Enlarging 2.55" x 2.55" negatives 4x: Apo-Rodagon-D 120 2x or Componon-S 80?

[JensH]

Hi!

I exposed some glass plates (6.5x9cm) in a microscope camera (Zeiss Miflex) from the 30s on a 1929 microscope. The camera gives round images, 6 to 6.5 cm diameter (depending on the eye piece).

Now I want to enlarge these quasi 2.5 x 2.5" negatives 4 times to about 10 x 10".

On my enlarger I could take Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-D 5.6/120mm designed for 2x
or a Schneider Componon-S 4/80mm optimised for 6x? Both are in mint condition.
Which would you take?

Best
Jens

 

[Mick Fagan]

Well the Schneider Componon S 80mm is pretty much designed for negatives with an image circle of around 56mm diameter, which is what a 120 negative from a 6x6 camera will give you. For that reason I myself use the slightly larger Schneider Comoponon S 100mm enlarging lens for any 6x6 (56mm by 56mm) enlarging I do. Experience in an industrial colour lab 30+ years ago with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, made me understand that lens coverage was the ultimate decider of what lens to use for any format one was going to enlarge.

I have no doubt that the 80mm will do a good job, but, you are presumably wishing for the best tool for the job. From what I understand from your description of what you wish to enlarge, and what you have at hand, the greater coverage lens, which is in fact a duplicating lens designed for 1:1 copying, or near enough to 1:1, would be my pick.

Within reason, a duplication, or reprographic copy lens, which is more or less what the 120mm lens is, should be able to handle being used a little outside its design parameters. Providing you stay within the suggested working f stop range of the lens, going outside its optimum enlarging design would be alright; I would think. The 120mm Rodenstock, like virtually all Rodenstock industrial products is optimised for a specific application, many a time I have deviated with units similar and found them almost always to do an excellent job.

254mm paper divided by 4 = 63.5mm. Allowing for some fudge factor, then a 3.9 times enlargement factor for a 65mm image circle is where you will be.

Just on coverage alone, I would take the Rodenstock.

Mick.

 

[Paul Howell]

What enlarger and how tall is the column? The column need to be tall enough to allow for 10X10 print with a 120 lens. A 90mm should also cover 2.5 X 2.5, but given the choice of the 80 or the 120 all depends on the column, my D3 will take the 120 with room to spare, my A Opums III will not.

 

[JensH]

What enlarger and how tall is the column? The column need to be tall enough to allow for 10X10 print with a 120 lens. A 90mm should also cover 2.5 X 2.5, but given the choice of the 80 or the 120 all depends on the column, my D3 will take the 120 with room to spare, my A Opums III will not.

Hi Paul,

thanks for Your reply. The enlarger is a large Durst 138s, so no problems here - even the desk can be lowered if necessary.
I don't own a 90mm lens, just 60, 80, 120 and 180 mm.

Yours
Jens

 

[Paul Howell]

If you own all 4 lens just try the 80, 120, and even the 180 out until find the find that works best for your project.

 

[JensH]

Well the Schneider Componon S 80mm is pretty much designed for negatives with an image circle of around 56mm diameter, which is what a 120 negative from a 6x6 camera will give you. For that reason I myself use the slightly larger Schneider Comoponon S 100mm enlarging lens for any 6x6 (56mm by 56mm) enlarging I do. Experience in an industrial colour lab 30+ years ago with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, made me understand that lens coverage was the ultimate decider of what lens to use for any format one was going to enlarge.

I have no doubt that the 80mm will do a good job, but, you are presumably wishing for the best tool for the job. From what I understand from your description of what you wish to enlarge, and what you have at hand, the greater coverage lens, which is in fact a duplicating lens designed for 1:1 copying, or near enough to 1:1, would be my pick.

Within reason, a duplication, or reprographic copy lens, which is more or less what the 120mm lens is, should be able to handle being used a little outside its design parameters. Providing you stay within the suggested working f stop range of the lens, going outside its optimum enlarging design would be alright; I would think. The 120mm Rodenstock, like virtually all Rodenstock industrial products is optimised for a specific application, many a time I have deviated with units similar and found them almost always to do an excellent job.

254mm paper divided by 4 = 63.5mm. Allowing for some fudge factor, then a 3.9 times enlargement factor for a 65mm image circle is where you will be.

Just on coverage alone, I would take the Rodenstock.

Mick.

Hi Mick,

There are different Apo-Rodagon-D. One optimized for 1:1 ratio, the 4/75; other for 1:2 like the 4.5/75 and my 5.6/120. When used as an enlarger lens 1:2 turns into 2:1 - 2x.
The 120 is great for 4"x5" macro work btw.

Thank you for your comments on the 4/80. Like You, I prefer lenses longer than needed for a given format, so for 4"x5" I take the 4.8/180mm Apo-Rodagon, not a 150mm.

6x6 (56mmx56mm) means an image circle of about 79mm, so the 4/80 Componon-S has more than needed here.

Best
Jens

 

[Luis-F-S]

I'd use a 105 or 135 Rodagon.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

thank you all for the replys. I think I'll test the 120 then.

If you like to look at a flickr preview (just scanned, not printed) of the project:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136145166@N02/sets/72157686135321996

Best
Jens

 

[bernard_L]

Congratulations for these truly vintage photos. Beautiful equipment, beautiful pictures. This will motivate me to try old glass plates (in an ordunary camera).

 

[JensH]

Congratulations for these truly vintage photos. Beautiful equipment, beautiful pictures. This will motivate me to try old glass plates (in an ordunary camera).

Thank you Bernard.
I was very surprised how useful that old plates still are... and I like the look they give.

Best success with your plates
Greetings
Jens