The Imagon 200 5.8 for 4x5?

[Ed Vatza]

I am learning a lot here in this discussion and appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions. The good news here is that the Imagon 200 (not 250) that prompted the question is owned by a friend of mine. It comes with the three disks and ND filter. And he is willing share the work he has done with it as well as let me borrow it for a bit to see if it meets my needs. So no need to guess. I'll try it and if I like it, I'll buy it... the 200mm. If not... no hard, no foul.

Ed

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have a lot of Imagons (120, 150, 200, 250, 300, 360, 420).
You should be AOK with the 200mm on 4x5. But test it since you can
Of course as you move closer, the image circle increases.


I have ancient Rodenstock literature (some in German) that says it covers 4x5. The 250 covers 5x7 and the 300 8x10.

2016-02-22 16.49.40 by Nokton48, on Flickr

[Bob Salomon]

I have a lot of Imagons (120, 150, 200, 250, 300, 360, 420).
You should be AOK with the 200mm on 4x5. But test it since you can
Of course as you move closer, the image circle increases.


I have ancient Rodenstock literature (some in German) that says it covers 4x5. The 250 covers 5x7 and the 300 8x10.

2016-02-22 16.49.40 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Modern literature states 200 for 6x9, 250 for 45 and 300 for 57.

[Ed Vatza]

Modern literature states 200 for 6x9, 250 for 45 and 300 for 57.

Well one thing seems clear (as mud)... the 200 is right on line as far as use on a 4 x 5 is concerned. It seems clear that the 250 may be a better fit but it also seems clear that the 200 can work on a 4x5. And the deal with my friend would be for the 200. What I need to see is whether I get the soft focus effect with the 200 on 4 x 5? I am getting together with him tomorrow morning. Hopefully I'll have an answer then because this is driving me crazy!

Ed

[Bob Salomon]

Well one thing seems clear (as mud)... the 200 is right on line as far as use on a 4 x 5 is concerned. It seems clear that the 250 may be a better fit but it also seems clear that the 200 can work on a 4x5. And the deal with my friend would be for the 200. What I need to see is whether I get the soft focus effect with the 200 on 4 x 5? I am getting together with him tomorrow morning. Hopefully I'll have an answer then because this is driving me crazy!

Ed

Yes you will get soft focus and halation with the 200 on 45. However the amount of halation at say 7.7 with the 200 on 45 will not be what is normally expected with an Imagon. The 250 at 7.7, for example, will be what is expected.

And the 250 will fully cover 45 at infinity at any stop which the 200 will not.

All of this, as explained earlier, is with the lighting that the Imagon expects, 5:1 or greater lighting ratio and not with an umbrella or soft box.

[mdarnton]

I "expect" lenses to do what I want, not what the data sheet wants.

Worth noticing that only the Imagon and Fuji SF use discs at all. Every other SF lens on the planet has used the aperture as a means of selectively controlling the effect to the photographer's own preferences. If there's a problem here, it is that the Germans want to tell you how you should see and what you should do with your own.property.

[Bob Salomon]

I "expect" lenses to do what I want, not what the data sheet wants.

Worth noticing that only the Imagon and Fuji SF use discs at all. Every other SF lens on the planet has used the aperture as a means of selectively controlling the effect to the photographer's own preferences. If there's a problem here, it is that the Germans want to tell you how you should see and what you should do with your own.property.

Whatever floats your boat.

It should be pointed out that while both use disks they are used differently, one in front of the lens and one inside, their results are not the same.

[Ed Vatza]

So I tested the 200mm 5.8. Here are two scans - one at 5.8 with no disk and one at 7.7 with disk. The conditions were not ideal in a courtyard with overcast skies but it's what we had to work with. No movements. No vignetting. I like the ethereal quality of the first photo.

[Bob Salomon]

So I tested the 200mm 5.8. Here are two scans - one at 5.8 with no disk and one at 7.7 with disk. The conditions were not ideal in a courtyard with overcast skies but it's what we had to work with. No movements. No vignetting. I like the ethereal quality of the first photo.



Unfortunately, since you had flat lighting you do not have the halation that the Imagon produces. You should have taken two more pictures.
1 with the 5.8 disk wide open and then another with all the periphery holes closed.
Then you would have had 2 shots at 5.8 and 2 at 7.7. Then you could see some of the choices the Imagon delivers. But do them with strong spectrals. Maybe with that string of lights on.

[Mark Sawyer]

I tried the 250 Fujinon with the perforated aperture once, and found the Imagon much nicer.

There's good reason to follow Rodenstock's advice on the Imagon. There are also good reasons to break the rules. I've used my 300mm Imagon on 8x10 a number of times without issue. (That extrapolates to 150mm on 4x5.) I've used both disks and conventional aperture, and found I prefer a conventional aperture closed down slightly. I've never had a problem with vignetting, but the corners go quite soft. Bob will tell you I'm doing it all wrong, and he's right. But I like it that way.