About the 240mm Apo-Rodagon

[Luis-F-S]

I can't see any differences in the B&W images I printed with this lens vs. the new expensive one I bought!

Now this is technically a process lens and not an enlarging lens. But the lens was designed for use at an optimum aperture of f/16, for 1:1 and usable up to a 1:3/3:1 enlargement/reduction. This translates up to a 24" x 30" print from an 8x10 negative, which is larger than most of us will ever make!

NOTE: SALES CONTENT DELETED BY MODERATOR ALONG WITH MOVE TO DARKROOM EQUIPMENT SECTION

[Bob Salomon]

At F22!! Which may be why you couldn't see a difference if you were not printing at the optimal aperture!

[Luis-F-S]

The optimal aperture for the 240 Apo is f/16 as per the literature, which is what I used. I made an 8x10 print from an 8x10 negative (1:1) and looked at the print with a Rodenstock 4x Loupe! I enlarged within the range the lens was designed for printed on an aligned De Vere 5108 with a glass carrier! And I also printed the same negative with both a 210 Rodagon and a 240 Rodagon both at f/16, and again I could not detect a difference with the loupe. Go figure!

[neil poulsen]

The optimal aperture for the 240 Apo is f/16 as per the literature, which is what I used. I made an 8x10 print from an 8x10 negative (1:1) and looked at the print with a Rodenstock 4x Loupe! I enlarged within the range the lens was designed for printed on an aligned De Vere 5108 with a glass carrier! And I also printed the same negative with both a 210 Rodagon and a 240 Rodagon both at f/16, and again I could not detect a difference with the loupe. Go figure!

I have the same lens and probably the same Rodenstock documentation, and it states the optimum aperture to be f16.

[Luis-F-S]

Neil I'd be curious to hear your comments as to how yours compares with the non-apo Rodagon, and what you think of the 240 Apo. I know you have the 180 Apo which I also have and actually prefer over the 150 Apo. I don't own the 150 Apo, but my lab has one they haven't used in 10 years so I can borrow it whenever I want. Remember, again that I don't print big, so differences may be more noticeable at larger magnifications.

I could not see a difference using 240 Apo & the plain R at 1:1. I also tried the 210 R, and again, could not see a difference between the 3 at 1:1. I suspect I'll sell one of my 240 Rodagons (I have two) since I don't need 3 enlarging lenses of the same focal length. I suspect with color there may be more of a noticeable difference, but I don't print color. I'm going to try some larger enlargements say at around 3:1 of a cropped 8x10 or maybe a 5x7 negative to see if I can see any difference. It's interesting, I have a Rodenstock Process Lens brochure from the 1980's that lists both the Rodagon and the Apo and it shows the 210 Rodagon (and to a slightly less enlargement the 180) to be useable with 8x10 up to just under 2:1 if I recall correctly. I certainly shows them to cover at 1:1. L

[neil poulsen]

Your comparisons sound interesting, especially that between the 180 and 150 Apo Rodagons. What is it that you prefer about your 180mm? Since I only have the 180mm, I'd thought of keeping an eye open for a 150mm Apo Rodagon. But, maybe not?

I don't have any of the Rodagons (non-Apo), so I have no way to make a comparison. Prior to purchasing my 8x10, I used to use a Calumet re-branded Componon (non-MC) S. (Caltar SE, as I recall.) I picked up all my Apo-Rodagons on EBay, during the period of time where prices for enlarging equipment dropped through the floor. Not knowing whether they're really that much better, having them versus the non-Apo's is, none the less, comforting.

Have you done any testing to determine optimum apertures, versus the nominally stated optimum apertures? I've not done this, but I know of a photographer who's done these tests with his Apo's, and he uses them at the tested optimum apertures.

[Luis-F-S]

It's not that I dislike the 150 Apo, it's that I don't find that it gives me anything the 180 Apo does not. I prefer printing with the longer focal length since with the De Vere 5108, I have plenty of light. I even had KHB make me a special lens board to use the 180 Apo on the LPL. I typically enlarge at the stated optimum aperture. If you'd like, next week I can Email you the info (dimensions, MTF cuvers, etc.) on the 180 & 240 Apo's that Rodenstock sent me in the mid 1990's.

With the shorter lenses, I typically have to dial in more density since otherwise my exposure times are very short. Remember that I'm typically make small prints, normally 8x10's. But then again, Edward Weston never made a print larger than 8x10, so I feel I'm in good company................L

[neil poulsen]

I just revisited a "Fotofolio" exhibit at the Portland Art Museum which includes portfolio images by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Brett Weston, Minor White, and Paul Strand. It's a beautiful exhibit, one of the best that I've seen. The large majority of these prints were printed on 8x10 paper, including all the prints by Adams, E. Weston, and White.


. . . I typically have to dial in more density since otherwise my exposure times are very short. . . .

Do you mean dial in less density by closing the aperture, so as to increase exposure times?

I would appreciate the documentation on the 180mm lens. Thank you for offering. I have the Rodenstock documentation on the Apo Rodagon process lens, so I don't really need documentation on the 240mm.

[Luis-F-S]

Do you mean dial in less density by closing the aperture, so as to increase exposure times?

No, dial in more for less exposure. Usually start by dialing in an additional 30 CMY units. That way I can get longer exposure times and don't have to stop down the aperture. I try to print at either f/11 or f/16 depending on the lens. FWIW, the optimum for the 180 Apo is f/16. You'll see it from the documentation. I'll scan the 180 documentation at work tomorrow. L

[Oren Grad]

Discussion moved from now-completed sales thread in FS/WTB section, with transaction-related content deleted.

[neil poulsen]

No, dial in more for less exposure. Usually start by dialing in an additional 30 CMY units. That way I can get longer exposure times and don't have to stop down the aperture. I try to print at either f/11 or f/16 depending on the lens. FWIW, the optimum for the 180 Apo is f/16. You'll see it from the documentation. I'll scan the 180 documentation at work tomorrow. L

Got it; now I see what you meant. Thanks for all the information.

[Tin Can]

That went well...