I have both the 75 and 80 apo-rodagon-N's and at least from my experience, which is to use them as taking lenses on a digital camera, they perform about the same. I'm not sure why a 75 and 80 both exist as they seem very similar. I'm not 100% certain but I think but I think the 80 (c. 1995) predates the 75 (c. 1998).
I see. Did You ever compare them with a Schneider Componon-S 4/80? That's the one I have, bought new in 1989. It is not multicoated, but my favourite for enlarging 6x6.
I see. Did You ever compare them with a Schneider Componon-S 4/80? That's the one I have, bought new in 1989. It is not multicoated, but my favourite for enlarging 6x6.
I have the Schneider Componon-S 4/80 and agree it's an excellent lens, as are most 6 element EL's, but I've never directly compared it to other lenses. I'm not sure I'd waste much time or money chasing a better lens than the Schneider Componon-S 4/80, sure there are better lenses, but you start paying big money for small improvements. Buy film, train or plane tickets instead.
I have the Schneider Componon-S 4/80 and agree it's an excellent lens, as are most 6 element EL's, but I've never directly compared it to other lenses. I'm not sure I'd waste much time or money chasing a better lens than the Schneider Componon-S 4/80, sure there are better lenses, but you start paying big money for small improvements. Buy film, train or plane tickets instead.
I you are planning on printing 6x9 and can afford nearly the best, get a 105 ApoRodagon N. The very best I doubt could afford, if you could even find it. But maybe someone on this forum drives a Ferari. Who knows. Most "exhibition" prints I see are pretty awful. But just like camera lenses, enlarging lenses have different looks in terms of contrast etc. The ApoRodagons have high contrast and superb microtonality reproduction.
I read a review where the guy compared an APO-Rodagon-N to a Leitz Focotar 2. The Rodagon was sharper, but he kept coming back to the prints w/the Focotar because they were "more human".