PDA

View Full Version : Rodenstock Imagon 250 cap size



lightreaver
11-Aug-2016, 07:18
Hello,
I just became the happy owner of a a recent Rodenstock Imagon 250mm lens in Copal 3 shutter.

The lens came however without push on caps and I'm not sure which cap size would be needed.
I have found on (http://www.prograf.ru/rodenstock/largeformat_en.html) that respectively a 55mm and 60mm would be needed for the front and rear elements, the thing is however the front element is wider than the rear...

Any experience with this lens?
Any cap brand to recommend?
Is there a way to deduce precisely required cap size from element outer width?

Thanks a lot



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AJ Edmondson
11-Aug-2016, 08:13
The front cap supplied by Rodenstock for the front element is a "push-in" 54mm... it fits into the opening for the discs. On mine the rear element measures 58mm OD. A "push on" front would have to be about 6-8mm in depth to reach the step (larger diameter) which, on mine measures 58mm. As far as I know there were no rear caps supplied as the lens was protected by the box - which was fitted for the lens, discs and filter.
In my opinion they are great lenses for their purpose but you need to follow the directions for optimal results. If you search the forum, there are many discussions re: appropriate focusing techniques.
Joel

tgtaylor
11-Aug-2016, 13:17
The Rodenstock cap on the back of mine says it's a 60. The cap on the front is not a Rodenstock and doesn't have a size marked on it. However a 54 Nikon cap fits very snug - I'd say a 55mm would work fine.

Thomas

Jac@stafford.net
11-Aug-2016, 14:46
I hope you share your results using the Imagon 250 with 4x5 or larger. In my experience, it is not intended for such a large format, however that does not mean it cannot be very interesting.

Bob Salomon
11-Aug-2016, 14:51
I hope you share your results using the Imagon 250 with 4x5 or larger. In my experience, it is not intended for such a large format, however that does not mean it cannot be very interesting.

The 250 is designed for 45.

Jac@stafford.net
11-Aug-2016, 14:58
The 250 is designed for 45.

Okay, if you say so. Show me.
.

Bob Salomon
11-Aug-2016, 15:39
Okay, if you say so. Show me.
.

Best do a search for an old brochure, or instruction book. 120 and 150mm were for 645, 66, 200mm for 66 to 69, 250 for 45 and 300 for 57. It's all out there in the old brochures. But they no longer on the factory site or the current distributor site.

lightreaver
11-Aug-2016, 16:25
Thanks a lot guys for the quick feedback, I must say I didn't expext a heated discussion on this topic :)

I understand then that for the front a 55mm or 54mm would slip on?
For the rear it looks a 60mm should do then.
The next step would be to find them, I live in france it's getting harder these days to find large format parts, thank god we have ebay..

Regarding the lens coverage itself, I couldn't try it either yet, still waiting for my lens board and ring order. Specs says 180 @11.5 but I read elsewhere it has a huge image circle that would reach 8x10. So it looks it shoud be good at least for portraits on 4x5.
Will let you once I'm finally able to master it and shoot my first art pieces with it :)

PS: the copal shutter comes without an f stops scale, I guess expected as the H disc should be used instead. It could however be interesting to have them for a more 'standard' usage of the lens, I will try to see if there is a way to map correctly the scale.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jac@stafford.net
11-Aug-2016, 16:57
Best do a search for an old brochure, or instruction book. 120 and 150mm were for 645, 66, 200mm for 66 to 69, 250 for 45 and 300 for 57. It's all out there in the old brochures. But they no longer on the factory site or the current distributor site.

I do not have to do a search. I own a few, and have used them. Have you?
.

AJ Edmondson
11-Aug-2016, 17:17
I have used the 250 Imagon on 4x5 for years and never had any problems with coverage even with swings, tilts and shifts. It does indeed cover a much larger field but distortion renders it useless in such applications. Also, Lightreaver - while you can use the aperture mounted in the shutter I think you will find the results disappointing. In my experience the Imagon performs exceptionally well when used as designed with the discs, used with a single opening (as with the shutter aperture) the results are disappointing. Others may disagree.
Joel

DG 3313
11-Aug-2016, 20:46
I'm new to Imagon lenses but, just because it covers the film...it doesn't mean it covers the film with the sweet spot! I have the 200 and know I need to crop a 4x5 neg to eliminate excessive blur.

Don

Bob Salomon
12-Aug-2016, 05:17
I do not have to do a search. I own a few, and have used them. Have you?
.

I have used all from the 120 to the 300. And Joel's answer is right on.

russyoung
12-Aug-2016, 11:56
I have 120mm to 420mm Imagons, pre-War, 1950-60s and more recent (such as the 300mm H/6.8) for formats from 35mm on up. My favorite combinations are the 360 for 5x7, closely followed by the 250 for 4x5 and half-plate (just barely). The 200 is superb on 6x12 cm but find, for my aesthetics, it is too short for 4x5 when compared to an image with a 250. Coverage is one issue but proper perspective is my over-riding criterion. As with all things soft focus, your mileage may vary.

Russ

hendrik faure
13-Aug-2016, 06:04
in case anybody needs:

http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u568/hfa8/ro_zpsauh0s3xr.jpg

lightreaver
13-Aug-2016, 07:02
Always good to check the original specs :) very rare leaflet it looks Hendrik, which year was it printed?

Bob Salomon
13-Aug-2016, 07:46
Always good to check the original specs :) very rare leaflet it looks Hendrik, which year was it printed?

It is the same as the later instruction book that came with the lenses except the later book had illustrations of the same subject at various disk settings.

hendrik faure
13-Aug-2016, 08:44
Always good to check the original specs :) very rare leaflet it looks Hendrik, which year was it printed?
I do not know, but "DRP" means Deutsches Reichspatent", so it must be before 1945.

lightreaver
13-Aug-2016, 10:29
@Joel: it seems it worked actually the second time, I could see the previews. What was it, also a rodenstock manual?

AJ Edmondson
13-Aug-2016, 10:34
Yes... it was the Rodenstock Imagon manual printed June 1978. I spent the whole morning resizing it with the scanner (at age 73 I am never going to be good at this computer stuff).
Joel

AJ Edmondson
13-Aug-2016, 10:43
153786153787153788153789
Sorry to add so much clutter... this is the French language section of a June '78 manual printed by Rodenstock in Munich.

Joel

lightreaver
13-Aug-2016, 12:27
This manual is perfect Joel, thanks a lot for sharing it. Useful information, especially on the focusing technique and focus zone.

lightreaver
14-Aug-2016, 04:46
I have managed to buy separately the ND filter (49mm slip on, looks the correct one) and two of the aperture discs, but I'm still missing the medium one (H7.7-H9.5), looks hard to find outside a complete set.

Would anyone owning one and willing to sell? Do not hesitate to PM me.
I understand the 200mm discs are not exactly the same, right? I need to find the 250mm version in that case.
Thanks

Bob Salomon
14-Aug-2016, 05:00
I have managed to buy separately the ND filter (49mm slip on, looks the correct one) and two of the aperture discs, but I'm still missing the medium one (H7.7-H9.5), looks hard to find outside a complete set.

Would anyone owning one and willing to sell? Do not hesitate to PM me.
I understand the 200mm discs are not exactly the same, right? I need to find the 250mm version in that case.
Thanks
The aperture disks for the 200, 250 and 300 are the same outside diameter but each have a different size set of center and surrounding size holes and while they each can fit on the wrong focal length lens the effects and apertures will be incorrect. For that reason if is very easy to tell them apart since each one has the focal length and aperture ranges marked plainly on the front if the disk.

Technically they are not slip on but slip in attachments.

lightreaver
27-Sep-2016, 16:28
Late update on this thread.

I have managed to compare my Imagon lens (full black copal shutter) to an older version (chrome & black copal shutter with coloured levers), and I see a difference between the external size of both front and rear elements which should explain the inconsistent info found on the subject.
The recent lens was fitted perfectly with 60mm Rodenstock brand caps on both sides, while those caps are too large for the older version. A 55mm looks indeed probably needed for the latter.

Would you know if there is any qualitative difference between those versions otherwise? The older one's shutter seems to contain more metal than the recent one.

Anyway, I was able to test the lens a bit with different settings, below a few test shots.
Borders are soft and there is significant colour fringing (corrected below), but the dreamy halo effect is indeed impressive.

Thanks again for the useful replies on this thread!

H9.5 Open
https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/173263677/m%3D900/beb8b28416f985cfe65fbc56c0284819
H7.7 Open
https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/173263507/m%3D900/ff5910e7bf00f56aaca2c289a3348812
H5.8 Open
https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/173263271/m%3D900/da8b8a46fb5cf3df04ae2d7bb3940644

Two23
27-Sep-2016, 19:11
I have a 250mm stuffed up in my closet. Dang, I need to dig it out and shine some sheets this weekend! I was using it on a Chamonix 045n, but it is a heavy sucker. I can now use it on my Gundlach Korona. It's a 5x7 frame with a 4x5 back.


Kent in SD