Rodagon 105/5.6, Perfectly Covers 4X5 at 6.7X, with high performance. Is It True?

[Thalmees]

Rodagon 105/5.6, Perfectly Covers 4X5 at 6.7X, with high performance. Is It True?
.
Hello everybody.
Recently acquired an old version of Rodagon 105/5.6, used, inexpensive $60 only, but in perfect order.
It's an older version multi coated lens, with only two(2) faint coatings.
Really exceeded my expectations, specially when I came across a Rodenstock Rodagon WA 120/5.6, and compared them side by side.
Both lenses, at the same magnification(6.7X from 4X5 negative), deliver the same sharpness and virtually the same contrast, even at the borders of the negative.
But unfortunately, still wondering? Wether the results are true? Or not?
The Rodagon WA 120/5.6, has a good reputation in LFPF: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?28180-Rodagon-WA-120mm
But the sample I tested against 105/5.6, has its minimal aperture f/32, NOT f/45 as it appear in Rodenstock specifications!!! I think the older version of the lens!
Can both lenses deliver the same sharpness from 4X5? Or,
Is it the older version of Rodagon WA 120/5.6(ends at f/32, NOT f/45) that has lower performance?
Really wondering, why are both equal even at the edge of the negative?
Could it be a mistake in my methodology?
.
BTW, comparison test performed with a glass negative carrier, at f/16. Other variables also has been fixed except the two lenses under testing.
.
Thanks so much for your input.
.
165109
Rodagon 105/5.6

[Dan Fromm]

Well, Rodenstock says that the 105/5.6 Rodagon is for "6x9" and the shortest Rodagon they recommend for 4x5 is the 135/5.6. But the 105/5.6's MTF curves as published here https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!135&authkey=!
AESpkw0t4oWnLtY&ithint=folder%2cpdf are high and flat so it might well perform as you report.

[Bob Salomon]

Well, Rodenstock says that the 105/5.6 Rodagon is for "6x9" and the shortest Rodagon they recommend for 4x5 is the 135/5.6. But the 105/5.6's MTF curves as published here https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!135&authkey=!
AESpkw0t4oWnLtY&ithint=folder%2cpdf are high and flat so it might well perform as you report.

The shortest Rodagon for 45 is the 120 Rodagon-WA which is a superior lens that will outperform everything except the Apo Rodagon-N over Norway magnification ranges.
The 105 will not come close to covering 45 properly and anyone telling you that is scamming you.

[Bob Salomon]

Rodagon 105/5.6, Perfectly Covers 4X5 at 6.7X, with high performance. Is It True?
.
Hello everybody.
Recently acquired an old version of Rodagon 105/5.6, used, inexpensive $60 only, but in perfect order.
It's an older version multi coated lens, with only two(2) faint coatings.
Really exceeded my expectations, specially when I came across a Rodenstock Rodagon WA 120/5.6, and compared them side by side.
Both lenses, at the same magnification(6.7X from 4X5 negative), deliver the same sharpness and virtually the same contrast, even at the borders of the negative.
But unfortunately, still wondering? Wether the results are true? Or not?
The Rodagon WA 120/5.6, has a good reputation in LFPF: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?28180-Rodagon-WA-120mm
But the sample I tested against 105/5.6, has its minimal aperture f/32, NOT f/45 as it appear in Rodenstock specifications!!! I think the older version of the lens!
Can both lenses deliver the same sharpness from 4X5? Or,
Is it the older version of Rodagon WA 120/5.6(ends at f/32, NOT f/45) that has lower performance?
Really wondering, why are both equal even at the edge of the negative?
Could it be a mistake in my methodology?
.
BTW, comparison test performed with a glass negative carrier, at f/16. Other variables also has been fixed except the two lenses under testing.
.
Thanks so much for your input.
.
165109
Rodagon 105/5.6

The Apo Rodagon N series is multi coated, no other Rodenstock enlarging lenses are multi coated. But they are all coated.
Minimum aperture is immaterial as you would be so far into diffraction that it would be unusable. Optimum aperture on these lenses is two stops down from wide open. The WA, assuming that you are printing on a properly aligned enlarger with a glass carrier and a negative with fine detail from center to the edges and corners and within the optimization range of the lens, should far exceed a 105 Rodagon. You should repeat your test.

[Thalmees]

The Apo Rodagon N series is multi coated, no other Rodenstock enlarging lenses are multi coated. But they are all coated.
Minimum aperture is immaterial as you would be so far into diffraction that it would be unusable. Optimum aperture on these lenses is two stops down from wide open. The WA, assuming that you are printing on a properly aligned enlarger with a glass carrier and a negative with fine detail from center to the edges and corners and within the optimization range of the lens, should far exceed a 105 Rodagon. You should repeat your test.
Hello Bob,
I trust your opinion.
Thank you so much Sir.
The diffraction at f/16 can bring the performance of lenses, to equal level. This is what I understood from your post.
Will repeat testing at f/11 for the corners at the same magnification, though from my knowledge, the diffraction should affect more the shorter focal length lens at the same f/stop more than the longer lens(diffraction at f/16 may decrease sharpness of 105mm lens, before it decrease sharpness of 120mm lens).
If you add to this, my pre assumption that the Rodagon WA 120/5.6 should outperform the Rodagon 105/5.6, logically, the results of my testing should be the opposite due to the two(2) reasons at least(pre assumption based on reputation and diffraction that play in favor of 120/5.6 lens).
But, so far, based on what I've found from the tests, both are practically equal in performance(center & corners), at f/16 and 6.7X magnification.
Thanks so much Bob.

[Thalmees]

Well, Rodenstock says that the 105/5.6 Rodagon is for "6x9" and the shortest Rodagon they recommend for 4x5 is the 135/5.6. But the 105/5.6's MTF curves as published here https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!135&authkey=!
AESpkw0t4oWnLtY&ithint=folder%2cpdf are high and flat so it might well perform as you report.
Thanks so much Dan.
That is exactly what I have found testing at f/16, which contradicts with my information through other photographers.
I remember, a year ago, came across another used Rodagon WA 120/5.6, it was not as expected.
Though, my visual memory, always relating sharpness to the results I get from an APO 90/4.5 HM and EL-Nikkor 135/5.6, I'm comparing side by side, NOT using my memory definition of sharpness. So, I'm confident I know what's really sharp, and what's about to be sharp, but using side by side comparison instead.
Now, testing at f/11, on 11X14 papers to include some of the "off center" zone for focusing validity. I also testing at the sweet spot of 120mm, which is 6X magnification.
So far, things goes with my previous test observations. Will see later.
Appreciate your comment Dan,
Thanks so much.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks so much Dan.
That is exactly what I have found testing at f/16, which contradicts with my information through other photographers.
I remember, a year ago, came across another used Rodagon WA 120/5.6, it was not as expected.
Though, my visual memory, always relating sharpness to the results I get from an APO 90/4.5 HM and EL-Nikkor 135/5.6, I'm comparing side by side, NOT using my memory definition of sharpness. So, I'm confident I know what's really sharp, and what's about to be sharp, but using side by side comparison instead.
Now, testing at f/11, on 11X14 papers to include some of the "off center" zone for focusing validity. I also testing at the sweet spot of 120mm, which is 6X magnification.
So far, things goes with my previous test observations. Will see later.
Appreciate your comment Dan,
Thanks so much.

Since the 120 has been out of production for several years you are apparently testing a used lens. How do you know that it is still in factory spec? Many things could effect it without showing obvious external signs of abuse or tampering.

[Pere Casals]

The shortest Rodagon for 45 is the 120 Rodagon-WA which is a superior lens that will outperform everything except the Apo Rodagon-N over Norway magnification ranges.
The 105 will not come close to covering 45 properly and anyone telling you that is scamming you.


Hello Bob,

Perhaps it depends on the enlargement size, for small (or medium, 6.7X) prints it may cover 4x5" if it covers 9cm for large prints... the 105mm should cover 5" if bellows extension to focus the small (or not very big) print is greater than some additional 35mm... it can be calculated if those 35mm extension focuses the mentioned 6.7x enlargement...

By working in this way it should have fall off (as with 6x9 corners), anyway sometimes this can be an advantage as it can compensate the fall off of a wide taking lens, I guess.


I was testing that effect with a Componon-s 100mm, to compensate fall off a Fuji 65mm taking lens on 4x5...



Regards,
Pere

[ic-racer]

Both lenses, at the same magnification(6.7X from 4X5 negative), deliver the same sharpness and virtually the same contrast, even at the borders of the negative.

I would not have thought that true, but can you scan a portion of the 4 corners of those 33" prints to post for evaluation?

[Bob Salomon]

I would not have thought that true, but can you scan a portion of the 4 corners of those 33" prints to post for evaluation?

I don't think that he has validly equal fine details in the corners and edges of that negative.

[Luis-F-S]

I don't think that he has validly equal fine details in the corners and edges of that negative.

Bob, I don't know why we even spend time and effort to entertain these comments. I guess Rodenstock and HP Marketing just didn't know what they were talking about.

[Taija71A]

... as published here https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!135&authkey=!
AESpkw0t4oWnLtY&ithint=folder%2cpdf

Dan, you might want to 'recheck' that URL Link.
Thank-you!

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I don't know why we even spend time and effort to entertain these comments. I guess Rodenstock and HP Marketing just didn't know what they were talking about.

I only spent time as the Rodenstock Product and Sales Manager in the USA from mid 1986 to Feb of 2015 dealing with photographers, including Clyde Butcher, professional labs, military, government, industry, professional photo labs as well as advanced amateurs and schools. Never, in any piece of information from Rodenstock or and conversation with Rodenstock or with any of our dealers or users has anything as ridiculous as this claim been made. So I strongly suspect his test protocols as well as possible abuse to the lens that he is testing.
We actually had an album of prints made from a negative shot on a current, at that time, Leica rangefinder camera mounted on a Linhof Heavy Duty Pro tripod and Linhof head. That had comparison prints from the same negative printed on a Durst L1200 with glass carrier from each lens that Rodenstock made for 35mm going from the Rogonar to the Rogonar S to the Rodagon, the Rodagon WA, the Rodagon G and the Apo Rodagon N. each lens had a print at the optimal magnification of each of the lenses as well as maximum magnification of each lens.

What Rodenstock states as coverage for their lenses is absolutely right on. There is no way that his 105 will outperform the 120 on 45 across the frame.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, you might want to 'recheck' that URL Link.
Thank-you!

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!135&authkey=!AESpkw0t4oWnLtY&ithint=folder%2cpdf

[Luis-F-S]

What Rodenstock states as coverage for their lenses is absolutely right on. There is no way that his 105 will outperform the 120 on 45 across the frame.

Preaching to the choir.......

[Pere Casals]

Preaching to the choir.......

Not at all, the 105 may have a 40% fall off in the 45 corners, and this is a major issue. Perhaps not much resolving power difference can be seen with small prints, but with the 105 you reach very soon the limits of the lens as prints size increases.

[Thalmees]

... Optimum aperture on these lenses is two stops down from wide open ...
Hello Bob,
My observations so far shows that f/16 on the Rodagon 105/5.6 at 6X enlargement, has much better sharpness and fall off zone, at the edges and corners, than f/11, without sacrificing center sharpness. Do not know the effect of f/16 on Rodagon 120/5.6 WA compared with f/11 on the same lens. But the tests yesterday(6.7X at f/16), brought both lenses almost to the same zone of performance. So, I think the optimal aperture of both lenses are not the same.
Details of my observations will post it later.
Thanks so much.

[Thalmees]

... Perhaps it depends on the enlargement size, for small (or medium, 6.7X) prints it may cover 4x5" ...
... it should have fall off ...

Hello Pere,
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Half of the pre assumptions in this thread, are derived from manufacturers and retailers.
Half of that, unfortunately, convert to believes.
I think it depends "more" on f/stop, specially at 6-6.8X magnifications. BTW, I think, sweet zone of Rodagon WA 120/5.6, is 6X and f/11. Outside this zone, Rodagon WA 120mm has no strong practical advantage over a 20 years older Rodagon 105mm.
My darkroom setup does not permit me to print on easel every possible enlargement for the lens.
Observations so far, at f/16, at least much of the claims created around Rodagon WA 120/5.6, are more theoretical and manufacturer propaganda, specially at larger than 6X magnification and using f/16. I think this is the reason behind the successful introduction of Schneider APO 120mm HM lens!
Honestly, it(Rodagon WA 120mm) is a good lens for 4X5(better coverage specially at f/11, with 6-6.8X magnification), BUT, it does not deserve the 10 folds increase in price compared to a Rodagon 105mm(again at f/16). The samples I'm comparing, are from 1978 for the Rodagon 105mm, and from 1998 for the WA Rodagon 120mm.
All the pre assumptions may be based on comparisons at f/11 which I think not justice for the Rodagon 105/5.6.
Wondering, what can be the results of Rodagon 105mm(compared to Rodagon WA 120mm), if it was from the latest batches?
And yes, both lenses have fall off at f/11(corners and borders). But, it's minimal with Rodagon WA 120/5.6, and improved well(with more sharpness) in Rodagon 105 at f/16 without any noticeable decrease of sharpness in the center. This area(borders & corners) are usually burned in, as the last step in making the print.
When you adjust exposure for the mid tones, each lens has its optically natural rendering of objects and photo, mainly in terms of contrast.
In term of sharpness(only) at 6-6.8X, center and off-center zones are equal(visually no loupe) when you compare prints from both lenses, at f/11 or at f/16.
Thanks so much Pere.

[Dan Fromm]

In term of sharpness(only) at 6-6.8X, center and off-center zones are equal(visually no loupe) when you compare prints from both lenses, at f/11 or at f/16.


In other words, you haven't taken good measurements.

[interneg]

In other words, you haven't taken good measurements.

Exactly. Then again, he seems to believe that the manufacturers have a vendetta against him - see his nonsensical ramblings about film price.

[Pere Casals]

In other words, you haven't taken good measurements.


Exactly. Then again, he seems to believe that the manufacturers have a vendetta against him - see his nonsensical ramblings about film price.

Gentlemen: I'd like to point that we need to obtain some 5 Lp/mm on paper, more than this is well beyond what human eye can discern with the 1:100 paper contrast, right?

If we cannot obtain around those 5 line pairs from a sharp 45 neg in an small print, independently of how excellent is the enlarging lens, then better selling the darkroom and sending the job to a lambda.

All we know that the enlarging lens coverage (in the negative plane) increases as we give bellows extension to focus a lower enlargement, just in the same way coverage is larger for near objects with a view camera. Also all we know that enlarging lens performance is mainly seen with big enlargements...

...so at the end the question is at what enlargement the 120 makes a practical difference to the 105. This will depend on the particular shot and on what we feel. A lot of shots simply won't have contrasty detail in the scene able to depict 30 Lp/mm on negative, or because diffraction, or DOF or shake, so perhaps sometimes simply there is no need to depict even those 5Lp/mm on paper.

What is clear to me is that a regular 100mm enlarging lens can deliver those 5LP/mm on paper for moderate enlargements from a 45 sharp negative, with greater fall off, true. And well, that fall off can even be an advantage as it can just compensate the fall off of a wide taking lens. Also that fall off can be a major problem.

Can a manufaturer say a 105 is a 45 enlarging lens? No! it won't enlarge 10x, and it will have fall off !

Can we use that 105 to get sound prints in certain 45 conditions ? Of course !

On any doubt, graphs show all (for my 100 lens), and the important thing (for moderate enlargements) is fall off:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/componon/componon-s_56_100_1.pdf

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/componon/componon-s_56_100_2.pdf

[Thalmees]

I would not have thought that true, but can you scan a portion of the 4 corners of those 33" prints to post for evaluation?

Hello ic-racer,
Thanks for your post.
Most claims in this thread has been created based on wrong understanding or wrong assumptions.
Did not claim that Rodagon 105/5.6 is better than Rodagon WA 120/5.6, please read my posts. Let that to be clear.
I'm not printing to that size, 33". Just testing the two lenses to decide. The setup is not ready for that.
Three(3) days of testing plus lots of 11X14 and 8X10 paper already consumed to answer the initial query.
After the first testing, I started this thread.
Repeated most things with better methodology after I knew the sweet zone of Rodagon WA 120/5.6 is 6X enlargement and f/11.
Tried to take photos with my mobile yesterday, but the reflections on the glossy surface of paper, does not do justice with tones between two print for comparison. Will try today.
Thanks so much.

[Thalmees]

Bob, I don't know why we even spend time and effort to entertain these comments. I guess Rodenstock and HP Marketing just didn't know what they were talking about.

Exactly. Then again, he seems to believe that the manufacturers have a vendetta against him - see his nonsensical ramblings about film price.

My apologies all readers, I'm always late. And, can not reply whenever a passerby left "A" comment not related to the subject. Some of them left "A" comment out of only 73(upto this date off course), all of them are unverified answers in every aspect, BUT has no SINGLE QUERY or wonder, out of those 73 posts!!!
.


================================================================
Back to the subject.
.

I only spent time as the Rodenstock Product and Sales Manager in the USA from mid 1986 to Feb of 2015 dealing with photographers, including Clyde Butcher, professional labs, military, government, industry, professional photo labs as well as advanced amateurs and schools. Never, in any piece of information from Rodenstock or and conversation with Rodenstock or with any of our dealers or users has anything as ridiculous as this claim been made. So I strongly suspect his test protocols as well as possible abuse to the lens that he is testing.
We actually had an album of prints made from a negative shot on a current, at that time, Leica rangefinder camera mounted on a Linhof Heavy Duty Pro tripod and Linhof head. That had comparison prints from the same negative printed on a Durst L1200 with glass carrier from each lens that Rodenstock made for 35mm going from the Rogonar to the Rogonar S to the Rodagon, the Rodagon WA, the Rodagon G and the Apo Rodagon N. each lens had a print at the optimal magnification of each of the lenses as well as maximum magnification of each lens.
What Rodenstock states as coverage for their lenses is absolutely right on. There is no way that his 105 will outperform the 120 on 45 across the frame.
.
Hello Bob,
Thanks so much for your comments.
What type of God is rodenstock? Bob;).
Rodenstock(like any other manufacturer) are plotting their graphs based on the best samples(with high certainty) of the product, tested by the best practitioners(also, certainly the best or may be the best girls in the city if appropriate:D) in the best environment at the best season of the year, using the best for results tools in the most advanced for results labs.
If my friend can argue on this, he is a manufacturer or retailer more than a photographer.
Then, how much difference between the "absolutely" in Optics compared to the same term in Electronics? Specially when it deals with photographers not lab technicians or scientists.
I was careful when I started this thread not to put any immature claims, though the results was encouraging me to do so.
Please review my previous posts and find from where you brought all that claims that you tried to oppose. Nobody claimed that Rodagon 105mm can outperform Rodagon 120mm WA in every aspect. At least I did not do until now.
Later, will not tell anybody what I know through my testing;), but for now, YES, Rodagon 105/5.6 covers 4X5 at f/16, and most of the differences between the two lenses at f/11 are abolished by f16. Please see the attached photos.
Even more, will consider the minimally better sharpness in the center and off-center zones of Rodagon 105/5.6(at f/16), as a focusing error in Rodagon WA 120/5.6. For now, both lenses are equal in sharpness in the center and off-center zones at f/11 and f/16. That should be very acceptable, I think;).
.
Tried my best with my iPhone. Reflections on the gloss surface does not help, but I assure you the photos below are very representitave to what actually seen, in terms of coverage and fall off. You have to trust my eyes for sharpness comparison, do not have a way to scan it properly.
Every couble photos has been adjusted for a mid-tone in the off-center zone. Adjusting exposure for the tone from the corners(specially at f/11) will produce different prints, due to different fall off rate between lenses. You know that should consume lots of papers, to be done adequately. BTW, the following prints photos, are from testing at 6.9X magnification.



165199
At f/11, both lenses cover 4X5. Both lenses suffer from fall off. Yes, Rodagon 105/5.6(left) suffers much more. Sharpness(can not be compared in these photos) is deteriorated in both lenses at border and corner(not that useful, and burned in during actual printing), but Rodagon 105mm suffers more degree of unsharpness compared with Rodagon WA 120/5.6. This f/stop is not justice at all with Rodagon 105mm.
165200
By f/16, both improved in term of fall off. Rodenstock WA 120/5.6(right), has nothing further to say. On the other hand, there is no need to emphasize how much Rodagon 105/5.6 has improved. Most of the differences(specially fall off) between the two lenses at f/11 are ceased by f16.
Comparing the best coverage(fall off) of corner from Rodagon WA 120mm print at f/11, with any corner from Rodagon 105mm prints at f/16, shows equal or better coverage for Rodagon 105mm. The oppisite is true for sharpness, the Rodagon WA 120mm is still sharper at edge and corner at f/11 compared to Rodagon 105mm at f/16 in corner and border.
Again, will not state(now) that Rodagon 105mm at f/16 is a little sharper than Rodagon WA 120mm at any f/stop, in the center and off-center areas. If I can test specifically for that later, and proved that to my eyes, will state it confidently.

.

Last but not least, I think the claims and pre assumptions about Rodagon WA 120/5.6, are more theoretical and manufacturer propaganda than actual performance(assuming the two versions of the lens has the same performance, that with aperture scale ends at f/32 and the version with aperture scale ends at f/45). I really like the rendering of Rodestock lenses, but the company has more versions of lenses than any other company.
The correct way for a wide angle lens is Schneider APO 120mm HM lens(if money is easy), or Rodagon 105mm is just enough for the job if you go inexpensive. It's nonsense to pay 8-10 folds price for almost the same if not the same performance for the Rodagon 120mm WA.
.
Hope this helps and direct to the thread subject.
Thanks.

[Bob Salomon]

Not worth it, I give up, have much more important things to do.
If this guy thinks that he has a valid point he should direct it to the factory directly.

[Pere Casals]

My apologies all readers, I'm always late. And, can not reply whenever a passerby left "A" comment not related to the subject. Some of them left "A" comment out of only 73(upto this date off course), all of them are unverified answers in every aspect, BUT has no SINGLE QUERY or wonder, out of those 73 posts!!!
.


======================================================================
Back to the subject.
.

[CENTER]
165197
165198


Please check the attachment, not working. It would be interesting to see your results.

PD: this images do not allow to see anything useful, you should use an scanner.

IMHO you are pretty right in that a 6x enlargement can't show much resolving power difference to the human eye.

To evaluate an enlarger system (that includes lens) you should use a quantitative method, as you'll need to separate hairs. Here you have an important book you may know on the subject : http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf


Enlarging lenses are also under the sample to sample variability issue.


There are a number of factors that may mask a superior enlarging lens performance. First is negative, to see how an excellent enlarging lens shines you need a suitable negative, with fine sharp textures or contrasty silhouettes. Then you need a good alignment and focus setting, and absolutely no vibration. And also you need to enlarge beyond some X to see it by eye. PD: the sample image you used is suitable, IMHO, to compare, yet not best kind (texture based) of scene.

A better enlarging lens may not have any benefit with a slightly soft image, clearly.

So to know by science if it performs better or not at 6x you should use a USAF 1951 glass slide to project a cuantitative pattern in corners and center, and then taking the magnifier.

You also have to use the positive and negative pattern, as with black projected lines you evaluate the effect of parasite light in the system.


Then the difference comes when enlarging to big size from full 4x5. In that case a 105 lens still will be useful if you are to crop a region of the negative, this is not uncommon, LF lacks zooms, so some compositions are simply shot wider to later crop in post.

So if you are to crop the best composition perhaps the 105 may be even better than a 135.


So result won't depend much on if using a good lens or an excellent lens. What will make a difference is knowing what you are doing with the situation you have:

What enlargement ? Cropping? what detail the negative has ? need to correct "in negative" fall off ? Then you can decide if best glass is 105 or 135, or if it doesn't matter at all...

[Luis-F-S]

Not worth it......

+1. Sort of what I said earlier............Since I own at least a dozen or more enlarging lenses, incl. most of the Apo's and I have a real 8x10 enlarger (DeVere 5108), I can use whichever enlarging lens I need and not run out of headroom. For 45, I normally use the 180 Apo which I prefer over the 150 for the size enlargements I make. If I need something wider, I use the 135. L

[Thalmees]

Not worth it, I give up, have much more important things to do.
If this guy thinks that he has a valid point he should direct it to the factory directly.

Hello Bob,
Why you do not talk to me:)?
Please leave the results to the readers judgements.
Then, What sort of factory and job can be done to a new sample ad Rodagon WA 120/5.6 made 1998, and has no history of going out side the darkroom if not manufacturer packaging???
Plus, it's much better than the sample I tested a year ago, both samples have the same performance.
Anyway, part of the results are above, for history and any potential seeker of information about one of the lenses, take it or leave it.
Thanks so much.

[interneg]

It all seems like a pointlessly masochistic/ macho exercise if you've already got a 120mm WA lens...

[Thalmees]

+1. Sort of what I said earlier............Since I own at least a dozen or more enlarging lenses, incl. most of the Apo's and I have a real 8x10 enlarger (DeVere 5108), I can use whichever enlarging lens I need and not run out of headroom. For 45, I normally use the 180 Apo which I prefer over the 150 for the size enlargements I make. If I need something wider, I use the 135. L
Hello Luis,
Thanks so sharing information about your usual practice. It's valuable, thanks.
But, the thread now is settled(and since started) around the query of:
1. Can Rodagon 105mm cover 4X5 at least sufficiently? Not necessarily efficiently?
2. Does Rodagon WA 120/5.6, worth the price? Compared to Rodagon 105mm? Even if price of the WA 120mm comes much lower than usual?
For me, a big YES to the first query, and a big NO to the second if Rodagon 105mm is also available.
Thanks so much.

[Taija71A]

... Please leave the results to the readers judgements...

In order to exercise 'Proper' judgement in this regard...
All that one really needed to do -- Was to read the 'Title' of this Thread. ('Perfectly' Covers???)
--
BTW Thalmees, did you know that the words 'Judge' and 'Judgment' have negative connotations...
And tend to place people in a 'No-win' Situation?

You are most definitely now... In that exact, very situation. :p
Thank-you!

-Tim.
_________

[Thalmees]

It all seems like a pointlessly masochistic/ macho exercise if you've already got a 120mm WA lens...

Hello Mr. Ready Answers in every subject:)
I think I replied to you in post# 23.
Thanks so much for your comments.

[Bob Salomon]

Hello Bob,
Why you do not talk to me:)?
Please leave the results to the readers judgements.
Then, What sort of factory and job can be done to a new sample ad Rodagon WA 120/5.6 made 1998, and has no history of going out side the darkroom if not manufacturer packaging???
Plus, it's much better than the sample I tested a year ago, both samples have the same performance.
Anyway, part of the results are above, for history and any potential seeker of information about one of the lenses, take it or leave it.
Thanks so much.

Because, since we closed our company over two years ago and no longer are in contact with the factory I have better things to do, like closing the sale of our house on Thursday, finish packing and loading, go to the closing, move almost 1000 miles and take pictures and start fishing again. So your tilting at windmills no longer concerns or bothers me. Except that your posts remind me of some of the nonsense articles by Ctein.

[Pere Casals]

Hello Luis,
Thanks so sharing information about your usual practice. It's valuable, thanks.
But, the thread now is settled(and since started) around the query of:
1. Can Rodagon 105mm cover 4X5 at least sufficiently? Not necessarily efficiently?
2. Does Rodagon WA 120/5.6, worth the price? Compared to Rodagon 105mm? Even if price of the WA 120mm comes much lower than usual?
For me, a big YES to the first query, and a big NO to the second if Rodagon 105mm is also available.
Thanks so much.

But only in the case you are not to enlarge much beyond 6x...

Remember that the 105 is not a 45 lens, you can use it only until some enlargment or when cropping.

This is also settled. I think.

[Thalmees]

...
A better enlarging lens may not have any benefit with a slightly soft image, clearly.
...
Hello Pere,
Honestly did not read your post completely, will reply later.
For now hope you can see the photos.
Then, Rodagon WA 120mm suffers unsharpness in the peripheries, clearly at all f/stops, but at a lesser degree compared to Rodagon 105mm at f/16. In both lenses, edges and corners are to be burned in, in the real print, which will further decrease any remaining differences between the two lenses.
Thanks Pere.

[Pere Casals]

Because, since we closed our company over two years ago and no longer are in contact with the factory I have better things to do, like closing the sale of our house on Thursday, finish packing and loading, go to the closing, move almost 1000 miles and take pictures and start fishing again. So your tilting at windmills no longer concerns or bothers me. Except that your posts remind me of some of the nonsense articles by Ctein.

Hello Bob,

Sure packing and loading won't be fun... but I'm pretty sure you'll catch the big fishes there... fishing is a matter of instinct !

I've been reading the Ctein book, I feel mostly it's really good, but I also think that there are some (to me) nonsense statements there.

I've a 130 eyesight, and after comparing 30 Lp/mm quality contact prints to enlarged 8 Lp/mm (tested) prints I could say no difference.



Regards.

[Thalmees]

In order to exercise 'Proper' judgement in this regard...
All that one really needed to do -- Was to read the 'Title' of this Thread. ('Perfectly' Covers???)
--
BTW Thalmees, did you know that the words 'Judge' and 'Judgment' have negative connotations...

And tend to place people in a 'No-win' Situation?

You are most definitely now... In that exact, very situation. :p
Thank-you!

-Tim.
_________
Hello Taj,
I'm really sorry if that is true.
Did not know that honestly.
All readers of this forum(not only this thread), please consider not all members are natively English speakers.
Thanks so much.

[Thalmees]

Because, since we closed our company over two years ago and no longer are in contact with the factory I have better things to do, like closing the sale of our house on Thursday, finish packing and loading, go to the closing, move almost 1000 miles and take pictures and start fishing again. So your tilting at windmills no longer concerns or bothers me. Except that your posts remind me of some of the nonsense articles by Ctein.
LOL:D. Your comments are always welcome, except few words!!!
But, why do you think in an unshakable way, that the manufacturers are the absolute references for the tasks they are NOT usually do.
Manufacturers are manufacturers, not photographers!!! They do not take photos, and do not pay money for the photographers papers.
They can test better than photographers, of course, for the sake of drawing graphs, BUT not for producing prints.
As their business includes marketing and the Citen competitors, do you think they can be liable to bias in someway, somewhere in the products map or sometimes during their long history? Or just thinking of that is considered criminal in this forum?
Thanks so much.

[Bob Salomon]

LOL:D. Your comments are always welcome, except few words!!!
But, why do you think in an unshakable way, that the manufacturers are the absolute references for the tasks they are NOT usually do.
Manufacturers are manufacturers, not photographers!!! They do not take photos, and do not pay money for the photographers papers.
They can test better than photographers, of course, for the sake of drawing graphs, BUT not for producing prints.
As their business includes marketing and the Citen competitors, do you think they can be liable to bias in someway, somewhere in the products map or sometimes during their long history? Or just thinking of that is considered criminal in this forum?
Thanks so much.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Many of the people at Rodenstock are photographers, I was a photographer, I graduated the USAF photo school, I did aerial reconnaissance, I worked for major newspapers, I owned a photo studio.
Rodenstock is in constant contact with camera manufacurers and photographers about their products and testing their products. It is not simply a process of optical engineers, with many years experience, Product Manager, technicians, etc. designing a lens and putting it into production. There are lots of people testing designs and others tweaking after its designed. They are not just placed into production without extensive real world testing.
Some never made it into production. You may not have seen or read about the three Rodenstock medium format lenses, including a T/S that was shown at PMA a few years ago and which I then hauled around the country for a few months gathering photographers and dealers and press inputs, do you?
But then again, these were never put into production.
You are dreaming if you think that you really are better grounded in the optics of lens design then the graduate optical engineers, physasists, and advanced optical degree product managers at factories like Rodenstock.

[Taija71A]

You really don't know what you are talking about...

... You are dreaming if you think that you really are better grounded in the optics of lens design then the graduate optical engineers, physicists, and advanced optical degree product managers at factories like Rodenstock.

+100.

"Dreams Die Hard... And you Hold them in your Hand -- Long after they have Turned to Dust."
~~ Bowen... from the 1996 Rob Cohen Movie -- Dragonheart. ~~

[interneg]

Thalmees, listen to Bob - he knows what he is talking about.

[Thalmees]

Please check the attachment, not working. It would be interesting to see your results.
PD: this images do not allow to see anything useful, you should use an scanner.
IMHO you are pretty right in that a 6x enlargement can't show much resolving power difference to the human eye.
To evaluate an enlarger system (that includes lens) you should use a quantitative method, as you'll need to separate hairs. Here you have an important book you may know on the subject : http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf
Enlarging lenses are also under the sample to sample variability issue.
There are a number of factors that may mask a superior enlarging lens performance. First is negative, to see how an excellent enlarging lens shines you need a suitable negative, with fine sharp textures or contrasty silhouettes. Then you need a good alignment and focus setting, and absolutely no vibration. And also you need to enlarge beyond some X to see it by eye. PD: the sample image you used is suitable, IMHO, to compare, yet not best kind (texture based) of scene.
A better enlarging lens may not have any benefit with a slightly soft image, clearly.
So to know by science if it performs better or not at 6x you should use a USAF 1951 glass slide to project a cuantitative pattern in corners and center, and then taking the magnifier.
You also have to use the positive and negative pattern, as with black projected lines you evaluate the effect of parasite light in the system.
Then the difference comes when enlarging to big size from full 4x5. In that case a 105 lens still will be useful if you are to crop a region of the negative, this is not uncommon, LF lacks zooms, so some compositions are simply shot wider to later crop in post.
So if you are to crop the best composition perhaps the 105 may be even better than a 135.
So result won't depend much on if using a good lens or an excellent lens. What will make a difference is knowing what you are doing with the situation you have:
What enlargement ? Cropping? what detail the negative has ? need to correct "in negative" fall off ? Then you can decide if best glass is 105 or 135, or if it doesn't matter at all...
Hello Pere,
Thanks so much for your post.
All variables/factors you have mentioned plus those you forget to mention(if any), are considered. Thanks.
Most of them are required initially for making prints in the first place.
Photographers all over the world, over the past 150 years, did so to decide for their self and tools.
It's LFPF, not Zeiss Lab Technician Forum.
You just need to consider independent factors, correct them if needed before testing, keep them fixed during testing and watch how your dependent variable changes with every step in your test. It's not necessary to have the most sophisticated equipments, though it's better of course.
It's a different story of course, if you are using the setup for the first time and do not know if it has something interfering with your comparative test or not.
As for target, it's not mandatory for "comparison" tests on the same setup, because all other variables are equal among tested lenses, and fixed previously(including that portion of film/target). Plus you are not going to print "LPPMM targets" in your daily usual practice.
If you test for the sake of testing or to examin a single lens, a previously approved target is mandatory.
As mentioned, photographers all over the world, over the past 150 years, did so to decide for their self and tools.
Results(photos) in post# 23, shows the coverage and fall off(only) as mentioned. It's enough for the purpose, showing what's the effect of f/16 plus the comparative coverage at each f/stop, for the two lenses and the two f/stops in the same frame.
Thanks so much Pere.

[Thalmees]

Thalmees, listen to Bob - he knows what he is talking about.

Bob knows I did, and he knows I will attentively listen to the sound of experience.
Thanks so much for your advice.
But, please try to make photos in post#23 says the opposite.

[Pere Casals]

As mentioned, photographers all over the world, over the past 150 years, did so to decide for their self and tools.

IMO technical tests made with patterns would help to understand quickly what it can take a lot by dayly experience, if one plays attention on what the technical test says in fact.

Anyway what I say is that the fact the 105 and the 120 performs close with this small print of this particular negative is a prticular situation. It can be way wider differences in other 45 enlarging conditions.

At the end best enlarging focals for most common 45 situations is not 105 or 120.

You don't want head too far from paper and also you don't want very inclinated rays reaching paper.


You are comparing 2 not very suitable lenses for 4x5. A 150 it can be a good choice, or better a 180 because fall off.


What's about resolving power, you have to enlarge well beyond 6x to notice limitations of those good glasses.


So what I say is that you cannot conclude general facts with that test, your comparison is valid for that enlarging situation, but this is not the general case. If this is your common enlarging situation, then the test is valid for you.

[Thalmees]

Hello everybody.
.

IMO technical tests made with patterns would help to understand quickly ...

Hello Pere,
I really enjoy your comments, read it thoroughly.
It's honest and related to the practice mainly.
Thanks so much.
But, it's not realistic to assume that every photographer should have the ability to test his lenses the way labs test photographic equipments.
As most photographers, I could not perform that formal scientific strict testing, even if I have enough money to borrow the required equipment to do so.
Most photographers, including my self, still do not have the time and interest to do so.
That should not affect photographers own testing validity, to be true for other photographers, not scientist, technicians, curves or labs.
I'm almost sure, I'm not the only photographer who found that Rodagon 105mm(at f/11.5-16) can practically cover 4X5 format almost as Rodagon 120WA(with aperture scale ends at f/32, with NO pre-set aperture version of the lens) with better sharpness at center and off-centre zones.
It has been under discussion somewhere sometime.
I'm just one who put the subject under discussion again, based on my findings from testing two(2) samples of Rodagon 120WA(both samples ends at f/32 and have NO pre-set aperture).
Thanks so much.
.

Another quote, coming from a private message from Linos to a person in the Netherlands:
"The Rodenstock enlarging lenses Eurygon have the same optical design (6 elements in 4 groups) as the Rodagon-WA Lens. The Eurygon was produced until 1985. The difference between the Eurygon and the Rodagon-WA is the mechanical barrel. The Rodagon-WA has a barrel with a pre-set aperture."
Source: Dutch APUG.
Was insisting to show in my previous posts that my Rodagon 120WA I compared, has its aperture scale ends at f/32, NOT f/45 as shown in Rodenstoch old PDF files.
Now the above quote, confirm another thing, the pre-set aperture!!!
Both Rodagon 120WA I've tested, have NO pre-set aperture.
I think, it's Rodenstock policy to release premature(whatever available at time) versions of the same lens(model/design) without warning customers of differences in performance. Manufacturers can change specifications without previous notice:confused:.
Rodenstock has so many versions of the same lenses though I do not think it was selling better than any other company.
The above quote from:
Post#23; dated 2 Oct 2011: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?28180-Rodagon-WA-120mm
.
Will comment later on my results obtained from comparing both lenses by printing a Silverfast USAF 1951 target. The result will conclude on center sharpness only.
.

166638

[Bob Salomon]

Hello everybody.
.

Hello Pere,
I really enjoy your comments, read it thoroughly.
It's honest and related to the practice mainly.
Thanks so much.
But, it's not realistic to assume that every photographer should have the ability to test his lenses the way labs test photographic equipments.
As most photographers, I could not perform that formal scientific strict testing, even if I have enough money to borrow the required equipment to do so.
Most photographers, including my self, still do not have the time and interest to do so.
That should not affect photographers own testing validity, to be true for other photographers, not scientist, technicians, curves or labs.
I'm almost sure, I'm not the only photographer who found that Rodagon 105mm(at f/11.5-16) can practically cover 4X5 format almost as Rodagon 120WA(with aperture scale ends at f/32, with NO pre-set aperture version of the lens) with better sharpness at center and off-centre zones.
It has been under discussion somewhere sometime.
I'm just one who put the subject under discussion again, based on my findings from testing two(2) samples of Rodagon 120WA(both samples ends at f/32 and have NO pre-set aperture).
Thanks so much.
.

Was insisting to show in my previous posts that my Rodagon 120WA I compared, has its aperture scale ends at f/32, NOT f/45 as shown in Rodenstoch old PDF files.
Now the above quote, confirm another thing, the pre-set aperture!!!
Both Rodagon 120WA I've tested, have NO pre-set aperture.
I think, it's Rodenstock policy to release premature(whatever available at time) versions of the same lens(model/design) without warning customers of differences in performance. Manufacturers can change specifications without previous notice:confused:.
Rodenstock has so many versions of the same lenses though I do not think it was selling better than any other company.
The above quote from:
Post#23; dated 2 Oct 2011: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?28180-Rodagon-WA-120mm
.
Will comment later on my results obtained from comparing both lenses by printing a Silverfast USAF 1951 target. The result will conclude on center sharpness only.
.

166638
Do you know how to find and set the pre set aperture control on a Rodenstock enlarging lens?

[Pere Casals]

Hello everybody.
Hello Pere,
I really enjoy your comments, read it thoroughly.
It's honest and related to the practice mainly.
Thanks so much.
But, it's not realistic to assume that every photographer should have the ability to test his lenses the way labs test photographic equipments.
As most photographers, I could not perform that formal scientific strict testing, even if I have enough money to borrow the required equipment to do so.
Most photographers, including my self, still do not have the time and interest to do so.
That should not affect photographers own testing validity, to be true for other photographers, not scientist, technicians, curves or labs.
I'm almost sure, I'm not the only photographer who found that Rodagon 105mm(at f/11.5-16) can practically cover 4X5 format almost as Rodagon 120WA(with aperture scale ends at f/32, with NO pre-set aperture version of the lens) with better sharpness at center and off-centre zones.
It has been under discussion somewhere sometime.
I'm just one who put the subject under discussion again, based on my findings from testing two(2) samples of Rodagon 120WA(both samples ends at f/32 and have NO pre-set aperture).
Thanks so much.


Of course the 105mm can be used for 4x5, and it can be sharp... but with limitations as that focal length it is not suitable for 4x5, as manufacturer says. Even the 120mm is not a very suitable lens for 45, so you are comparing two bad options, but at least the 120 is able to focus big enlargements, 105 won't be able to focus big enlargements without vigneting . For 4x5 better using from 135 to 180mm, because fall off, the inclination of rays vs paper and ideal distance combination.

The 120 or the 105mm can be the best choice if you are to enlarge a crop of the 45 negative, this is not that uncommon as zoom lenses are not used with view cameras and photographer may have to shot wider to get his framming with the perspective he wants...

Any sharp print depends little on the enlargement lens compared with enlarging technique (aligment, film flatness, vibrations) and in negative acutance...


About photographers... you are pretty right, most of the good ones just take easy resources that are known to work well for something, and they make only those the tests that are well worth, as much. A true artist has not much time to be lost in mundane things, his mind has "visualizations" all the time, creative push is what counts for him. Give him a bare hammer, and he will make a Pietà...

Then there are "photographers" like me that have a low artistic profile and like too much the technical things.

And also there are photographers that do both, high end art and high end technical tests, AA is an example. We are free... we can do art and/or tests.

[Drew Wiley]

Right this moment, I've got 16x20 prints in the washer from 6x9 using the 105 ApoN as well as 4x5 film using the 150 ApoN. The notion of using the 105 for anything bigger than 6x9 is absurd. In fact, I prefer a 180 for 4x5 for its more even field of illumination. The wider you go, the more falloff, just like taking lenses. But those ApoN's have sweet tonality!

[Drew Wiley]

You could even stick a 65mm Super Angulon on an enlarged and it would cover 4x5, but certainly not with the quality of results people typically want!