Rodenstock WA series opinions

[craigclu]

I acquired a 40mm WA with some other gear recently. I haven't had any real reason for one and don't currently have an extra lens board for it. Are these legitimate optics or do they make concessions to accomplish their greater magnification? Is the quality approximately the same as the standard 6 element Rodagons? Do they have extra vignetting issues to worry about? If it isn't worth keeping and having in a drawer for the next 10 years, I may as well sell it off to someone who knows that they need it!

 

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hi Craig !
I once owner a 60 mm WA Rodagon.
I sold it.
Honestly it was not as good as the equivalent Nikons I own (63 for 135 , and 80 for 6x6 negs).
As I bought it second hand, it could be that the previous owner has dropped it or something else, but I sold it. The guy who bought it seemed to be pleased with it.

 

[Petzi]

Even if you don't have an extra lensboard for it, you could test it by mounting it in your standard lensboard?

 

[Sparky]

wouldn't that be a eurygon that was relabelled for re-marketing?

 

[Petzi]

wouldn't that be a eurygon that was relabelled for re-marketing?

Definitely not relabeled. The barrel is different.

A 6 element lens by the way.

 

[GeorgesGiralt]

Are you sure it's a 6 element ? As far as I know, the WA are 9 lenses design ... But I may be wrong on this.

 

[Petzi]

Are you sure it's a 6 element ? As far as I know, the WA are 9 lenses design ... But I may be wrong on this.

Definitely 6 elements. There are no 9 element enlarger lenses.

 

[Sparky]

Definitely 6 elements. There are no 9 element enlarger lenses.

Well - I don't know about 9 SPECIFICALLY ... but there are certainly lenses with more elements than 9.

 

[Petzi]

Well - I don't know about 9 SPECIFICALLY ... but there are certainly lenses with more elements than 9.

I have never heard of a photo enlarger lens with more than 7 elements. For printers, there used to be zoom lenses with more elements, but no fixed focal length enlarger lens has 9 or more elements.

 

[Early Riser]

I have the 120mm Rodagon WA, it has 6 elements.

 

[Petzi]

I have the 120mm Rodagon WA, it has 6 elements.

Like all other Rodagons, except for the Apo-Rodagon N, which has 7 elements.

 

[Sparky]

I have never heard of a photo enlarger lens with more than 7 elements. For printers, there used to be zoom lenses with more elements, but no fixed focal length enlarger lens has 9 or more elements.

Well - that may be true... but I don't think that the original statement included the qualifier FIXED focal length...!
I was thinking specifically of Schneider Variogon or Betavaron - I think they have 14-17 elements!

 

[GeorgesGiralt]

Well, I've done a little homework...
Yes, you're right, the WA are 6 elements. Memory is a terrible thing.
But there is ONE 9 element fixed focal enlarging lens ! The Computar DL 25 mm designed for 24x36 mm film printing. I think it is as scare as hens teeth.... And is it good ???

 

[cp goerz]

I have used the lens you mention(40mm WA) and found it to be equal if not a hair more pleasing than the Focotar of the same focal length. In the 40/50mm focal length I think the King O the Hill is the 50mm Rodagon, simply beautiful tonality which isn't as harsh(in my opinion though others may like the contrastier lens) as the Leica lens and is just as sharp center to corner.


I did have a 40mm Eurygon and a 40mm WA and thought they were the same lens as they performed in the same manner. The glass was curved in the same manner and had the same coating, maybe the same identical design but didn't check that closely, sorry.

On my V35 I liked the Rodenstock so much I went out and bought an extension tube so I could use the Rodagon instead of the 40mm Focotar in place when I got the enlarger. As you may know the 50mm lens won't focus as the extension of the lensmount etc doesn't allow for it.

 

[Petzi]

Well - that may be true... but I don't think that the original statement included the qualifier FIXED focal length...!
I was thinking specifically of Schneider Variogon or Betavaron - I think they have 14-17 elements!

Yeah but they are not for darkroom use...

 

[Emile de Leon]

I was told a few years back by a guy who really knows to stay away from WA enlarging lenses. The quality suffers. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com

 

[Sparky]

Yeah but they are not for darkroom use...

What you talkin' about?? Yes - the Betavaron certainly WAS for darkroom use... then there was a version of the Variogon (only briefly - before the beta' came out that was an enlarging version).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Kreuznach#Betavaron

 

[Sparky]

I was told a few years back by a guy who really knows to stay away from WA enlarging lenses. The quality suffers. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com

well - you also get oblique grain at the print perimeter.

 

[Petzi]

What you talkin' about?? Yes - the Betavaron certainly WAS for darkroom use... then there was a version of the Variogon (only briefly - before the beta' came out that was an enlarging version).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Kreuznach#Betavaron

A zoom lens does not make very much sense in the darkroom. It is just unnecessary, because with an enlarger you can change the enlarging factor by changing the distance between lens and easel. The zoom lenses were primarily designed and marketed for printers.

 

[Sparky]

A zoom lens does not make very much sense in the darkroom. It is just unnecessary, because with an enlarger you can change the enlarging factor by changing the distance between lens and easel. The zoom lenses were primarily designed and marketed for printers.

Well - I'm really NOT sure why you're trying to argue the point with me about it... I had NOTHING to do with developing Schneider's line of lenses.

In my experience though - the need for a product is determined SOLELY by how many people the manufacturer THINKS are going to buy it. Hula Hoops weren't rationally justifiable either - but try telling that to the end users! I think that many people in the late 70s and early 80s were really EXCITED by the idea of zooms... and likewise - just the idea of having a big zoom lens in the darkroom was really exciting to them, I think.

Look at all the needless digital garbage that's coming out now, for god's sake... it's all marketing.

With all that being said, however - I think there might be SOME people SOMEWHERE, for whom a zoom enlarging lens DOES make a certain amount of sense.

 

[Peter Williams]

I was told a few years back by a guy who really knows to stay away from WA enlarging lenses. The quality suffers. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com

I regularly use the Rodagon WA 80mm and I think that it out performs the 105mm El-Nikkor that I was using previously. If you don't want it, send a PM with your asking price.

 

[JohnArs]

Hi Emile
"I was told a few years back by a guy who really knows to stay away from WA enlarging lenses. The quality suffers. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com"
This is just bul...
In the German Color Mag there was a testing of all lenses with a MTF machine and the sharpest of all was a 60mm WA lens for 6x6 if I remember correctly, of course it was a WA!
And the APO Turbos was just a very tiny bit behind!
So your very super inteligent guy had right in the past, but not with todays lenses!
I have 2 WAs from Schneider one is the 40 mm APO and the other is the an older 80 for 6x9 both are tack sharp, of course the 40 is sharper but is also 10 years younger and on the 80mm Schneider recomand it only use it with a difuse light, I don't know why!
Happy WA Armin

 

[ic-racer]

One thing to watch with wide angle enlarging lenses is diffusor box coverage. There is kind of a 'catch 22' in that just when you would like more light (like to make a 16x20 full-frame enlargement from 35mm) and want to use a 35mm mixing box, the oblique rays that would go through the far edges of the negative will probably be blocked by the edges of the mixing box. Therefore requiring a 6x7 mixing box. The proximity of the lens to the film when making a big enlargement, coupled with the shorter focal length, both make this problem worse. And, if you want to print the film edge and sprocket holes you will could have a lens coverage problem also. Using a 75 or 80mm enlarging lens will make this all OK again (but the reason you need the WA lens in the first place is that you don't have a 6 foot enlarger column etc,etc,etc...)

 

[JohnArs]

Hi Ic-racer
I use my 40mm just with the normal 35mm box and have enlarged some hunderts full frame, did not see any Problems at all!
I think it would then maybe be a problem with a not so perfect enlarger or neg holder which is to thick!
I like my WAs it makes huge enlargements easier!
Armin

 

[ic-racer]

Hi Ic-racer
I use my 40mm just with the normal 35mm box and have enlarged some hunderts full frame, did not see any Problems at all!
I think it would then maybe be a problem with a not so perfect enlarger or neg holder which is to thick!
I like my WAs it makes huge enlargements easier!
Armin

Sounds like a well designed system. What type of enlarger is it?

I use the Omega D5500 enlargers and the size of the diffusor box 'window' coupled with its distance from the carrier make my 45mm lens JUST usable for 16x20s. Because of the design of the negative carrier on the D5500 (the negative holders slide in) there is over 1/2 inch distance between the negative and the diffusor window. Also, There are a few millimeters of play in the diffuser box, the negative carrier holder and the negative carrier and this all has to be aligned to avoid falloff on one side or the other.

Another thing I was thinking of was that these 40mm lenses are marketed as "wide angle" lenses, however, the diagonal of a typical 35mm frame is about 43mm anyway. So a REAL wide angle enlarging lens would be like 35mm or so (of which I have never seen).