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,
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.
The generosity of spirit in this forum is great, its warmly appreciated.
------------------------------
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.
Last edited by Thalmees; 21-May-2017 at 07:11. Reason: Schneider part, added.
The generosity of spirit in this forum is great, its warmly appreciated.
------------------------------
Bookmarks