Rodenstock 105/5.6 with floating element

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Rodenstock 105/5.6 with floating element

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? It appears to exist in 3 incarnations:

Linos Inspec.x L 105mm f5.6 Float
Rodenstock 105mm f5.6 HR Digaron Macro
Alpa 105mm f5.6 Macro Switar

I expect the same comments will be made as for the fixed magnification Linos Inspec.x L 105mm f5.6 lenses, ie that f5.6 is a relatively small aperture which will ultimately limit the lens performance. However, the work being done with this lens seems to be world-class as shown here:

https://www.designboom.com/design/alpa- ... 7-20-2017/

This makes me also believe that the fixed aperture versions of this lens should produce similar results. Am I missing something?

The floating element lenses are very expensive, and unlikely available on the used market, but the fixed magnification versions are certainly available for reasonable prices (used). I might even expect the fixed mag versions to be somewhat better performers than the floating element, given a simpler design and perhaps fewer compromises.

Antal
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:29 am
Contact:

Post by Antal »

Ha, good finding, that this is the same lens!


I asked already once about the fixed lens.
Here is Roberts quote:
RobertOToole wrote: I owned a Inspec.x 5.6/105 0.33 - 3x version for a few weeks before returning it to the seller.

Pros:
Clean image, no CAs at all
Excellent fit and finish
M43 x 0.75 threads on both sides
Big image circle

Negatives:
Its huge! (61mm diameter)
Slow maximum aperture would limit sharpness at higher magnifications. Should make a nice tube lens!

Alternatives in the same class:
The Makro-symmar is a lot smaller, maybe 40-45mm in dia, and I prefer the more common V38 mount.

Hope the info helps.

Best,

Robert
We see Bernhard Schurian is printing very large prints, but pictures in the article are very lightweight and I would like to see a 100% detail (out of the 100mp back!!). On his website, picture is also very poor and kind of harsh (I'm not english speaking, I hope this is the correct word).
Considering this guy spent nearly 100'000$ in his equipment, we should expect results must be not so bad...
I will send him an email and ask him for an 100% detail at mag3X.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Antal wrote:Ha, good finding, that this is the same lens!
........
We see Bernhard Schurian is printing very large prints, but pictures in the article are very lightweight and I would like to see a 100% detail (out of the 100mp back!!). On his website, picture is also very poor and kind of harsh (I'm not english speaking, I hope this is the correct word).
Considering this guy spent nearly 100'000$ in his equipment, we should expect results must be not so bad...
I will send him an email and ask him for an 100% detail at mag3X.
I remember seeing his images in a zoom-able presentation, and they went in to 100%. I can't seem to find the link to that presentation now. I thought they looked excellent at 100%. Have you seen this? Perhaps this was on his website? I was looking around for information on the stacking rail when I found the images.

Edited to add: I was not the first to notice these were the same lens. I guess there is also a Cambo variant as well. Here's a thread from July 2017 about same topic:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 78d55e4c97

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Rodenstock 105mm f5.6 HR Digaron Macro
Alpa 105mm f5.6 Macro Switar
I believe these are from the same manufacturer, and they are actually the same lens.

Linos (division of qioptiq, owns Rodenstock) also makes a 105mm float, which I suspect is also the same lens as above. Nikon has 2, namely the PN150 and Rafact float, there's also the Schneider one which I'm sure most are aware of.

I know someone who owns the Alpa one. Its retail price is 4320 euros. He uses it on a high quality cambo bellows.

The performance of the lens is simply "really good". It's optimised over a wide range of 1:3 to 3:1 and gives great results at 4:1. The image quality is great. To be fair, the sample photos in that link doesn't strike me, perhaps I dislike the style of lighting or I'm put off by the dry compound eye.

He created many panoramas with the lens, I will ask him to respond to the thread with some of his panoramas. They are beautiful and I prefer his lighting style.

As for the Linos f/5.6 lenses, don't bother. They aren't good. The 3.3x ones are quite bad due to the smaller aperture. I haven't seen photos of the 2x or 1x versions, which I suspect will be a lot better, but still fall short in front of beasts such as the Printing-Nikkor 105mm A and Nikon-Rayfact 95mm.

There is however an f/4 version of the Linos, optimised for 1:3.5 and 3.5:1. That lens is really good, the problem is... large amounts of extension is needed (like 200mm??). One will end up with a light saber of a lens after configuring it for 3.5:1. If one's willing to look over this fact, then look here: https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a2 ... t=6#detail
(Expensive!)

I personally think the 105/4 Linos will beat the float lenses in comparisons. Folks over at nikongear.com talked about the Printing-Nikkors with regards to the Schneider Macro Varon. I fully agree with the consensus there. I remember seeing you (Ray) in the post. The obvious advantage of these float versions is the wide range of magnification it offers. Unlike the PNs and Linos Inspec.x lenses that excel in one particular area, these float lenses are more suitable for field work.

I wouldn't be willing to pay that much for the lens. I want to see some Rayfact 3.5x lenses getting into the surplus market...
Image

Regards,
MC

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Image

Here we go.


Got permission from William at Wemacro to post this. I'll post the comparisons he did later as well.
Image

Antal
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:29 am
Contact:

Post by Antal »

The switar and the hr digaron is for shure the same, as in the switar datasheet its named hr digaron ;-)
I'm not shure for the Linos Inspec 105 float.
I'm a newbie in looking at mtf, CA curve is looking the same but mtf is quite better for the inspec. Or am I mistaking?
Image
Image

CA seem to be a concern..
Weight is 440g for the inspec and 530g for the HR Digaron. I don't think there is 90g housing diffence.

This is a mtf comparing between the inspec 105 5.6 0.33x and the float one at 0.3x:Image
Image
The (newer) float is only little better.
Unfortunly there is no MTF for the fix ones in reversed (3X!!)

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Yeah, your observations are correct. The linos and the HR Digaron/Alpa Macro Switar is pretty different. The Linos shows a better MTF. One mistake people make with MTF charts is comparing graphs from different manufactures (i.e. Zeiss to Canon to Nikon). Since Rodenstock is owned by Linos which is owned by Qioptiq, which is owned by Excelitas Technologies... under the AEA Investors... whatever. They use the same standards when it comes to MTF charts.

Some manufactures which I won't name use MTF charts generated by the optics engineering software... yeah, pretty misleading.

This is why most are interested in what's beyond those charts.

Looking at the price of Qioptiq's Mag.x lenses, being $8800+ a pop, one could assume the float version of the Linos 105/5.6 is going to be expensive as well.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

I see one of our members posted an image taken with the Cambo here:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... bb5acf8d67

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

ray_parkhurst wrote:I see one of our members posted an image taken with the Cambo here:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... bb5acf8d67
Yes, that is him.
He just sent me a batch of 20+ panoramas taken with the lens. I was busy today working on my new setup and playing around with my new 5x objective.

Going to post them maybe on Saturday night, Sydney time. I also have the comparison photos between the 105/4 and 105/5.6 linos lenses, obtained from William at Wemacro. Long story short, the 5.6 loses. Will have to write up a brief post for that as well.

I do have one question, what's a good 100mm tube lens? I want it to be exactly 100mm, 105mm is fine too but the former is preferred.

Thorlabs offers this: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... r=TTL100-A
$800, yeah no thanks... :(

Any recommendations are appreciated.

Regards,
MC

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Antal wrote:The switar and the hr digaron is for shure the same, as in the switar datasheet its named hr digaron ;-)
I'm not shure for the Linos Inspec 105 float.
I'm a newbie in looking at mtf, CA curve is looking the same but mtf is quite better for the inspec. Or am I mistaking?
The test/sim conditions are different between the two, so can't make apples-apples compo very easily.

Antal
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:29 am
Contact:

Post by Antal »

ray_parkhurst wrote:
Antal wrote: CA curve is looking the same but mtf is quite better for the inspec. Or am I mistaking?
The test/sim conditions are different between the two, so can't make apples-apples compo very easily.
I'm aware of this, but I was surprised by the similarity of the CA curve of the linos float and the HR Digaron. It looks even like the same data was used.
Both lenses do behave the same over the different mag for CA. Did Rodenstock and Linos just filled in some standart data of wath they expect to get from a such lens?

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Antal wrote: I'm aware of this, but I was surprised by the similarity of the CA curve of the linos float and the HR Digaron. It looks even like the same data was used.
Both lenses do behave the same over the different mag for CA. Did Rodenstock and Linos just filled in some standart data of wath they expect to get from a such lens?
Probably same sim data, but I'd bet a bogie lens performs fairly close to what the curves say.

uncleY
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:45 am

Re: Rodenstock 105/5.6 with floating element

Post by uncleY »

They're made in the same group.
I pool English,sorry to some time

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Rodenstock 105/5.6 with floating element

Post by ray_parkhurst »

uncleY wrote:They're made in the same group.
Do you mean they are all made by Rodenstock? I agree for sure.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Macro_Cosmos wrote: I wouldn't be willing to pay that much for the lens. I want to see some Rayfact 3.5x lenses getting into the surplus market...
Image

Regards,
MC
Looks like one popped up this morning:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/263520648351

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic