6-45[52] 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]
Omega Omicron EL 135, 5.6/135 5.6-45[52] 6-4 2-10[52] N 8[52] 39x1/26 40.5x0.5[52] 1975 [49][52]

Those are Omicron lenses, not Omegaron lenses.

 

[markjwyatt]

4 elements, 3-groups (sounds like the Tessar)

Rodenstock Omegaron 4/25 (Cat. No. 452-011)[80] 4-16 4-3[80] 20 12x17 N 32.5 c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 4/35 (Cat. No. 452-231)[80] 4-16 4-3[80] 20 18x24 N 32.5 c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 3.5/50 (Cat. No. 452-003)[80] 3.5-16 4-3[80] 10 35 Y Leica c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 4.5/75 (Cat. No. 452-023)[80] 4.5-22 4-3[80] 4 60x60 Y Leica c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 4.5/90 (Cat. No. 452-042)[80] 4.5-22 4-3[80] 4 60x70 Y Leica c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 4.5/105 (Cat. No. 452-062)[80] 4.5-22 4-3[80] 4 60x90 Y Leica c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 4.5/135 (Cat. No. 452-082)[80] 4.5-32 4-3[80] 4 4"x5" Y 50 c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 4.5/150 (Cat. No. 452-102)[80] 4.5-32 4-3[80] 4 4"x5" Y 50 c. 1977
Hard Coated
[67][80]

Rodenstock Omegaron 4.5/210 (Cat. No. 452-122) 4.5-32 4-3 4"x7" 50 c. 1977
Hard Coated
[80]

 

[Paul Howell]

Those are Omicron lenses, not Omegaron lenses.
So Omicron were not sold by Omega, different brand? Never saw one.

 

[Pitotshock]

So everybody else has a box of enlarger lenses too? I had the impression that Omegaron were good lenses but I often defer to others like Componon-S etc. It would be good to have a purpose for these lenses based on certain types of jobs.

 

[Pitotshock]

Unfortunately for that 135 Omegaron, it has a failure of the last group.

 

[randyB]

I finally found my Rodenstock literature on enlarging lenses, I have scanned 2 pages explaining the different qualities of their lenses. This is circa 1977.