Rodagon-WA 120mm

[mark e mark]

Optimised for x4 to 15x. Bob can tell you the optimum magnification (I think it is 6x or 8x). Its not bad, I can't lay my hands on the other test prints I have done at the moment.
Not up to Schneider Apo, or Componon-S 150mm standards, but similar to modern Rodagon and Nikkor 135mm performance. Better than a plain Componon 150mm.

[mark e mark]

Just lost the long reply I typed, while trying to attach a photo!! Short answer, compared to a Schneider Componon-S 80mm at f5.6, the 120mm is better when used at f11. Very similar to the 80mm at f6.3 and f8. 80mm more contrast than 120mm, but resolution on my test neg (mamiya 7 with standard lens, Delta 100asa, tripod+hood) nothing really in it. 80mm slightly better resolution when using 6x loupe on a ~5.5x enlarged print. Can't find my 135mm lens prints at the same enlargement I did with the 120mm lens. The 80mm lens prints I produced the same size enlargements, at the same time, as the 120mm prints.

[Dik Souan]

Thanks, very helpful.

[mark e mark]

Sorry for the really late update. Just compared the 120mm with a Nikon 135mm and Schneider componon-S 150mm. Resolution wise - looking at x5.3, 6.2 and 7.1 prints with a Schneider x6 loupe, there is nothing in it between the lenses. However, the 120mm being a slightly older design (methinks) the 135mm and 150mm produce a slightly more contrasty print. This is probably down to improved coatings on the newer lens.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

Recently I finally found a 120 WA, I could try testing its performance compared to Rodagon 150 for 4x5 color negatives.

[mark e mark]

If the Rodagon-WA has improved coatings over my Eurygon 120mm, I would guess (if they are both decent samples), you will not see any difference in the prints. But like me, you have got to do it, just to check!

[Thalmees]

Wide angle. It makes prints 30% larger then a normal focal length 45 enlarging lens at the same column height. It is a higher quality lens then the Rodagon but not as good as the Apo Rodagon-N

A new one, if you can find one as it is out of production, would be much more then $400.00 by a factor of more then 2x.

Sorry for bringing this thread up.
Hello Bob,
As far as I know, there are two(2) versions of Rodagon WA 120/5.6.
One appears from time to time in the auction site, aperture scale ends at f/32.
The other version appears only in the old Rodenstock PDF files, has aperture scale ends at f/45.
Is my knowledge correct?
Thanks for clarification.
The rendering of Rodenstock lenses are very beautiful. But the problem is that Rodenstock, has more versions(which are not presumably equal in performance) of the the same lens! more than any other manufacturer!
I still have a marvelous Grandagon 90/4.5, it covers 102° only, not 105° as expected. One of the best wide angle lenses I have ever used.
My apologies again for bringing up this thread.

[Bob Salomon]

Sorry for bringing this thread up.
Hello Bob,
As far as I know, there are two(2) versions of Rodagon WA 120/5.6.
One appears from time to time in the auction site, aperture scale ends at f/32.
The other version appears only in the old Rodenstock PDF files, has aperture scale ends at f/45.
Is my knowledge correct?
Thanks for clarification.
The rendering of Rodenstock lenses are very beautiful. But the problem is that Rodenstock, has more versions(which are not presumably equal in performance) of the the same lens! more than any other manufacturer!
I still have a marvelous Grandagon 90/4.5, it covers 102° only, not 105° as expected. One of the best wide angle lenses I have ever used.
My apologies again for bringing up this thread.

Lenses evolve over time, also Rodenstock manufactures special versions for specific non photographic purposes that may have different features then the photographic lens versions. For example, most letters mailed in the USA go through a scanner for sorting that has a Rodagon lens in it.
But weather it stops down to this or that doesn't matter. Serial number will tell us date of manufacture, not the aperture scale. Besides, optimal aperature is f11 and the smallest aperatures will put you so far into diffraction that the results would be unusable. Additionally your exposure times would be so long that you would be in reciprocity for many papers.