APO RODAGON-D 75mm f4.5 2X opinions

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:25 am

I have lots of experience with the M=1 and some with the M=2 versions. The M=1 is overall my favorite Macro lens (other than the Printing-Nikkor...). I use it for all my serious coin photography. However, I have gone through 5 copies of the lens and have found significant variation in sharpness and contrast.

For the M=2 version, I've only owned 1 copy. I tried it both forward and reversed, and it was sharper and had flatter field at M=2 in forward orientation. However, as with the M=1 these may have variations since the sharpness of the M=2 (at M=2) was inferior to a good copy of the M=1 version (at M=2). I ended up selling my M=2 a few months ago and now use the M=1 exclusively up to M=2.

I'll be very interested to hear your experiences with the M=2 version, and hope you get an excellent copy...

Ray

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:31 am

rjlittlefield wrote:
seta666 wrote:The given scale ranges refer to projection; when the lenses are
used as taking lenses the respective reciprocal values apply.
This seems like the key to solving the confusion. The lens is optimized for 1.2 x- 2.5x when projecting, so reverse the lens for use at 2:1 = 2x in taking.

--Rik

I'm not so sure. The 75/4.5 M=2 is not an enlarging / projecting lens, but a taking lens. From that perspective it should be used forward for 2X, and reversed for 0.5X. My testing seemed to back this up, but I may have been subjected to an inferior copy. The lens is also fairly symmetric looking, so is hard to tell optical optimization...Ray

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:46 am

ray_parkhurst wrote: I'm not so sure. The 75/4.5 M=2 is not an enlarging / projecting lens, but a taking lens. From that perspective it should be used forward for 2X, and reversed for 0.5X. My testing seemed to back this up, but I may have been subjected to an inferior copy. The lens is also fairly symmetric looking, so is hard to tell optical optimization...Ray

Is it? I understood the "D" to stand for "duplication" so that it is indeed originally designed as a projection lens. Also, its advertised as being for 2x while the published MTF is at a magnification of 0.5.

However I have only used a single sample of each and not done extensive tests.

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:49 am

ray_parkhurst wrote: For the M=2 version, I've only owned 1 copy. I tried it both forward and reversed, and it was sharper and had flatter field at M=2 in forward orientation. However, as with the M=1 these may have variations since the sharpness of the M=2 (at M=2) was inferior to a good copy of the M=1 version (at M=2). I ended up selling my M=2 a few months ago and now use the M=1 exclusively up to M=2.

It sounds as if I should do a careful three-way comparison of mine, at 2x.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:09 pm

ChrisLilley wrote:Is it? I understood the "D" to stand for "duplication" so that it is indeed originally designed as a projection lens.

Duplication is taking, not projection. The 1:1 was designed for taking pictures of 35mm slides with 35mm film, creating movie prints from originals, etc. Not sure the corresponding function of the 2:1 but maybe 16mm to 35mm?

Oskar O · Post by **Oskar O** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:56 am

seta666 wrote: So, for macro Photography with full frame camera and 1X-4X range which kind should work best?

Apo Rodagon D or similar. OTOH, the best enlarger lenses are pretty good in the high end of that range. I'll probably do a test in the darker part of the year...

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:07 am

ray_parkhurst wrote:
For the M=2 version, I've only owned 1 copy. I tried it both forward and reversed, and it was sharper and had flatter field at M=2 in forward orientation. However, as with the M=1 these may have variations since the sharpness of the M=2 (at M=2) was inferior to a good copy of the M=1 version (at M=2). I ended up selling my M=2 a few months ago and now use the M=1 exclusively up to M=2.

Ray

FWIW, I had similar experiences with the Apo Rodagon D 75mm f/4.5 (2X), finding my copy was just a little softer than the 75mm f/4 (1X) versions that I tested. I also tested, and sold, an Apo Rodagon D 120mm f/5.6 for the same reason.

David

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:28 am

ray_parkhurst wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:Is it? I understood the "D" to stand for "duplication" so that it is indeed originally designed as a projection lens.
Duplication is taking, not projection. The 1:1 was designed for taking pictures of 35mm slides with 35mm film, creating movie prints from originals, etc.

Thanks for the explanation, Ray. It seems that I miusunderstood.

ray_parkhurst wrote:Not sure the corresponding function of the 2:1 but maybe 16mm to 35mm?

I'm still unsure as well. The fact that Rodenstock describe it as a 2x lens and then publish MTF at 0.5x doesn't help, either.

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:06 pm

what really matters is how the lens performs; I hope to get it soon and hope it works well in the 1X-3X range in full frame at least from f5.6. That is how I plan to use it. Being an apo lens optimized for macro work I would not expect less than that
Regards

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:00 am

Today I recieved the lens, it is a pretty little lens. I tried both forward and reverse mounted and I would say it works best reversed.
Also when reversed it needs less extension to get to 2X (3cm less) and has more working distance (almost 10cm, two more)

I did a quick test, mounted both ways at f4.5 and f5.6; focusing at f4.5 was a bit trickier forward mounted, I used liveview at 10X magnification
No adjustments other than cropping; camera eos 5d mkII

here is the whole image, focus was set on the dust particle on the U letter low left corner; this image has been reduced in size
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7200/reversed5.jpg
a 100% crop
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/924/recortei100.jpg
and one more 100% crop showing the dust particle
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9848/recorteii100.jpg

Regards

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:23 pm

I would say it works best reversed.

After expanding your images so I could see pixels, I'd say you're right, but there's not a lot between them! Perhaps the distortion is more sensitive to lens orientation. That would of course be more relevant to duplication.

I have one of these and a 600D sensor which puts 51% (linear) more pixels to the millimeter, but I haven't used it yet. Joys for my retirement perhaps.

Oskar O · Post by **Oskar O** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:02 pm

Looks promising. Remember to use a hood though; the image circle of the lens covers 6x7 cm (IIRC...).

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:19 am

I run some more tests and definitely my copy works best reversed.
Test were conducted on a EOS 5D mkII at 2X in liveview with led lamps, as said before when mounted in normal position it needs more extension and has less working distance. There is no sharpening, only some levels and WB correction
here you have the full image at f5.6 reversed, focus set on the g around the middle
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5229/revf56.jpg

100% corner crops, for the corner crop test focus was set on those two letters
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/221/ ... quinas.jpg

and 100% center crops, in the center quality is more or less the same no matter which way you mount it
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/7024 ... centro.jpg

Also some center and corner 100% crops reverse mounted with different apertures; to my eyes 4.5 is a bit softer but then very similar up to f8, were thing get softer due to diffaction
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2104 ... erentf.jpg

Also I did my first field stack with this lens, at 3.5X anf f5; 89 shots with 0,1mm steps (was at an angle). The WD is very confortable in the field

Large version
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6004/598 ... 4887_o.jpg

Regards

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:20 pm

Javier, congratulations, I think you got a good performer lens. I'm very satisfed with mine, but never did serious comparations against other lenses (I'm too much lazy).
Did you compare it with your Canon 100 macro or your enlarger lenses?

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:49 am

I have not done any comparisons yet; my intention is to use it in the field (and maybe for some low magnification studio shots too)
I can not compare it with the 100mm canon because I sold it, I am confortable with the bellows and that is what I am going to use; I do not own any enlarger lenses
For field use I own the Summar 120mm, from 0.5X to 1.5X, the Milar 65mm from 1.5X to 3.5X, this Rodagon also for 1.5X to 3.5X and a no name 38mm f5.6 that performs really well for 3X-6X. Also the Olympus 38mm but I still need to adapt it to M42
For me best advantage of this bellows combo against normal macro lenses is the very nice working distance
Regards

APO RODAGON-D 75mm f4.5 2X opinions

Re: APO RODAGON-D 75mm f4.5 2X opinions

Re: APO RODAGON-D 75mm f4.5 2X opinions

Re: APO RODAGON-D 75mm f4.5 2X opinions

Re: APO RODAGON-D 75mm f4.5 2X opinions