What are the nominal optical deficiencies that led Rodenstock to not recommend the 120mm WA-Rodagon for enlargements under 4x? Are they likely to be visually significant in normal use?
What are the nominal optical deficiencies that led Rodenstock to not recommend the 120mm WA-Rodagon for enlargements under 4x? Are they likely to be visually significant in normal use?
If you were to compare the results of the Rodagon N at less then 4x the WA would lose. Over 4x the WA would win.
Assuming a negative size of 4x5 inches...it would not have made sense to have designed the 120WA Rodagon to perform optimally at relatively small (such as 4x) magnifications...given the mechanical configurations of most 4x5 enlargers which typically enable adequate negative stage to baseboard distance for such magnifications using greater focal length (135mm or 150mm) enlarging lenses. The 120WA truly shines in the 20x30 to 30x40 range (again, for a 4x5 negative), while allowing for a vertical enlarger configuration (at least with my Zone 6 series 2)...and thank goodness for that!
The reason I wanted to know is because Schneider's Apo Componon HM 120/5.6 is supposed to be able to handle down to 1:1 and up to about the same enlargement as the WA-Rodagon - and while I suspect it might be due to distortion or field curvature at small magnifications that led Rodenstock to recommend a 4-15x range, I'd like to know if that is the case, or if it's something else.
Why not send them an email, through their site, and ask them?Originally Posted by interneg
I have done so - will update this thread when I get a response.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks