Rodenstock indus. lenses: Rodagon - Rogonar S - Ysaron Info

[Macrero]

Great work, as usual, thank you for your time and effort.

I tried quite a few lenses of that kind, none impressed me, though at the time I was not into lens-stacking yet.

However, I think that the Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50 is not a good reference lens. It might be a great lens for what it is intended for, but on camera its permormance is far from brillant in my experience. Curiously, the "regular" Rodagon 2.8/50 did better in my tests than the Apo. The Componon-S 2.8/50 did better as well.

Are you using it in combos? I can't recall if I tried it stacked.

Best,

- Macrero

[Miljenko]

However, I think that the Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50 is not a good reference lens. It might be a great lens for what it is intended for, but on camera its permormance is far from brillant in my experience. Curiously, the "regular" Rodagon 2.8/50 did better in my tests than the Apo. The Componon-S 2.8/50 did better as well.

Are you using it in combos? I can't recall if I tried it stacked.

You should, Macrero since all enlarger lenses benefit from stacking. And you are right about Apo Rodagon 2.8/50, it's far from stellar. A year ago when I presented my MTF tests at 2x, this lens was only fourth and since then I tested many more and many of those were better than that. If you check at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... p?p=238164, you'll see plain Rodagon 4/80 beating Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50 at both resolution and CA.

[Macrero]

You should, Macrero since all enlarger lenses benefit from stacking. And you are right about Apo Rodagon 2.8/50, it's far from stellar. A year ago when I presented my MTF tests at 2x, this lens was only fourth and since then I tested many more and many of those were better than that. If you check at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... p?p=238164, you'll see plain Rodagon 4/80 beating Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50 at both resolution and CA.

Miljenko,

I've been using stacked lenses for years now, much before they become popular on these forums. But I tested the APO-Rodagon 50 maybe 10+ years ago.

I tried and tested a lot of lenses. I test lenses in every possible way: Straigh mounted, reversed, in combos, changing separation between front and rear lens, stopped down in the middle, etc... before I give up on a lens.
Yes, the vast majority of lenses I tried improves when stacked, especially for coverage.

I love enlarging lenses, they are high-quality optics, which can be bought nowadays for a fraction of they original price. Almost all of my tube lenses are enlarging/repro lenses.

But there is no enlarging lens I would consider a brillant performer for exreme macro work/stacking, compared to the best optics for the given M-range.

There are a lot of usable/decent or good lenses, there are very few brillant lenses. I'm still to discover a brillant "unknown" lens...

Best,

- Macrero

[RobertOToole]

Great work, as usual, thank you for your time and effort.

Thanks.

However, I think that the Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50 is not a good reference lens.

You are right, I agree.

My experience with the lens is almost zero, I've used it maybe two times at the most including this test.

BTW I found a Rodenstock price list from 2015, interesting, the APO 50 is 5x the price of the Rogonar-S 50.

Rodenstock 452220 Rodenstock Rogonar 50MM/2.8 $109.99
Rodenstock 452316 Rodenstock Rodagon 50MM/2.8 $386.81
Rodenstock 452340 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 50MM/2.8 $591.04

Rodenstock 452341 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 80MM/4.0 $971.41
Rodenstock 452342 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 105MM/4.0 $1,317.75
Rodenstock 452345 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75MM 1X $736.54
Rodenstock 452346 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75MM 2X $948.50



Best,

Robert

[ray_parkhurst]

Great work, as usual, thank you for your time and effort.

Thanks.

However, I think that the Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50 is not a good reference lens.

You are right, I agree.

My experience with the lens is almost zero, I've used it maybe two times at the most including this test.

BTW I found a Rodenstock price list from 2015, interesting, the APO 50 is 5x the price of the Rogonar-S 50.

Rodenstock 452220 Rodenstock Rogonar 50MM/2.8 $109.99
Rodenstock 452316 Rodenstock Rodagon 50MM/2.8 $386.81
Rodenstock 452340 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 50MM/2.8 $591.04

Rodenstock 452341 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 80MM/4.0 $971.41
Rodenstock 452342 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 105MM/4.0 $1,317.75
Rodenstock 452345 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75MM 1X $736.54
Rodenstock 452346 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75MM 2X $948.50

I've had good luck with the Rogonar/S lenses, though I have never integrated one into a system. I had relatively poor results from the 80mm Apo-Rodagon-N, with it only achieving middle-of-pack results in my 80mm shootout. For what I paid for it I was very disappointed!

[chris_ma]

I don't find it too surprising that the APO Rodagons perform poorly on macro - they are highly optimised for different magnifications (more like 1:10) at F5.6 and feature great uniform performance in this area.

we know from other lenses (like the printing nikkors or xenon sapphires) that the more optimised they are for one task the quicker they can fall off outside of this range. so using them at 2:1 and at open aperture, or as stacked combos might not be the best idea (that doesn't really explain why the componon-s lenses seem to hold up much better in this regard, but as mentioned before as enlarger lenses in their intended magnification they perform very similar and both at the top end)

[Macrero]

Thanks.

You are right, I agree.

My experience with the lens is almost zero, I've used it maybe two times at the most including this test.

BTW I found a Rodenstock price list from 2015, interesting, the APO 50 is 5x the price of the Rogonar-S 50.

Rodenstock 452220 Rodenstock Rogonar 50MM/2.8 $109.99
Rodenstock 452316 Rodenstock Rodagon 50MM/2.8 $386.81
Rodenstock 452340 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 50MM/2.8 $591.04

Rodenstock 452341 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 80MM/4.0 $971.41
Rodenstock 452342 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 105MM/4.0 $1,317.75
Rodenstock 452345 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75MM 1X $736.54
Rodenstock 452346 Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75MM 2X $948.50



Best,

Robert

For what they are intended for the A-R 50 is a much better lens for sure. For our purpose, and especially when stacking lenses, it is a different story.

People often (and wrongly) judge the quality of a lens by the price they paid for it on the second hand market. A good, long focal lenght enlarging lenses (not even APO) have listing prices 2X (or more) the price of a MP-E 65 or a Mitty 5, for instance.

I tried some Rogonar-S, but not stacked. I have to give them another try.

Best,

- Macrero

[Macrero]

I've had good luck with the Rogonar/S lenses, though I have never integrated one into a system. I had relatively poor results from the 80mm Apo-Rodagon-N, with it only achieving middle-of-pack results in my 80mm shootout. For what I paid for it I was very disappointed!

Enlarging/industrial lenses are a great value for sure. And some perform really well.

But when I compare the result to say a Mitty 7.5 pushed down to 4X, I think: Well, testing was fun, but I will keep using the Mitty for serious work...

Best,

-Macrero

[ray_parkhurst]

I've had good luck with the Rogonar/S lenses, though I have never integrated one into a system. I had relatively poor results from the 80mm Apo-Rodagon-N, with it only achieving middle-of-pack results in my 80mm shootout. For what I paid for it I was very disappointed!

Enlarging/industrial lenses are a great value for sure. And some perform really well.

But when I compare the result to say a Mitty 7.5 pushed down to 4X, I think: Well, testing was fun, but I will keep using the Mitty for serious work...

Best,

-Macrero

Most of the work I have done with enlarging lenses has been from 0.33x...1x mag, which is the range where US coins fill an APS-C sensor. It's a difficult range for enlarging lenses since they're generally spec'd only down to 2x enlarging ratio, and only a few do well near 1x. It's really the province of the duplication lens, but they are generally quite a bit more expensive than the typical enlarging lens. My recommendation for coins is usually the lowly Nikon 75/4, which has an excellent performance/price ratio in this range, with relatively low CAs and good sharpness at f5.6 and smaller. For my own work I use the 85mm Macro Varon, but it's hard to recommend to folks given its high price and low availability.

[ray_parkhurst]

Edited to add: BTW, you could have a Gretag 120 all your own as theyare very cheap...only $17.75 from the seller I got mine from...


https://www.ebay.com/itm/GRETAG-f-120mm ... XQbXtRDdJ1

Edit: FYI Raf made a "protection ring" type adapter that fits the 8000ED/9000ED Scanner-Nikkors, and it works great on the Gretag 120. 50mm to M42x1.

I see that 4 Gretag 120's have sold in the last 24 hours!

The Raf adapter is quite a bit more expensive than the lens unfortunately, but is excellent quality and doubles for use with the Scanner-Nikkor 8000/9000. It is this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/50mm-clamp-to- ... Sw7GBdD8Ix

Many of Raf's adapters clamp with screws directly on the lens body, but this one has a spring protection ring so the body is protected. Works brilliantly.

[RobertOToole]

I don't find it too surprising that the APO Rodagons perform poorly on macro - they are highly optimised for different magnifications (more like 1:10) at F5.6 and feature great uniform performance in this area.

we know from other lenses (like the printing nikkors or xenon sapphires) that the more optimised they are for one task the quicker they can fall off outside of this range. so using them at 2:1 and at open aperture, or as stacked combos might not be the best idea (that doesn't really explain why the componon-s lenses seem to hold up much better in this regard, but as mentioned before as enlarger lenses in their intended magnification they perform very similar and both at the top end)

You have a point Chris, the Componon 4/28 and 4/35 are excellent from 2x to 4x and up to f/2.2 or f/2.8 for sharp results corner to corner on APS-C. Some lenses have a very small range, some of the Componons are the opposite. Yet the Componons were made for the same range and market as other EL lenses.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Edited to add: BTW, you could have a Gretag 120 all your own as theyare very cheap...only $17.75 from the seller I got mine from...


https://www.ebay.com/itm/GRETAG-f-120mm ... XQbXtRDdJ1

Edit: FYI Raf made a "protection ring" type adapter that fits the 8000ED/9000ED Scanner-Nikkors, and it works great on the Gretag 120. 50mm to M42x1.

I see that 4 Gretag 120's have sold in the last 24 hours!

The Raf adapter is quite a bit more expensive than the lens unfortunately, but is excellent quality and doubles for use with the Scanner-Nikkor 8000/9000. It is this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/50mm-clamp-to- ... Sw7GBdD8Ix

Many of Raf's adapters clamp with screws directly on the lens body, but this one has a spring protection ring so the body is protected. Works brilliantly.

Hi Ray,

Just FYI, I used a normal M52 > M50 step-down adapter ($2 or $3) for the Gretag 120 and it screwed right into my studio system. Out of 3 of the adapters that I have only one had enough clearance, the other two were a little too small IDs.

The RAF adapter looks interesting, I have never seen that one!

Best,

Robert

[ray_parkhurst]

Hi Ray,

Just FYI, I used a normal M52 > M50 step-down adapter ($2 or $3) for the Gretag 120 and it screwed right into my studio system. Out of 3 of the adapters that I have only one had enough clearance, the other two were a little too small IDs.

The RAF adapter looks interesting, I have never seen that one!

A guy on one of my coin groups bought a Scanner-Nikkor but could not mount it. I suggested he try Raf, and we worked together with Raf on that adapter. I was very happy with the 65mm diameter protection circle adapter I got for my RF3p5x but that came from CNScope, not Raf. Raf did make a few other adapters with protection circles so we gave him the challenge on the 50mm diameter adapter, and it came out very nice. It was actually serendipity that it fits the Gretag 120 as I did not even check before working on the Scanner-Nikkor adapter.