Meopta Meogon 80mm f2.8 enlarging lens

[16:9]

That would be very helpful - thanks.

 

[simplejoy]

I found it yesterday and read parts of it. What stands out is the comment that the 50/5.6 Meogon is designed to open at f4.5 but constructed so that it opens at 5.6. I imagine this goes for the other two 5.6 Meogons as well (60/5.6 and 80/5.6). I wonder if I can actually see that?

Yes, I think it's true for the 80 mm version as well... From the size of the lens/lens elements I would expect f/4.5 at least, but the aperture mechanism limits it... it's not just a baffle though, like in the Agfa Color-Solagon DI 70 mm f/4.5, but the aperture blades as well. Quality at f/5.6 seems great though (at least for shooting), which is probably why they chose to do that...

Daily bread... a mere illusion! by simple.joy, on Flickr

Hang around til the weather gets better! by simple.joy, on Flickr

I really like that lens, feels so high-grade with its size and weight - way more interesting than the f/4 and f/2.8 versions in my opinion...

 

[Hilo]

Yes, I think it's true for the 80 mm version as well... From the size of the lens/lens elements I would expect f/4.5 at least, but the aperture mechanism limits it... it's not just a baffle though, like in the Agfa Color-Solagon DI 70 mm f/4.5, but the aperture blades as well. Quality at f/5.6 seems great though (at least for shooting), which is probably why they chose to do that...

Daily bread... a mere illusion! by simple.joy, on Flickr

Hang around til the weather gets better! by simple.joy, on Flickr

I really like that lens, feels so high-grade with its size and weight - way more interesting than the f/4 and f/2.8 versions in my opinion...

That would be very helpful - thanks.

No problem. It will take some time. Maybe by the weekend.

 

[Hilo]

Yes, I think it's true for the 80 mm version as well... From the size of the lens/lens elements I would expect f/4.5 at least, but the aperture mechanism limits it... it's not just a baffle though, like in the Agfa Color-Solagon DI 70 mm f/4.5, but the aperture blades as well. Quality at f/5.6 seems great though (at least for shooting), which is probably why they chose to do that...

Daily bread... a mere illusion! by simple.joy, on Flickr

Hang around til the weather gets better! by simple.joy, on Flickr

I really like that lens, feels so high-grade with its size and weight - way more interesting than the f/4 and f/2.8 versions in my opinion...

Yes, these zebra versions are fun. But I am sure the later Meogons are also excellent lenses and could be better for certain negatives.

 

[16:9]

I really like that lens, feels so high-grade with its size and weight - way more interesting than the f/4 and f/2.8 versions in my opinion...

For me, not more interesting! The faster lenses are exceptional at the old-school Meogon's only available apertures - but they give you extra creative options - including (with the f2.8) full-on vintage 'glow'.

Then again, you shoot better images with the lens that puts you in the right mood to shoot better images. Judging by the images, the baby Zebra made you happy: it's certainly true that at f5.6 the slow Meogon has nicer bokeh (despite, I suspect, slightly poorer resolution) compared to the f2.8 and f4 at that aperture.

But we've digressed somewhat into their properties as digital taking lenses, which tends to confound our analog brethren.

 

[Hilo]

For me, not more interesting! The faster lenses are exceptional at the old-school Meogon's only available apertures - but they give you extra creative options - including (with the f2.8) full-on vintage 'glow'.

Then again, you shoot better images with the lens that puts you in the right mood to shoot better images. Judging by the images, the baby Zebra made you happy: it's certainly true that at f5.6 the slow Meogon has nicer bokeh (despite, I suspect, slightly poorer resolution) compared to the f2.8 and f4 at that aperture.

But we've digressed somewhat into their properties as digital taking lenses, which tends to confound our analog brethren.

I do understand Simplejoy's enthusiasm for this particular lens. That is about its weight and the metal barrel, which remind of the Zeiss S-Orthoplanar. I wouldn't call the 80mm a baby zebra, it is big, fat and heavy. The 50 and 60mm f 5,6 are the babies in this family. From printing I can say these are the ones that stand out, the 80mm less so. I particularly like the 60mm, perhaps because I have no other 60mm lenses to compare it to.

English is a foreign language to me and I had to look up 'brethren'. Thanks for the use of this beautiful language, the positive irony is quite beautiful. And rest assured, not confusion here. I have zero experience with using enlarging lenses as macro lenses. But somewhere the appreciation and posibilities of these special lenses will meet, whether one uses them to print or use them on a camera.

 

[simplejoy]

I do understand Simplejoy's enthusiasm for this particular lens. That is about its weight and the metal barrel, which remind of the Zeiss S-Orthoplanar. I wouldn't call the 80mm a baby zebra, it is big, fat and heavy. The 50 and 60mm f 5,6 are the babies in this family. From printing I can say these are the ones that stand out, the 80mm less so. I particularly like the 60mm, perhaps because I have no other 60mm lenses to compare it to.

English is a foreign language to me and I had to look up 'brethren'. Thanks for the use of this beautiful language, the positive irony is quite beautiful. And rest assured, not confusion here. I have zero experience with using enlarging lenses as macro lenses. But somewhere the appreciation and posibilities of these special lenses will meet, whether one uses them to print or use them on a camera.

Thanks a lot - I'm glad you do. I find it very interesting that you think of the S-Orthoplanar of all lenses... do you have one of those? I think I'm reminded most of the (somewhat underrated) Agfa Color-Solagon and Color-Magnolar lenses but that's probably because I've used them more than my S-Planar for example... There's certainly something to the full metal look, weight and size. And that being said, the f/2.8 does feel and look like a high-class lens as well and while the Meogon-S does not for my feeling it also doesn't feel cheap.

For me, not more interesting! The faster lenses are exceptional at the old-school Meogon's only available apertures - but they give you extra creative options - including (with the f2.8) full-on vintage 'glow'.

Then again, you shoot better images with the lens that puts you in the right mood to shoot better images. Judging by the images, the baby Zebra made you happy: it's certainly true that at f5.6 the slow Meogon has nicer bokeh (despite, I suspect, slightly poorer resolution) compared to the f2.8 and f4 at that aperture.

But we've digressed somewhat into their properties as digital taking lenses, which tends to confound our analog brethren.

I think you're right... more options are a great thing, and particularly the Meogon 80 mm f/2.8 does provide some of that. However, if I want the 'full-on vintage glow' and don't mind some drop in image quality, I feel like there are quite a few other options for that, many even less expensive than the usual asking price for the Meogon 80 mm f/2.8. (Some might not be equally great close-up/macro lenses stopped down though...) And if f/5.6 is probably close to the ideal aperture for both the f/2.8 and -S f/4 Meogons anyway, I'll prefer having the option of the beautiful round bokeh the f/5.6 lens does provide.

I tried to do a comparison shot somewhere in the macro range which has a lot of focus on bokeh:

Meopta Meogon 80mm f/2.8 at f/5.6
Meopta Meogon-S 80mm f/4 at f/5.6
Meopta Meogon 80mm f/5.6 at f/5.6

As you can see the Meogon 80 mm f/5.6 has the advantage of round bokeh plus visibly better edge sharpness. (which I'll gladly admit isn't a big factor in a majority of my images - like demonstrated here - but quite a significant one for some macro photographers as well as for enlarging)

So I also tried to set up a little scene (sorry for the inadequate lighting, I just didn't have the time to set that up properly) with slightly more going on towards the edges, while showing some difference in rendering at a distance (of around 80 cm from the subject), which I would guess might also provide a bit more insight for enlarging purposes (as you correctly stated is the main purpose in this forum):

Meopta Meogon 80mm f/2.8 at f/5.6
Meopta Meogon-S 80mm f/4 at f/5.6
Meopta Meogon 80mm f/5.6 at f/5.6

The differences are not significant by any means but from my observations I would say the image quality/sharpness is almost identical in the middle of the frame as well as the edges (if not the tiniest bit better at the "wide open" f/5.6 Meogon), and I really don't care for the OOF rendering of the Meogon-S version. I'll have to add that I have the newer version of the Meogon 80 mm f/2.8 and the older version of the Meogon-S 80 mm f/4, so things might be different with the lenses you have tested.

What do you think? Would you agree overall and is a test at that distance even an indicator for enlarging, or am I completely off base here? I still don't have a firm grasp on the whole process to be honest... maybe I will get a chance to try all of that at some later stage in my life...

 

[Hilo]

Simplejoy: I find it very interesting that you think of the S-Orthoplanar of all lenses... do you have one of those?
I had one of those around 2012. I made some comparison prints (not tests!) with these lenses using images I knew well. After finding out the Focotar-2 50/4,5 and the Meogon 50/5,6 were basically doing the same, and getting an offer I could not resist, I sold the Zeiss which was more difficult to use in my enlarger due to its physical parameters. To it's credit: I did find it amazing that this earlier Zeiss design did the same as the later Leitz and Meopta designs.


Simplejoy: Would you agree overall and is a test at that distance even an indicator for enlarging, or am I completely off base here?
This is hard to answer for me. I only have the experience within analog photography. So many parameters are at play: the film, the camera lens used, the enlarger and its lens used, the personal printing preferences (I prefer the basic enlargers using opale bulbs, which give more contrast than the later enlarger heads, which make printing easier).
My prints, b/w on fiber paper, are so different from when the same image is on the screen (having had to go through a digital transformation). To me an analog print from a negative is something very different from a digital image on the screen. Don't get me wrong, I am not a purist and I like it that these older lenses are being appreciated by digital folks.