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

[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.
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.in...dagon-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.
.

[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.
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.in...dagon-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.
.

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!