Rodagon 50mm or 60mm?

[Emil]

Hi everybody!

I was recently given a Rodenstock Rodagon 1:4 f=60mm, but usually I use its 50mm little sister for prints from 24x36mm negatives. Would anyone happen to know anything about the differences between these two lenses? Is there any point at all in switching lens here, or are they too similar?

btw, isn't 60mm an odd focal length?? What could it be designed for?

And even though I called the 50mm "little sister" it is actually taller and heavier than the 60mm. weird...

Emil

 

[Ian Grant]

Rollhead printers used in pro-labs etc used different focal length lenses set on the same lens turret for different sized enlargements so there was a wider range of focal lengths than you would expect.

Rodenstock made one that was an enlarger lens for 127 film and another a Rodagon WA that was a wide angle lens for 6x6.

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

Rodenstock made a 60mm Wide Angle lens for 6x6cm. If you have that lens it sould say "WA" on it.

 

[RobertV]

Yes, it's a Rodenstock Rodagon 4,0/60mm-WA which I am using for 24x36mm and 6x4,5. You can go to 6x6 with this lens but for 6x6 and 6x7 (cm) I am using a Rodagon 4,0/80mm.

A test done with 6x6 negatives and the 60-WA or 80mm gives no differences till 40x40cm enlargements.
So that 4,0/60mm-WA is pretty good.

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes, it's a Rodenstock Rodagon 4,0/60mm-WA which I am using for 24x36mm and 6x4,5. You can go to 6x6 with this lens but for 6x6 and 6x7 (cm) I am using a Rodagon 4,0/80mm.

A test done with 6x6 negatives and the 60-WA or 80mm gives no differences till 40x40cm enlargements.
So that 4,0/60mm-WA is pretty good.

Best regards,

Robert

Rodenstock also made a plain 60mm f4 Rodagon which was only designed for 4x4cmm/127 film, and that lens does not cover 6x6.

Ian

 

[RobertV]

Well, most specifications of Rodenstock lenses you can find here:

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/

To be more precise:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230.pdf

And indeed they have also a regular 60mm for 4x4 (127 Roll film still made by Efke, 100 and Rollei, Retro 80S).

 

[Emil]

Unfortunately, my lens does not say WA anywhere. What's the chance there's a forum member who shoots 127 film who'd like this lens for free? Should I try and find a taker in the classifieds section?

 

[MattKing]

Your 60mm lens will be very useful if you either:

1) need to make large enlargements from a portion of a 6x6 negative, or
2) need to make small enlargements (postcard size?) from a 35mm negative, and want more working room.

 

[RobertV]

my lens does not say WA anywhere

In case of a Wide Angle it's marked: Rodagon WA.

For use if it's a 60mm standard: see remarks above or sell it to somebody who is doing 127 roll film. (Efke 100, Rollei Retro 80S 127 roll films).

 

[Ian Grant]

It would be a useful macro lens on a set of bellows for 35mm work.

Ian

 

[RobertV]

a useful macro lens

For that I am using a (Meopta) Meogon 2,8/80mm which is going then to infinity focus too.
When doing shift and tilting it's nice to have 2,8 .
http://www.zoerk.com/

 

[tenaitch]

The lens was often supplied on the Bowens Illumitran slide duplicator. Using bellows for working at 1:1 the results were pretty good but it must be said the Apo Rodagons were superior. The 60mm is nice in the darkroom as there is better working height which is why the Nikon 63 was so popular in pro labs.

 

[Dave Ludwig]

I am sure many have conformed to the theory, as I do, that using the next higher lens will eliminate edge drop off and give you more even exposure of light. For me 35mm= 63mm, 645= 90mm, 6x7=135mm, 4x5= 210mm, & 8x10=300mm (only because of height restriction). I believe
AA and Bret W. operated this way, although not positive about Bret. Operating this way I have set maximum enlargements for these formats.

 

[Ian Grant]

I am sure many have conformed to the theory, as I do, that using the next higher lens will eliminate edge drop off and give you more even exposure of light. For me 35mm= 63mm, 645= 90mm, 6x7=135mm, 4x5= 210mm, & 8x10=300mm (only because of height restriction). I believe
AA and Bret W. operated this way, although not positive about Bret. Operating this way I have set maximum enlargements for these formats.

Have to disagree, having used a 135mm lens for 5x4 for 34 years with no drop off or uneven coverage. That's because Schneider designed the lens for that format.

Ian

 

[Anscojohn]

Hi everybody!

I was recently given a Rodenstock Rodagon 1:4 f=60mm, but usually I use its 50mm little sister for prints from 24x36mm negatives. Would anyone happen to know anything about the differences between these two lenses? Is there any point at all in switching lens here, or are they too similar?

btw, isn't 60mm an odd focal length?? What could it be designed for?

And even though I called the 50mm "little sister" it is actually taller and heavier than the 60mm. weird...

Emil

*********
I use a f/5.6 60mm Rodagon for 35 mm. The old guys who mentored me early on insisted using a longer-than-necessary focal length gave better edge sharpness and more even illumination.

 

[fschifano]

*********
I use a f/5.6 60mm Rodagon for 35 mm. The old guys who mentored me early on insisted using a longer-than-necessary focal length gave better edge sharpness and more even illumination.

You know, I can kind of understand that line of reasoning to an extent. The old timers were probably correct for the equipment they were using. But the fact is that a good quality, relatively modern enlarging lens is not going to exhibit that behavior. I routinely use an 80 mm Schneider Componon-S, that's supposed to be good for negatives only up to 6x6 cm., for negatives up to 6x7 cm. with no ill effects at all. Illumination is remarkably even, and sharpness is very good across the entire field.

 

[ic-racer]

Have to disagree, having used a 135mm lens for 5x4 for 34 years with no drop off or uneven coverage. That's because Schneider designed the lens for that format.

Ian

As you move out from the center it keeps getting dimmer and dimmer. Where you reach the point of "drop off" is probably user dependend

Maybe you have knowingly or unknowingly set up you enlarger's light source to compensate.

The green is the Schneider 135mm and the red is the 150mm Componon-s (superimposed from PDF files on the Schneider site).

 

[clayne]

*********
I use a f/5.6 60mm Rodagon for 35 mm. The old guys who mentored me early on insisted using a longer-than-necessary focal length gave better edge sharpness and more even illumination.

However, I highly doubt the difference between 50 and 60 will be even close to just stopping down. I don't really buy the "center of the lens" argument that much these days. I have both a 50/2.8 APO-N and an 80/4 and they both perform very well and are pretty much indistinguishable when stopped down.

 

[Ian Grant]

You can read too much into optical test bench figures which don't usually impact on the real life use of these lenses.

Taking lenses also have fall off so there's some cancelling out occurring when enlarging anyway.

Where there may well be issues with uneven coverage at the edges/corners is condenser enlargers where a condenser set is designed and optimised for a specific focal length enlarger lens. However with diffuser enlargers or cold cathode heads there's no problem using the WA lenses.

If we use the 5x4 format as an example when shooting a 90mm lens it gives gives acceptable negative illumination its when we use shorter 75mm/65mm we get problems. The WA enlarger lens for 5x4 is a 135mm so it's not that much wider than a standard 150mm lens and the in pracrice the difference in fall off is inconsequential in use.

Ian

As you move out from the center it keeps getting dimmer and dimmer. Where you reach the point of "drop off" is probably user dependend

Maybe you have knowingly or unknowingly set up you enlarger's light source to compensate.

The green is the Schneider 135mm and the red is the 150mm Componon-s (superimposed from PDF files on the Schneider site).

 

[ic-racer]

The point of that graph was to show the 135 and 150 are very close in falloff, and neitherprovides a field of 'even' illumination.

 

[Ian Grant]

The point of that graph was to show the 135 and 150 are very close in falloff, and neitherprovides a field of 'even' illumination.

That doesn't match up with real world use of these lenses where both are used extensively with no issues.

Remember that both Schneider and Rodenstock recommend a 240mm lens for 10x8 enlargers, and 135mm or 150mm for 5x4, both these companies are known for being rather conservative on there coverage figures.

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

That doesn't match up with real world use of these lenses where both are used extensively with no issues.

It may be your enlarger provides near perfect match for your lens (ie it gives an output slightly brigher at the edges). I know my Omegas diffusers are much thicker in the center.

Either way, the lens itself produces from one-third to two stops of falloff at the edges, depending on how it is used.