Printing-Nikkor Adapter

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:53 pm

[quote="ChrisR"]Well there's 6 lenses I don't have.. yet ;)
I think it would be a Schneider Componon HM not Rodenstock?
The Nikon 105 AIS is the f4, I see. I wonder how much it improved when they made it f/2.8 and added the feature whose name I forget - the lens alters internally as it's focused.
I suppose another "nice to try" would be the Rodenstock 74mm Apo f/4 designed for 1:1. I'm surprised that they make one for 1:1 and another for 1:2. Does that imply that things are [i]very [/i]critical at these ratios?[/quote]

I think the critical magnification range is for flatness of field. Nikon has their "CRC" Close Range Correction on later Micro lenses to help flatten the field at higher mags. At the rated magnification the lenses are near-perfect flatness and outside the range flatness degrades.

I have not yet tried reversing my 105 APO-EL-Nikkor to see if it will improve (I'm waiting for the reverse adapter to arrive...), but I HAVE tried reversing my regular 105mm EL-Nikkor and it DID improve slightly.

And you are correct, the 90/4.5 APO is a Schneider-Kreuznach (silly typo). I've edited my earlier posts to reflect the correct manufacturer.

I haven't heard before of the Rodenstock 74mm APO. I'll look for one. I assume they are expensive :(

...Ray

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:07 pm

Sorry, 75mm not 74, this one:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/main ... rodagon-d/

They appear relatively frequently, usually under $200.
Surely they can't be that good!?

Rodenstock seem to be doing "digital " versions of some of their lenses. Hmmm

Edit - this one went for $100 which is a bit low I think.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rodenstock-Apo-Ro ... 2eb27878ea

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:39 pm

ray_parkhurst wrote: I haven't heard before of the Rodenstock 74mm APO. I'll look for one. I assume they are expensive

Not especially (and certainly not in comparison to an APO El-Nikkor). I got my Rodenstock 75mm f/4 (the 1:1 lens) for 248 EUR and my Rodenstock 75mm f/4.5 (the 2:1 version) for 151 EUR (202.50 USD), both in 2010. I have seen the 75/4 go for a bit less, since.

I am pretty happy with both of them. The 75/4.5 is used reversed for 2:1, the 75/4 is used in the forwards orientation. A hood is recommended and I find that very bright highlights can be a bit splashy (but still without secondary colour).

The 75/4 is rated for 0.8-1.2x and the 75/4.5 for 1.2x-2.5x according to Rodenstock.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:40 pm

ChrisR wrote:Sorry, 75mm not 74, this one:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/main ... rodagon-d/

They appear relatively frequently, usually under $200.
Surely they can't be that good!?

Rodenstock seem to be doing "digital " versions of some of their lenses. Hmmm

Edit - this one went for $100 which is a bit low I think.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rodenstock-Apo-Ro ... 2eb27878ea

I see a few on eBay right now, I'll see if I can snag one for a good price to try out. If they are that cheap, can they be good? If so it's a real sleeper!

I think the "digital" versions of lenses do a more thorough job of anti-reflective coating on the sensor-side lens surfaces. Apparently sensors and their associated filters are a lot more reflective than film so the lens needs to better transmit the reflected light rather than re-reflect back onto the sensor. This is how Nikon markets their "Nano Coating".

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:45 pm

ChrisR wrote: The Nikon 105 AIS is the f4, I see. I wonder how much it improved when they made it f/2.8 and added the feature whose name I forget - the lens alters internally as it's focused.

The feature is called IF (internal focus). It also means the focal length shortens towards minimum focus.

I have the Micro-Nikkor 105/4 which I specifically picked as a unit-focusing lens that works well on bellows and extension tubes. In fact this design was originally a 'short' bellows-only design.

It is not clear that the f/2.8 redesign was better, just faster.

Oskar O · Post by **Oskar O** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:05 pm

The Rodenstock Apo Rodagon-D 75/4 is indeed a good lens and costs far less than what it's worth on the used market. Mine is somewhat used, but does exactly what it's supposed to do. I believe the price for a new one was around 400-500 euros. It does cover 6x6, so I occasionally put it on my Hasselblad and get nice pictures, although an Apo El Nikkor would be pretty nice, but has a pretty steep premium.

But I don't think that it will match the printing Nikkor. I'm still on the lookout for a printing Nikkor for that reason.

It's worth to note also what a lens is optimized for. The whole floating element -thing is really to provide the optimal formula for all magnifications, not just close-ups. For this reason, modern macro lenses are complicated. But it pays off; my Zeiss Makro-Planar 50 is just beautiful at every magnification. Lenses such as the printing Nikkor or Apo Rodagon-D are optimized for a very narrow application -- it should pay off.

IIRC, the Apo-Componon 45 was better than the 90 at higher magnifications, but I don't remember the source. The 90 is actually extremely versatile -- I found it very useful for some night shots in the city; kept flare at bay while providing good sharpness all over. In my mind, the Apo-Componon 45 is a somewhat underappreciated too, considering what it can do.

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:45 pm

Oskar O wrote:The Rodenstock Apo Rodagon-D 75/4 is indeed a good lens and costs far less than what it's worth on the used market. Mine is somewhat used, but does exactly what it's supposed to do. I believe the price for a new one was around 400-500 euros.

B&H list it currently at USD 646.95.

Oskar O wrote:TIt does cover 6x6, so I occasionally put it on my Hasselblad and get nice pictures, although an Apo El Nikkor would be pretty nice, but has a pretty steep premium.

The published MTF chart goes out to 40mm, so it covers an 80mm diameter circle. I originally thought this would be helpful with the tilt and shift feature on the Nikon PB-4 bellows, but stacking makes such tricky placement of a plane of focus somewhat superfluous, at least for static subjects.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:52 pm

Here are three pics which show something. but I'm not sure what, except that comparing lenses takes a lot more care than I used, and your new lenses at least, are better:

They're using
Apo Rodagon 75/4 D
Apo Rodagon 90/4
MicroNikkor 105/2.8
The coin is I think 26mm, so they're just less than 1:1
Nikon D700 (24 x 36), no sharpening or PP at all.

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/8800 ... pmax75.jpg

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7564/201 ... pmax90.jpg

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3812 ... max105.jpg

I think the 75 just takes it, but there's so little showing between these tests that a normal person owning any of them, wouldn't be justified in buying one of the others.

The three deep scratches - my penknife. Sorry, Your Maj.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:25 pm

ChrisR wrote: ...snip...
I think the 75 just takes it, but there's so little showing between these tests that a normal person owning any of them, wouldn't be justified in buying one of the others.

The three deep scratches - my penknife. Sorry, Your Maj.

The 75 definitely wins, though I agree all are pretty close. I'll be interested in trying a 75 to compare with the others in my harem. Is your 75 the M=1 or the M=1/2 version? Or is the M=1/2 rated at f/4.5?

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:29 pm

ray_parkhurst wrote: The 75 definitely wins, though I agree all are pretty close. I'll be interested in trying a 75 to compare with the others in my harem. Is your 75 the M=1 or the M=1/2 version? Or is the M=1/2 rated at f/4.5?

The 2:1 version is f/4.5, yes.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:48 am

M=1, 75mmf/4, yes.
The same lens or its twin was used here where the limiting factor was the sensor. Have you tried a 55 f/2.8 micro?

It took me a while to decide which was queen of the current three - where are you seeing the difference?
One (boring!) thing I think I've found is that a little is lost in the jpeg (from the camera) but I don't usually convert from RAW. However, as those were recorded RAW as well and the DOF is enough to cover well, I'll check.
Also these are short stacks - sometimes an individual frame looks slightly sharper.
These differences are as a rule insignificant , to me. There's always other things - like here the lighting, which needs improvement first. I imagine you have a standard way with coins. I used a diffused flash one side with a silver reflector the other.

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:45 am

Another lens to consider is the Zeiss 74mm f/4 S-Planar, also optimized for 1X. I previously tested one of these against a pair of 75mm f/4 Apo-Rodagons; it fell right between them as far as resolution, but I preferred the overall image quality. I'll try to post a picture this weekend.

David

Oskar O · Post by **Oskar O** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:05 am

The euro price I mentioned was some local dealer's price here in northern Europe. Considering that our sales tax is pretty high, I'd say that the deal is better than B&H.

The thing I like about the Rodagon 75/4 is that it is compact and not very rare or expensive, making it very useful for field use. The thread is the standard M39 too.

I have heard many good things about the Zeiss 74/4, but unfortunately it is not common and clearly more expensive than the Rodagon. The Printing Nikkor also has a more complicated optical formula, making me feel that it's better value for money

Incidentally, my understanding is that the Apo-Rodagon 90 is among the weaker of the bunch, while the 80 mm versions should be better. Just in case gear upgrade fever hits you...

But at the end of the day (and many lenses later...), I feel that the lenses mentioned here are all very good for the magnifications they are optimized for.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:24 am

OK which is best from these - not so easy huh?

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:25 am

Oskar O wrote:
Incidentally, my understanding is that the Apo-Rodagon 90 is among the weaker of the bunch, while the 80 mm versions should be better. Just in case gear upgrade fever hits you...

But at the end of the day (and many lenses later...), I feel that the lenses mentioned here are all very good for the magnifications they are optimized for.

For what it's worth, I'm happy with the Apo-Rodagon 90 that I have. The image of the 20X objectives here was taken with this lens at f/8. At 1X, the 75mm and 74mm lenses are both superior.

David