Rodenstock Trinar

[Aurelien]

What are the caracteristics of the rodenstock trinar 105mm f4.5?

 

[Jerevan]

The prefix Tri- indicates it is a triplet lens. I guess that would mean it could work well, but not for large enlargements (which I assume you ask for, when you ask the question in the enlarging forum) where the corners may go soft. Not familiar with it in real life, though. I know the Trinar type lens was used on certain Welta rollfilm cameras.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's a modest lens, reasonable when stopped down but not as good as a Tessar type design.

It's similar to the Zeiss Triotar design and based on the Cooke Triplet. I have a couple of Trinars one a 135mm on a 9x12 Avus style Rodenstock camera and a much newer coated 105mm f4.5 similar to yours in a focus mount Compur shutter. I bought it from here on APUG it doesn't have a cable release socket. I have tried it on 5x4 but coverage is poor, although the image circle almost covers to the corners it isn't sharp.

The Trinars & Triotars were budget lenses compared to the 4 element Xenars & Tessars, and they are probably better for B&W than colour as they aren't fully corrected. Used carefully the Trinars should give quite acceptable images.

Ian

 

[Aurelien]

yes but using it to enlarge 6*6 (focal length = 105 mm) and working two stops down (f8 or f11) it would give acceptable results no?

 

[Jerevan]

Not having used it, I guess it would give acceptable results on a 8x10" print, yes. Try it out and tell us!

 

[Ian Grant]

Schneider sold a Triplet enlarger lens that was very acceptable stopped down, but poor at the edges when used near it's full aperture, so it should bo OK as Jerevan says for modest enlargements.

BTW I have a couple of spare 105mm Schneider Componon's if you want one let me know and we can sort something out when I'm back in the UK, mid March.

Ian

 

[Aurelien]

Which Componon?

 

[Ian Grant]

Late metal bodied 5.6 105mm Durst selected Componons. PM sent.

Free + a print in return

Ian

 

[ricksplace]

I have a Rolfix II with a 105/3.5 Trinar in a sychro-compur shutter. While literature says a few stops down from wide open is optimal, this lens never read the articles. It's OK with the 6X6 mask at f8, but if you want sharp to the corners, f16 is needed on 6X9. I have a Schnieder Radionar 80/2.9 (also a three element) that outperforms the trinar hands down. I have had good results with the trinar printed up to 11X14.

 

[JohnArs]

I would not work in today's time wich such a cheap lens!
Today you can get a modern 6 element enlarger lens for almost nothing on fleebay!
Dosn't make sence to me to loose sharpnes this days.

Our pictures are only as good as the weekest element in your chaine!

Its cheaper to buy it first time right, Armin

 

[Ian Grant]

Our pictures are only as good as the weekest element in your chaine!

Its cheaper to buy it first time right, Armin

Armin, there are two side to using older lenses.

First you don't when you require optimal sharpness, tonality, ability to shoot into the sun etc etc. So in my case I always use the best lenses I can for my landscape work.

Now the other side the BIG BUT:
When your shooting more atmospheric (arty) shots older lenses can come into their element. (Pardon the pun). It may be the strengths of the image depend on those weaknesses in the lens.

An excellent example is Jim Galli's superb LF portraits, these wouldn't be remotely thev same if he shot with modern state of the art lenses.

Ian