Schneider or Rodenstock Enlarging Lens?

DREW WILEY · Feb 27, 2012

Correct. HP is the distributor. A new Rodagon G lens would be fairly expensive, and used ones are not common. They are a specialty lens only
for big enlargements, and not really suitable for ordinary work. Some lab
owners preferred Apo-Nikkor process lenses for this kind of thing, but I
don't belive they were ever made in shorter focal lengths ideal for med
format work, and would be about two stops slower in actual use, so need
a stronger light source (which specialty labs had). I had a big color mural
enlarger once, and the damn thing doubled my utility bills.

brian steinberger · Mar 31, 2012

Well I just won an ebay auction last night for a Rodenstock 75mm f/4.5 Rogonar-S. It's a 4-element design. As I mentioned earlier I'm planning to print 16x20 from 6x4.5 and 6x6 negatives with it. It was such a bargain that I couldn't resist. Now I'm reading reviews on this lens and I'm reading that it is a great lens, but not for great enlargement, as the corners lose sharpness. Would 16x20 constitute as great enlargement? Like I said, it was such a deal that if it doesn't work well for it I'll just get rid of it. I'll still keep my eyes open for a Componon-S 80/4.

Sometimes it pays to just stay off the internet. Haha.

Bob Carnie · Mar 31, 2012

I am currently using -Apo Rodagon 90mm f1:4mm for all medium - 50 mm -n f2.8 for 35mm - Apo Rodagon n 1:4 f 150mm for 4x5

I really like the coverage of the 90mm I have a bunch of 80mm Apo that I never use because of the two 90's.

for murals laser align the neg stage to wall or baseboard,,, as well glass carriers,, as well mask out the neg,, as well get rid of any flare light.

darkroom_rookie · Mar 31, 2012

Well, no laser alignment in my darkroom, just eyes, glass carrier, a 9x12 Durst B&W test neg and lots of patience. Never went larger than 36x50 inches, though. Absolutely mask out the negative and remove all flare light. Apo=expensive, except maybe 50mm or if you're really lucky. Recently a practically new G-Componon 105/5,6 came into my hands for 100 Euros. I guess G=affordable, Rodenstock or Schneider.

Tom Stanworth · Mar 31, 2012

A laser alignment tool is an almost obligatory purchase for anyone looking for the best performance making enlargements. I paid $180 for mine and I think it represents the best value for money of any photographic item I have ever purchased. Everything I do culminates in a print and alignment is usually the weakest link in a darkroom set up. Spirit levels and tape don't come close to cutting it. The time it has saved is enormous and the stress and general irritation evaporated. If I want perfect crisp grain right out to the corner, as well as on centre, from any neg at any enlargement size, I can have it. Predictably. Every time. I am being serious when I say that if someone told me I could never buy or sell another item of photo kit and had to drop one that I already own, I would give up my 24 Summillux asph before the laser alignment tool.

Bob Carnie · Mar 31, 2012

I don't like using the dam thing but it is necessary in my darkroom. I do not leave it out of my site.
I feel the same about glass carriers as well.

I think these two items are more important than the difference one gets from APO and Non APO lenses.

Tom Stanworth said:
A laser alignment tool is an almost obligatory purchase for anyone looking for the best performance making enlargements. I paid $180 for mine and I think it represents the best value for money of any photographic item I have ever purchased. Everything I do culminates in a print and alignment is usually the weakest link in a darkroom set up. Spirit levels and tape don't come close to cutting it. The time it has saved is enormous and the stress and general irritation evaporated. If I want perfect crisp grain right out to the corner, as well as on centre, from any neg at any enlargement size, I can have it. Predictably. Every time. I am being serious when I say that if someone told me I could never buy or sell another item of photo kit and had to drop one that I already own, I would give up my 24 Summillux asph before the laser alignment tool.

clayne · Mar 31, 2012

Which shows once again that prep is more important than materials.

gorbas · Mar 31, 2012

Recently I did a quick test of a few 80mm enlarging lenses I have with a coarse grain panoramic negative (24x58mm) in a glass carrier with a laser aligned enlarger on 16x20" paper.
Lenses were:
Meopta Belar 4.5/75
Meopta Meogon 4/80
Componon 5.6/80
Componon S 4/80
Rodagon 4/80

All enlargements are done at f8 (and f11 for componon 5.6) with the same MG filter. Exposure was monitored with Ilford EM10.
Belar (4 element, "budget" lens) was very good in the centre, grain was soft in the corners
Componon 5.6 (old, small one with 23.5mm thread) At f8 good centre, soft grain in corners, at f11 better/sharper grain in corners
All other 3 lenses: Meogon, Rodagon and Componon S 4/80 were very, very similar performers at f8. I'm pretty sure that nobody can complain about prints made with any of those 3 lenses.
On very close inspection Componon S had something extra, that touch of "micro contrast" by the very tight film grain and he was winner for me.
Maybe there should be more difference between them if I tested them with a full (56x56mm) negative. But I need them for panoramic negatives!

Goran

frotog · Mar 31, 2012

Tom Stanworth said:
A laser alignment tool is an almost obligatory purchase for anyone looking for the best performance making enlargements. I paid $180 for mine and I think it represents the best value for money of any photographic item I have ever purchased. Everything I do culminates in a print and alignment is usually the weakest link in a darkroom set up. Spirit levels and tape don't come close to cutting it. The time it has saved is enormous and the stress and general irritation evaporated. If I want perfect crisp grain right out to the corner, as well as on centre, from any neg at any enlargement size, I can have it. Predictably. Every time. I am being serious when I say that if someone told me I could never buy or sell another item of photo kit and had to drop one that I already own, I would give up my 24 Summillux asph before the laser alignment tool.

True that! Not only in the drkrm. but in the field, shooting as well. Perfect for placing view camera standards in true parallel planes - a real mood stabilizer when doing swings and tilts at $20 an exposure.

Tom Stanworth · Apr 1, 2012

Completely agree Bob. Glass carriers all the way, in all formats!

I tend to use MGWT, which is pretty slow. This means preferring to use my enlarger lenses at a stop down if I can, or two stops where I must. It took a while, but I now know that my 63mm f2.8 Nikkor makes a mean 16x12 at f4 (only possible with perfect alignment) but is appreciably better at F5.6 with larger prints. With the odd dense negative, I would prefer to enlarge at F4, at 20x16, to manage exposure times and this is the only reason I have for considering APO lenses. With my lenses for 35mm, they are not quite good enough at F4 for perfect prints at this size. With Adox MCC, enlargement times are much shorter and I can stop down.

frotog · Apr 1, 2012

For optimum resolution, don't stop down your enlarging lens at all - always use it wide open.

Tom Stanworth · Apr 1, 2012

Frotog,

Is that an April Fools joke!?!

frotog · Apr 2, 2012

Ha! Funny.

But not a joke. Highest res. will come from wide open. This fact really becomes readily apparent with condenser or point source and a high acutance neg.

Tom Stanworth · Apr 2, 2012

Hmmm, on centre, maybe, but when you take overall performance into account (corners included), wide open is rarely the best aperture. Wide open works better with longer lenses with more coverage and when making small enlargements. Try making a 20x16 from a 35mm neg on a 50mm non-APO Nikkor/Rod/Schn at f2.8 and the resultant print will be dramatically worse than at two or three stops down. Not only will the corners be poor, but falloff will be more of an issue too.

I dont own any APO lenses, but I understand they are optimise for a stop of so down from wide open, whereas other lenses generally give best performance 2-3 stops down.

While best resolution may occur on centre wide open with many lenses, the improvement in resolution would not justify the reduction in performance in other areas in my experience. Where I have compared sharpness of enlarger lenses on centre at various apertures, the differences have been trivial and not worth considering. The corners, well, thats another matter!

frotog said:
Ha! Funny.

But not a joke. Highest res. will come from wide open. This fact really becomes readily apparent with condenser or point source and a high acutance neg.

frotog · Apr 2, 2012

Tom,

I don't have issues with fall-off or corner focus issues when enlarging wide open. But then again, I like to use a Nikkor 240mm 5.6 for both 4x5 and 5x7. If you've got the lumens to spare, might as well use a longer than standard lens for just this reason.

Tom Stanworth · Apr 2, 2012

One can, but it means more extension and issues with large prints on some set ups. Arguably the resolution is lower on longer lenses too (according to Ctein and others) but whether this matters a lot I don't know.

With LF, I have often printed 5x4 wide open, or close to, with my 150 rodagon with no issues, but I would not do this will small formats. My 105 Rodagon is incredible wide open, but the same cannot be said for some of my others wide open! I guess 'it depends.'

outwest · Apr 2, 2012

FWIW, some years ago one of the photo magazines tested 50mm enlarging lenses from all the sources at that time. The best overall was the 50mm f/2.8 EL-Nikkor. Here are the results - f/stop; center; edge (line pairs): f/2.8 40 25; f/4 45 40; f/5.6 80 65; f/8 60 45; f/11 40 30; f/16 25 20. All of the lenses showed a similar progression with best results 2 to 3 stops down from open as is commonly accepted.

DREW WILEY · Apr 2, 2012

Some enlarging lenses can be used wide open IF they are exceptional quality and significantly longer than "normal" focal length per format size, so that you are using only the center of the lens, and IF your
carrier and paper plane are precisely aligned. I sometimes do this with a 150 Apo Rodagon and 67x7 or 6x9
film. But with more typical lenses and applications its a pretty bad idea. The manufacturers give general
recommendations, and for most enlarging lenses its one or more frequently two stops down from max.

PKM-25 · Dec 5, 2012

PKM-25 said:
where the heck does one locate a 105mm Rodagon G?

I just answered this question late last night, got a mint copy of one after debating on buying it for over two weeks.

On to finding a 150mm Apo-Rodagon N....

Schneider or Rodenstock Enlarging Lens?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency