Rodagon-G 360 for enlarging 5x7 12 times

[chris77]

hi there.
given the light is not an issue (very powerful led)
how will such a lens perform when going 12x compared to a naturally suitable 210 or 240 of the same type.
negative size is 13x18 (5x7 inch)
would it be possible to use it wide open (f 6.8)?
any input welcome!
cheers,
chris

[ic-racer]

Should work fine, but I'ld stop it down a few clicks. Is this lens already installed on a horizontal enlarger? If this lens is on a 5x7 Durst, maybe Drew will chime in here as to the likelyhood of focusing that lens with the existing bellows and making a 60" image with that enlarger.

[Tin Can]

7 foot wide print. I assume horizontal projection.

Try it!

[Bob Salomon]

A shorter Rodagon G designed for 57 will still be optimized for the same magnification but would require far less extension and would perform optimally at a larger f stop giving shorter exposure times.

[chris77]

i just did 12 times with ordinary rodagon 210.
had to use several neutral grey gelatins to bring expose down to 7 seconds (!)
led changes the world of enlarging. but be careful with the magnifiyer. very harsh light.
stopping past f 8 brings up diffraction when doing such enlargement. all laser aligned.
will the rodagon-g 360 improve edge sharpness and (micro) contrast?
horizontal durst 138. making the huge lens work together with the lens revolver will be tricky but i will make it work.

[John Layton]

I've done 60" wide prints from 5x7 using a 180mm f/5.6 Companon-S, stopped down to f/11 - and get sharp grain to the edges. Light source is a Heiland VC LED, powered down enough to give me 20 to 40 second(ish) green light exposures, plus 15 to 30 second (ish) blue channel exposures, which allows enough time to do my typical dodge/burn routines.

Chris...seven seconds? Are you masking these...or do you have really fast hands?

[chris77]

I've done 60" wide prints from 5x7 using a 180mm f/5.6 Companon-S, stopped down to f/11 - and get sharp grain to the edges. Light source is a Heiland VC LED, powered down enough to give me 20 to 40 second(ish) green light exposures, plus 15 to 30 second (ish) blue channel exposures, which allows enough time to do my typical dodge/burn routines.

Chris...seven seconds? Are you masking these...or do you have really fast hands?

Hello. did 2 prints with this setup. print size is 200x150 cm which is in fact 11 point something times enlargement.
doing 60" wide means horizontal? that would be 8times.
makes a difference i guess.
i get excellent center sharpnes, corners are sharp, but not grainsharp.
7 seconds without dodging, just a stop or two of burning. fast and steady hands ;)
when working with handcoated paper long exposure times seem to eat contrast, 7 seconds is not enough though. was for first tests.
just to underline my basic question,
is a rodagon-g 360 an improvement? guess it has to be, no?

[Bob Salomon]

Hello. did 2 prints with this setup. print size is 200x150 cm which is in fact 11 point something times enlargement.
doing 60" wide means horizontal? that would be 8times.
makes a difference i guess.
i get excellent center sharpnes, corners are sharp, but not grainsharp.
7 seconds without dodging, just a stop or two of burning. fast and steady hands ;)
when working with handcoated paper long exposure times seem to eat contrast, 7 seconds is not enough though. was for first tests.
just to underline my basic question,
is a rodagon-g 360 an improvement? guess it has to be, no?

No, not for what you want. A 210 or 180mm Rodagon would perform better at 11x. Stopped 2 stops down from wide open. You do have a properly aligned enlarger and a glass carrier? If not you will never get optimal results!

Properly aligned means film stage to lens stage to baseboard.

[Luis-F-S]

Hello. did 2 prints with this setup. print size is 200x150 cm which is in fact 11 point something times enlargement.
doing 60" wide means horizontal? that would be 8times.
makes a difference i guess.
i get excellent center sharpnes, corners are sharp, but not grainsharp.
7 seconds without dodging, just a stop or two of burning. fast and steady hands ;)
when working with handcoated paper long exposure times seem to eat contrast, 7 seconds is not enough though. was for first tests.
just to underline my basic question,
is a rodagon-g 360 an improvement? guess it has to be, no?

NO!!! Listen to what Bob said! A 360 is for 8x10 or larger. 5x7 requires a 180 or at most a 210 mm lens. If you have a 210 Rodagon, use it. It will handle 12x enlargement as well or better than a 360 G-Rodagon. And stop down 2 stops, you said your enlarger LED head had plenty of light! No enlarger lens is made to be used wide open. Also, if possible use a Unipla lensboard on the Durst, not the the turret.

[Luis-F-S]

In my last post, I mentioned to use a Unipla instead of the Tripla turret with long lenses on the Durst L-138. These large boards can be used on the Durst L-138S or the L-184. Enlargers with the removable turret have a large plastic knob in front of the turret that is used to remove it. If you have a fixed turret, then you cannot use the Unipla board. I thought I'd post some photos of these boards:

First is the 3 lens Tripla removable turret and the single lens Unipla board. The hole opening of these two boards is the same diameter.

198845

The Unipla can be used for lenses that stick out behind and prevent the turret from turning. I think it's also easier to align the enlarger with the Unipla than with a Tripla (fewer moving parts).

Lenses mount onto small boards called Laplas. The individual Laplas mount onto the Unipla. Lapla boards have threaded openings of either 25mm (Lapla 25), 39mm (Lapla 39 with Leica threads), 50 mm (Lapla 50) and others, or you can have custom threads cut if one is not available. I've routinely bought Lapla 25 boards to use to have custom larger threads cut to mount a lens. The Lapla with it's threaded lens then mounts on the Unipla ( or the Tripla). There are also recessed Laplas known as the Seipla, and the Setiopla which mount onto the Unipla.

198846198847

For lenses that are too large to fit a standard Lapla, you can get custom adapters made. Below is a 240 Rodagon in an SKG custom Lapla, plus a 180 and 135 Rodagons mounted in standard Laplas.

198848

For lenses that were too large for the Lapla (like the 300 mm Rodagon, etc.), Durst made the Vapla, which was the large Unipla type flat board without the Lapla mountings and you could then screw a lens' mounting ring directly on the Vapla board. The lens would then screw onto this ring. Typically, the 210 mm lens is the longest you'd use on 5x7. A 210 lens can be made to fit on a Lapla and the turret, so the earlier L-138's did not have removable turrets, since there'd be no need to mount longer lenses.

Uniplas and Vaplas were available either at auction, or through Durst Pro-USA. With that company's demise, luck and the auction site are probably the best way to secure one. Hope this helps.

[chris77]

No, not for what you want. A 210 or 180mm Rodagon would perform better at 11x. Stopped 2 stops down from wide open. You do have a properly aligned enlarger and a glass carrier? If not you will never get optimal results!

Properly aligned means film stage to lens stage to baseboard.
hello bob!
tx for your reply.
enlarger is perfectly aligned on all levels using lasertool.
glass carrier of course.
center sharpnes seems to decrease slightly when stopping down two stops. but then again, what i do lack is a bit more of edge sharpness (all four corners equally decreased sharpness when wide open)
light is not an issue!

[chris77]

In my last post, I mentioned to use a Unipla instead of the Tripla turret with long lenses on the Durst L-138. These large boards can be used on the Durst L-138S or the L-184. Enlargers with the removable turret have a large plastic knob in front of the turret that is used to remove it. If you have a fixed turret, then you cannot use the Unipla board. I thought I'd post some photos of these boards:

First is the 3 lens Tripla removable turret and the single lens Unipla board. The hole opening of these two boards is the same diameter.

198845

The Unipla can be used for lenses that stick out behind and prevent the turret from turning. I think it's also easier to align the enlarger with the Unipla than with a Tripla (fewer moving parts).

Lenses mount onto small boards called Laplas. The individual Laplas mount onto the Unipla. Lapla boards have threaded openings of either 25mm (Lapla 25), 39mm (Lapla 39 with Leica threads), 50 mm (Lapla 50) and others, or you can have custom threads cut if one is not available. I've routinely bought Lapla 25 boards to use to have custom larger threads cut to mount a lens. The Lapla with it's threaded lens then mounts on the Unipla ( or the Tripla). There are also recessed Laplas known as the Seipla, and the Setiopla which mount onto the Unipla.

198846198847

For lenses that are too large to fit a standard Lapla, you can get custom adapters made. Below is a 240 Rodagon in an SKG custom Lapla, plus a 180 and 135 Rodagons mounted in standard Laplas.

198848

For lenses that were too large for the Lapla (like the 300 mm Rodagon, etc.), Durst made the Vapla, which was the large Unipla type flat board without the Lapla mountings and you could then screw a lens' mounting ring directly on the Vapla board. The lens would then screw onto this ring. Typically, the 210 mm lens is the longest you'd use on 5x7. A 210 lens can be made to fit on a Lapla and the turret, so the earlier L-138's did not have removable turrets, since there'd be no need to mount longer lenses.

Uniplas and Vaplas were available either at auction, or through Durst Pro-USA. With that company's demise, luck and the auction site are probably the best way to secure one. Hope this helps.

thank you for your detailed reply with all the pictures.
kind regards and happy new year!

[chris77]

NO!!! Listen to what Bob said! A 360 is for 8x10 or larger. 5x7 requires a 180 or at most a 210 mm lens. If you have a 210 Rodagon, use it. It will handle 12x enlargement as well or better than a 360 G-Rodagon. And stop down 2 stops, you said your enlarger LED head had plenty of light! No enlarger lens is made to be used wide open. Also, if possible use a Unipla lensboard on the Durst, not the the turret.

ok. thanks.
i just thought that the 360 would use the center part of the lens, so even wide open or one stop down it might stay within the better circle of the lens and therefore outperform the standard 210 lens.

[Tin Can]

Less distortion perhaps

[Bob Salomon]

Less distortion perhaps

These lenses have no distortion.

[Tin Can]

OK, maybe he should use 8X10 film...

It is a rare lens, I hope to use my 360 Rodagon not G one day, so I follow this type of discussion

I also encourage experimentation by the new users of old tech




These lenses have no distortion.

[Tin Can]

A thread that refers to massive enlargement How Big Enlarge How BIG Copy for WEB (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155824-How-Big-Enlarge-How-BIG-Copy-for-WEB&p=1530300#post1530300)

[Bob Salomon]

OK, maybe he should use 8X10 film...

It is a rare lens, I hope to use my 360 Rodagon not G one day, so I follow this type of discussion

I also encourage experimentation by the new users of old tech

It is two things with the G series.
1: film size
2: magnification

With the exception of the 50mm G very few non professional labs have the need or the equipment or the space for printing with a G series lens. These were made for mural printing. For prints within normal magnification ranges they would be vastly inferior to regular high quality enlarging lenses. Just as those normal lenses would be inferior for mural printing.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd just use a 240/9 Apo Rodagon. It's small, and superb over a very wide range of magnifications. Extremely even and sharp by f/11, so really no slower for printing than ordinary enlarging lenses, though not quite as bright for sake of initial focusing or composition. The 180 Rodagon is a fine lens too, but will be a tad less contrasty or even. But both can be found quite affordably these days. I have both.

[Bob Salomon]

I'd just use a 240/9 Apo Rodagon. It's small, and superb over a very wide range of magnifications. Extremely even and sharp by f/11, so really no slower for printing than ordinary enlarging lenses, though not quite as bright for sake of initial focusing or composition. The 180 Rodagon is a fine lens too, but will be a tad less contrasty or even. But both can be found quite affordably these days. I have both.

But it is greatly inferior to an enlarging lens. The 240 Rodagon will easily outperform it at 11. Especially as the Apo Rodagon are process lenses and are optimized for f/22.

[Drew Wiley]

No, no, no, Bob ... The Apo Nikkors are better. I have not only proven that to myself hundreds of times over again, but nearly all the big pro labs once in business around here preferred them to Rodagon G's for mural work. And their into their own by f/11 clear down. The f/22 specification for process use specifically is for sake of standardized
exposure protocol, not for reasons of inferior performance at somewhat larger or smaller apertures. I've got a whole set of these things, along with quite a few Rodenstock official enlarging lenses, and except for focus brightness, would rate the Apo Nikkors superior in every paramater, including better than my beloved Apo Rodagon N's, necessary in shorter focal lengths. I'll leave it to your to describe the longer Apo Rodagons themselves once marketed for graphics rather than enlarger applications. But I think you're showing a bit of brand loyalty prejudice against Japanese optics not shared by many West Coast users. Apo Nikkors were considered the cream of the crop here, with the sole exception of extremely expensive Apo El Nikkkors, the Rolls Royces.

[Tin Can]

Good to know Drew, I suspected my El-Nikkor 240 was my best enlarger lens.

[Bob Salomon]

No, no, no, Bob ... The Apo Nikkors are better. I have not only proven that to myself hundreds of times over again, but nearly all the big pro labs once in business around here preferred them to Rodagon G's for mural work. And their into their own by f/11 clear down. The f/22 specification for process use specifically is for sake of standardized
exposure protocol, not for reasons of inferior performance at somewhat larger or smaller apertures. I've got a whole set of these things, along with quite a few Rodenstock official enlarging lenses, and except for focus brightness, would rate the Apo Nikkors superior in every paramater, including better than my beloved Apo Rodagon N's, necessary in shorter focal lengths. I'll leave it to your to describe the longer Apo Rodagons themselves once marketed for graphics rather than enlarger applications. But I think you're showing a bit of brand loyalty prejudice against Japanese optics not shared by many West Coast users. Apo Nikkors were considered the cream of the crop here, with the sole exception of extremely expensive Apo El Nikkkors, the Rolls Royces.

No, I was telling you that Apo Rodagon lenses longer then 180 were process lenses. I was not comparing brands. Also, are your shorter Apo Rodagon lenses the N or the non N versions? There is a world of difference.

I guarantee you that for every lab you know or knew there are far more high end labs not using the Nikon lenses and were using the Rodagons. We sold them to hundreds of labs and military and industrial users all over the USA. Plus many for machine vision applications like the post office scanning envelopes for routing.

BTW, it’s not brand loyalty, I also sold lots of Schneiders, Komuras and Nikkors. I did work for EPOI.

[Drew Wiley]

Mine are Apo Rodagon N's, Bob, up to 150. I don't have any longer Apo Rogadons per se, which certain others have used as enlarging lenses, esp 180's, so can't comment on those. My 180 is an ordinary Rodagon. I highly respect your own experience and opinons, but you were obviously selling a European option, whereas certain other concerns out here were strictly pushing Nikon process lenses, which certainly seemed more common in California, meaning the higher grade 4-element lenses. I've never even seen one of their cheaper line of process lenses like used on compact stat cameras - I assume most of the ones in use were rebranded Rogonars, or something analogous 3-element. Machine optics etc is a whole other topic. But a lot of this is basically overkill talk - which is better? - a Rolls or a Bentley, a Ferrari or a Maserati, cause it's hard to find a driver worthy of either, and I'll never be able to afford a recycled rear bumper to any of them. Likewise, it's a darn rare negative that will worthily test the real distinctions between these various top-end lenses. Workable magnification ratios are important.

[chris77]

i have tested the rodagon 210 vs apo ronar (240) apo germinar (240 and 300) and the rodagon had better sharpness and contrast.
thats what i found out for myself in a perfectly aligned setup doing 12 times enlargement from 5x7 inch.

[Bob Salomon]

Mine are Rodagon N's, Bob, up to 150. I don't have any longer Apo Rogadons per se, which certain others have used as enlarging lenses, esp 180's, so can't comment on those. My 180 is an ordinary Rodagon. I highly respect your own experience and opinons, but you were obviously selling a European option, whereas certain other concerns out here were strictly pushing Nikon process lenses, which certainly seemed more common in California, meaning the higher grade 4-element lenses. I've never even seen one of their cheaper line of process lenses like used on compact stat cameras - I assume most of the ones in use were rebranded Rogonars, or something analogous 3-element. Machine optics etc is a whole other topic. But a lot of this is basically overkill talk - which is better? - a Rolls or a Bentley, a Ferrari or a Maserati, cause it's hard to find a driver worthy of either, and I'll never be able to afford a recycled rear bumper to any of them. Likewise, it's a darn rare negative that will worthily test the real distinctions between these various top-end lenses. Workable magnification ratios are important.

I’m the wrong one for that car analogy. My class in high school had 32 guys, no girls. Among those 32 were David Ogilvy whose father wrote the Rolls tag line about the loudest noise in the car was the clock. And Luigi Chinitti, Jr whose father raced for Ferrari and then became the owner of North American Ferrari. Luigi Jr. (Coco) took the business over from his father and was one of the designers of 2 Ferrari limited editions. One was the station wagon and the other the 3 seater with the driver in the middle. He sold both of them from his Greenwich showroom but that middle seater is no longer street legal over here.

One of the other guy’s father was a Mercedes factory racer until he got banned for running someone off the road in a rally.

David sometimes drove a Bentley to school while Luigi would sometimes drive a Ferrari. I drove a 49 Studebaker or a 51 Chevy or a 52 VW! I usually didn’t park in the senior lot and only on the street!

[Drew Wiley]

Wow. Off topic, but I once worked for a man who had almost 400 Euro race cars in his collection, along with a full-time mechanic, detail man, and warehouseman. But he always drove a beat up old T-Bird convertible with a leaky canvas top to work, so he wouldn't be suspected of being rich and get mugged. And the fellow who gave me some of my photo lab equip owns huge swaths of commercial and prime residential real estate in several cities around here, plus multiple restaurants and resorts, whole sections of downtowns, but still always drives the same battered up old VW van with flaking paint for the same reason.

[Duolab123]

I've done 60" wide prints from 5x7 using a 180mm f/5.6 Companon-S, stopped down to f/11 - and get sharp grain to the edges. Light source is a Heiland VC LED, powered down enough to give me 20 to 40 second(ish) green light exposures, plus 15 to 30 second (ish) blue channel exposures, which allows enough time to do my typical dodge/burn routines.

Chris...seven seconds? Are you masking these...or do you have really fast hands?

Heiland light source on a Zone VI type 1 or 2 enlarger? ? I have a Zone VI type 2, with the last version Calumet VC cold light run through a Metrolux II timer. Works great (primarily 6x17 roll film) There's a really crazy part of me that wants the LED head so I can make 5 foot long color prints. I don't think I'm that crazy. My normal lens for 6x17 is a 180mm El Nikkor.

[Bob Salomon]

Wow. Off topic, but I once worked for a man who had almost 400 Euro race cars in his collection, along with a full-time mechanic, detail man, and warehouseman. But he always drove a beat up old T-Bird convertible with a leaky canvas top to work, so he wouldn't be suspected of being rich and get mugged. And the fellow who gave me some of my photo lab equip owns huge swaths of commercial and prime residential real estate in several cities around here, plus multiple restaurants and resorts, whole sections of downtowns, but still always drives the same battered up old VW van with flaking paint for the same reason.
My mother’s family were in the transportation business, they started with cartage and then became wagon dealers. They were the CT dealer for Conestoga Wagons, they then became truck dealers in the very early 20th century. They then became Studebaker Packard dealers before switching to Desoto Plymouth. In 56 my grandfather retired and rented his dealership to Edsel rather then become the VW dealer for Bridgeport, CT. His brothers did switch to VW for New Haven.

However my family were publishers. However I never got to take advantage of those car deals!

Sorry, Clydesdale not Conestoga. They were also the National and White truck dealers.

[John Layton]

Heiland LED VC with Zone 6 type 2 - for prints up to 30x40 from 5x7, using a 150mm G-Claron at its ideal aperture of f/22. For 40x60's...I've cobbled together a horizontal enlarger which utilizes the same Heiland light source, but this time using a 180mm Companon-S at f/11. The G-Claron for this size print did not cut it (a bit out of its "sweet-spot" magnification-wise), even at its ideal f/22 aperture - but the Companion-S works wonderfully here. Cannot imagine using a 360 to go this big from 5x7 - logistics would be quite challenging!

[Drew Wiley]

Componon S lenses were decent for their era, but kinda like a Ford or Chevy if hanging onto our car model analogies, and not a Porsche or Ferrari. I used a 180 Rodagon for 20X24 and 30x40 inch Cibachrome prints from 4x5 chromes. They were quite nice and nobody would notice anything "lesser" about the result unless it were placed side by side to my later work, which involved a custom additive colorhead, larger 8x10 film, and true apo enlarging lenses. But the slightly less saturated look went well with the older Ektachrome 64, which handled complex off-hues like sage coloration better than current films, but had trouble with clean greens due to the bit of red contamination. It's all been fun, and I've kept most of my older enlarging lenses because sometimes it's a quick way to fine-tune color printing contrast without resorting to a different mask density.

[ic-racer]

Seems odd that you would not be happy with the results of the 210 rodagon and that your test of the different lenses showed different results for each lens of suitable performance for the task. I have about 13 enlarging lenses, I can't tell which lens is used for any print by lookng at the print (though they are not all the same viewed through the grain magnifier).

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, well I drive a stick-shift 4WD truck, and would probably instantly crash into a tree if I ever stepped on the accelerator of a Ferrari even in first gear. It's like that with lenses too. You don't realize the distinction until you have such choices in front of you, and then it becomes real. And I mean real. If I went from an old style Componon, for example, which was a decent lens long ago, to an Apo Nikkor at the other extreme, the difference in contrast, microtonality, fine detail and hue saturation would be quite evident even to the public. The upgrade from an ordinary Rodagon to an Apo Rodagon N, within comparable focal lengths, is apparent at close inspection, especially with respect to the superior microtonality in black and white prints; and Apo Nikkors optically outperform even those. All these little nuances cumulatively add up. But I don't even think of it in terms of one option being "better" than another, but as an option per se, to be chosen as the best fit for a particular image, much like we might select a somewhat older view camera lens for its special rendering qualities instead of sheer clinical detail ability. I once had a wonderful marriage between a 210 Componon S taking lens and 4x5 old-style Ektachrome printed with a Rodagon 180. Now I'm mostly working with much sharper, more contrasty taking lenses, distinctly improved enlarging optics, significantly improved color neg films (plus b&w work), and a whole new type of color printing medium capable of handling extreme detail, Fujiflex replacing Cibachrome. It all about matching everything up as efficiently as possible. When I want a softer image, I know how to do that too. It's all good.

[Luis-F-S]

I'd just use a 240/9 Apo Rodagon. It's small, and superb over a very wide range of magnifications. Extremely even and sharp by f/11, so really no slower for printing than ordinary enlarging lenses, though not quite as bright for sake of initial focusing or composition. The 180 Rodagon is a fine lens too, but will be a tad less contrasty or even. But both can be found quite affordably these days. I have both.

I have both too. The Apo is optimized for 1:1 and usable for 1:3 to 3:1. The Rodagon is optimized for 4X and usable from 2x to 8x. This guy wants to make 11x enlargements off 5x7. Not exactly in the Apo Rodagon range, more in the Rodagon or Rodagon-G range. You like Nikkors, that's an opinion, and everybody has one.


I have about 13 enlarging lenses, I can't tell which lens is used for any print by lookng at the print (though they are not all the same viewed through the grain magnifier). Funny thing IC, I can't either.

[Duolab123]

Lost in Translation Part Two
198871

[Duolab123]

Yeah, well I drive a stick-shift 4WD truck, and would probably instantly crash into a tree if I ever stepped on the accelerator of a Ferrari even in first gear. It's like that with lenses too. You don't realize the distinction until you have such choices in front of you, and then it becomes real. And I mean real. If I went from an old style Componon, for example, which was a decent lens long ago, to an Apo Nikkor at the other extreme, the difference in contrast, microtonality, fine detail and hue saturation would be quite evident even to the public. The upgrade from an ordinary Rodagon to an Apo Rodagon N, within comparable focal lengths, is apparent at close inspection, especially with respect to the superior microtonality in black and white prints; and Apo Nikkors optically outperform even those. All these little nuances cumulatively add up. But I don't even think of it in terms of one option being "better" than another, but as an option per se, to be chosen as the best fit for a particular image, much like we might select a somewhat older view camera lens for its special rendering qualities instead of sheer clinical detail ability. I once had a wonderful marriage between a 210 Componon S taking lens and 4x5 old-style Ektachrome printed with a Rodagon 180. Now I'm mostly working with much sharper, more contrasty taking lenses, distinctly improved enlarging optics, significantly improved color neg films (plus b&w work), and a whole new type of color printing medium capable of handling extreme detail, Fujiflex replacing Cibachrome. It all about matching everything up as efficiently as possible. When I want a softer image, I know how to do that too. It's all good.

Apo Nikkors, are you talking about the F 9 process lenses? I helped to scrap a immense process camera at work, two lenses the short one was a 60 inch Rodagon. I should have kept them, I traded them to a guy. My friend still has some of the Kodak litho film, 3x4 foot. The vacuum back would have made an awesome easel, but it had to weigh 150 lbs. There was an Ilford processor that passed through the wall, huge. The only thing I regret is there was a smaller plate burner, left it behind.

[Bob Salomon]

Apo Nikkors, are you talking about the F 9 process lenses? I helped to scrap a immense process camera at work, two lenses the short one was a 60 inch Rodagon. I should have kept them, I traded them to a guy. My friend still has some of the Kodak litho film, 3x4 foot. The vacuum back would have made an awesome easel, but it had to weigh 150 lbs. There was an Ilford processor that passed through the wall, huge. The only thing I regret is there was a smaller plate burner, left it behind.

Sure it wasn’t an Apo Ronar?

[Drew Wiley]

No, not everyone has a relevant opinion. Apo Nikkors were among those highly preferred for high-end graphics standards far in excess of the needs of ordinary photography. Mine were cannibalized from a $200,000 process camera 22 feet long - not exactly the kind of original purchasers likely to buy "just anything" based on mere rumor. As taking lenses these are superbly corrected all the way from very close up to infinity; but in their originally marketed application, this same feature means they're highly useful over a very wide range of magnifications. That's why the big labs used them for mural work, but I use them close-up for extremely fussy enlarged dupes and internegs onto 8x10 film. In terms of 360's, I use both a 360/5.6 El Nikkor for sake of ease of composition under the relatively dim look of orange-masked color negs, though it's huge, as well as a 360/9 Apo Nikkor for its more compact size and even better optics, when it is more appropriate, or else a 305 Apo Nikkor to save headroom in 8X10 film printing when I want to work in my smaller, lower-ceiling room, like this time of year, because the smaller room is much easier to heat. Now if the best of both worlds ever ever comes up again, meaning an Apo El Nikkor 360, I can even imagine the asking price. The last one that I'm aware of sold for $11,000 over 30 years ago. But there can be too much of a good thing - meaning that a lens which that high an MTF can reproduce almost every nearly invisible blemish, scratch, or Anti-Newton texture on the carrier glass itself. That's what kept me away from them, even the one time I had an opportunity to buy a 210 Apo El rather reasonably (1K). Anyway, the pin-registered back I cannibalized from that same big process camera weighs about 400 lbs. I can stand on it without deflecting the focal plane, an ideal trait here in earthquake country.

[Duolab123]

Sure it wasn’t an Apo Ronar?

Yeah , you're correct. I just remember that my 11 X14 camera has 60 inch bellows, and I think the smaller lens weighted 10 lbs. The biggest process camera I ever played with was a baby, 16 x 20 Robertson. So much fun. If I was a billionaire I would put one of these in the back of a truck and shoot ULF Ektachrome and Ektar. Just call up and place a few million dollar order. :o

[Luis-F-S]

As hard as it may be to believe, there are more than one "relevant opnion". I'll take Bob's opinion and the German optics over the Japanese any day. L

[Drew Wiley]

I have no reason to doubt that the German equivalents are excellent too, but you're still talking about high-end graphics lenses made to higher standards than ordinary taking or enlarging lenses. But price-wise, unless you're talking custom mfg for astronomical, aerospace, or survalliance use, Apo El Nikkors are undeniably the top of the food chain. Everybody knows that, and almost nobody can afford it, esp since they're now no longer made except in fixed aperture, and were recently in high demand for specialized high-end art scanning cameras. But methinks there's a little bit of uninformed sheer bias on your behalf, without any actual experience involved. I use BOTH German and Japanese top-end optics in the lab on a routine basis. But no foul, no harm. Get the job done with whatever you prefer. Yet it reminds me of people who are prejudiced against Fuji LF optics, even though they're one of biggest and most advanced pro lens manufacturers in the world. Nikon itself is a huge player in medical imaging and machine optics. Don't confuse their name with just consumer snapshot equipment and digi 35mm. They have a real industrial footprint too, just like Fuji dominates a big segment of TV and pro video imaging with some very pricey lens options. If you want something even better, it can be custom made just 5 minutes up the highway from me; just bring along your NASA or NSA credit card, without a credit limit !

[Bob Salomon]

I have no reason to doubt that the German equivalents are excellent too, but you're still talking about high-end graphics lenses made to higher standards than ordinary taking or enlarging lenses. But price-wise, unless you're talking custom mfg for astronomical, aerospace, or survalliance use, Apo El Nikkors are undeniably the top of the food chain. Everybody knows that, and almost nobody can afford it, esp since they're now no longer made except in fixed aperture, and were recently in high demand for specialized high-end art scanning cameras. But methinks there's a little bit of uninformed sheer bias on your behalf, without any actual experience involved. I use BOTH German and Japanese top-end optics in the lab on a routine basis. But no foul, no harm. Get the job done with whatever you prefer. Yet it reminds me of people who are prejudiced against Fuji LF optics, even though they're one of biggest and most advanced pro lens manufacturers in the world. Nikon itself is a huge player in medical imaging and machine optics. Don't confuse their name with just consumer snapshot equipment and digi 35mm. They have a real industrial footprint too, just like Fuji dominates a big segment of TV and pro video imaging with some very pricey lens options. If you want something even better, it can be custom made just 5 minutes up the highway from me; just bring along your NASA or NSA credit card, without a credit limit !

When did you use the S Ortho Planar? That was also a blowback lens.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know what you're implying, Bob? Did that particular lens series have anything in common at all with large format applications? Of course, in serious astronomy these days, something "large" might be many miles wide, involving thousands of synchronized lens elements, based on multi-billion-dollar budgets. That's the kind of thing being made up the street, at least the specialized mirror and lens components.

[Drew Wiley]

If I wanted to do some fun personal Astro photog, I'd head up to some high altitude pass with my P67 300EDIF - a highly regarded lens for widefield Astro, my Nikon adapter, and my Df, or the P67 itself. But high quality results require either a vac back for paperless 220 film, or a digi P645 camera. Plus I'd have to invest in a solid clock drive support etc, which I can't afford. Just yesterday I talked to the wife of my serious Astro professor friend, who was once nominated for the Nobel prize in physics, but is now recovering from cancer treatments. Even a cricket or ant in that house would be better at math than me.