The Anaret was tested and has a lower MTF rating at the edges, but at the price seems good enough for me. The Belar was not tested, but seems made to compete with the Rogonar/Componar lenses. Anyway, buying second hand lenses is always going to be a bit of a lottery with the conditions of use/storage playing a big part in the performance. In that respect, the Meopta range also edges it with their all metal construction, whereas the Schneider and Rodenstock have a mixed metal/ABS constructions.My Meogon 4/80 is almost as good as Componon S 4/80. Now, if I have to pay outrageous price for it, I will take less expensive option.
Maybe you can fulfill your Meopta love with buying 75 or 80mm Belar or Anaret. They are also very good lenses, affordable and made in huge numbers and wait for right offer for Meogon
Which of the taking lens resolution figures do you intend to reference?Another question would be is there any point in buying an enlarger lens with a greater power of resolution than that of the taking lens? It obviously cannot resolve detail that fails to get recorded on the negative.
Well, take the case of my Flexaret TLR with a Belar f3.5 taking lens which may be less well corrected than the Anaret f4.5 enlarging lens. Is there any detail that could be recorded on the negative that the enlarging lens would be unable to resolve?Which of the taking lens resolution figures do you intend to reference?
The resolution of taking lenses varies significantly with changes in aperture, subject distance and (to a lesser extent) the colour of the subject and the light source. The nature of the film itself also plays into the resolution equation.
It is a lot easier to make an enlarging lens that performs well under the relatively constrained "normal" conditions that they are used in than it is to make a taking lens that that performs well under the much more diverse "normal" conditions that they are used in.
The 50 mm f2.8 version of the Meogon rated very highly in the French test I linked to earlier, being only out-performed by the 50mm f5.6 version against Angenieux, El Nikkor, Leitz, Schneider and Rodagon competition, including the 50mm f2.8 apo Rodagon.I have a 50mm f2.8 5 element Meogon that's not seeing much use anymore. It's a decent enough lens but the only thing I've got that I can really compare it to is the 40mm APO-Componon that replaced it. Not really in the same league.
I was looking for more comparative information and came across this French site: http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18118&sid=21c14913eb6b87744c84a20820c2a15f the last post on the page gives a comparison of various leading brands.in which the various Meogons acquit themselves very well, both the 50 mm and 80 mm when compared with other leading brands. My French is too rusty to understand it all especially the last parameter: "Cote d'amour"
Yes, there is. In an imaging chain, the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the whole chain is defined by multiplying the MTF's of the components, i.e. taking lens, film, enlarging lens, and paper in this case. The MTF of lenses is always smaller than 1, so if we just look at the combination of the taking and enlarging lens for a given frequency (lp/mm), the higher either one, the better. For example, if the MTF of both lenses would be 0.8 for some lp/mm value, the resulting combined one is 0.64. If the enlarging lens has an MTF of 0.9, the resulting MTF would be 0.72, certainly better.Another question would be is there any point in buying an enlarger lens with a greater power of resolution than that of the taking lens? It obviously cannot resolve detail that fails to get recorded on the negative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?