Whats the Best Enlarger Lens for 6 x 6 - Schneider or Rodenstock ?

Im printing at 12 x 16 inch, and cannot stand the softness from the
current lens im using, (cant even remeber the brand its that bad)

Im looking at the Componon S, and the APO Componon (a bit expensive for
me)

Im looking to get the best price to performance ratio.

Should I be looking at Rodenstock lenses also?

And does anyone have extensive experience with both?



THanks in advance

Peter

Buy a Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm on eBay for around $50:-. But buy the latest
type in black plastic. (of cource, the glass is glass, not plastic.)
Then make a print and spend the night counting grains.....

Regards

Victor


"Peter Burke" wrote in message
...
Im printing at 12 x 16 inch, and cannot stand the softness from the
current lens im using, (cant even remeber the brand its that bad)

Im looking at the Componon S, and the APO Componon (a bit expensive for
me)

Im looking to get the best price to performance ratio.

Should I be looking at Rodenstock lenses also?

And does anyone have extensive experience with both?



THanks in advance

Peter

Subject: Whats the Best Enlarger Lens for 6 x 6 - Schneider or Rodenstock
?

Go to:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=29 986

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=29 986

Bob

Hi is the Rodenstock Rodagon better than a Companon S ?

I have about $250 to spend on a 6 x 6 lens.

Peter

Peter Burke wrote:
Hi is the Rodenstock Rodagon better than a Companon S ?

I have about $250 to spend on a 6 x 6 lens.

Peter


I've got that fantastic article by Ctein from a Darkroom mag (sept/oct
'83) lying around where he tested 90 lenses from 70 different
manufacturers...
The criteria for the "The Best Enlargin Lenses in the World" we

_Sharpness_
200lp/mm for 35mm lenses
150lp/mm for 120 film
100lp/mm for 4x5

_Falloff_
1/4 of a stop falloff for all of the lenses (at Grade 5 this became
noticable and therefore became the defacto standard).

_Flatfield_
A 50mm lens is deemed to have 1mm of depth of focus at F4 with an 8x10
print and so this was also considered critical for a lens to be included
in the excellent lenses bunch...

One of the factors which aggravated this problem were misaligned lenses,
or decentred lenses... Measured by comparing lp/mm of the various lenses
in each of the four corners of a particular sample.

Quoting from the article:

"...Lenses with more than 50 percent variation were 'significantly'
misaligned by our standards. Lenses with 75 percent or more variation
were awarded the appellation 'dogs'.
Frankly we were astonished at finding so many misaligned lenses. So far
as I can tell, all lens makers have this problem. *(!)* Furthermore,
the performance of a well-made sample has nothing to do with chances of
getting a poorly made one--one of our top-rated names also belonged to a
particular sample that was so bad I wouldn't have used it if I got it
for free! In short I cannot recommend any particular lens maker or
design as being particularly reliable."

Ctein goes on to say, *"You are gambling no matter who you buy your lens
from."*

Another huge factor in getting the best from a lens has to also be in
alignment of an enlarger. This also got quite a bit of emphasis...

Needless to say both the Rodenstock Eurygon 80mm F4 and the Schneider
Componon S 80mm F4 were in the final list in the medium format lenses as
were (in no particular order) Apo Rodogon 90mm F4, Focotar ll 100mm
F5,6, 100mm Componon S F5.6, El Nikkor 105mm F5,6N, Rodagon 105mm F5.6,
Rodagon 135mm F5.6.

It was interesting to not none of the wide angle enlarging designs could
pass the light fall-off tests. Also, that if a lens came in more than
one maximum F-stop ie a 50mm F2.8 and a 50mm F4 - invariably the faster
lens was the better performing...

Now, I'd like to know which lens manufacturer could produce the best and
(possibly) the worst of the bunch? I have a hunch though ;-)

"nicholas t" wrote in message Also, that if a
lens came in more than
one maximum F-stop ie a 50mm F2.8 and a 50mm F4 - invariably the faster
lens was the better performing...

There is a specific reason for this that has nothing to do with the speed of
the lens. Virtually all 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lenses are 6-element
symmetrical designs, and conversely, virtually all 50mm f/4 lenses are
inferior 3 or 4-element designs.

There is not a big difference between the various 6-element enlarging lenses
from the major lens manufacturers, unless one starts looking at APO models,
and even then many have a hard time distinguishing them. This assumes that
one uses the lens at its optimum aperture, which is usually 2-3 stops closed
from wide open (some APO lenses work better about 1-2 stops closed from wide
open).

In article ,
nicholas t wrote:

It was interesting to not none of the wide angle enlarging designs could
pass the light fall-off tests.

The Rodenstock Eurygon is the former nsme of the Rodenstock WA wide
angle lens. The 90mm Apo Rodagon was replaced with the 80mm Apo
Rodagon-N and a newer version of the 90mm Apo Rodagon N is currently
also available as long as inventory lasts.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Bob wrote:

The Rodenstock Eurygon is the former nsme of the Rodenstock WA wide
angle lens

I realise this and in writing the words:

It was interesting to not none of the wide angle enlarging designs could pass the light fall-off tests

I wasn't trying to say anything bad about Rodenstock wide angle lenses,
I did some research of my own back in the day when I bought my own wide
angle lenses, incidently I own a Rodenstock Rodagon F4 80mm and I am
very pleased with it :-) having recently redone some checks with it and
my Micromega Critical Focusser . I was curious about this as well esp
seeing as I own a WA Componon (a 60mm) as well. I was merely
paraphrasing from the article this (p.39)

"On the other hand, I found no wide angle lenses which passed our
standards." He goes on to say, "Thus for optimal optical performance we
do not recommend lenses shorter than 50mm for 35mm and 80mm for 120
formats..."

Mark wrote:

There is a specific reason for this that has nothing to do with the speed of
the lens. Virtually all 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lenses are 6-element
symmetrical designs, and conversely, virtually all 50mm f/4 lenses are
inferior 3 or 4-element designs.

Yes that is true that the Nikkor F4 50mm is a 4 element design...

From Ctein and the other co-author I omitted before, Ken Werner, the
writers of the aforementioned article...

"When we had two equivilent lenses from the same manufacturer with
different maximum apertures (like the El Nikkor F2.8 and F4 50mm lenses
or the Componon F4 or F5.6 80mm lenses) the faster lens was invariably
the better one"

AFAIK, these Componon lenses are both six element designs...

Mark also wrote:

There is not a big difference between the various 6-element enlarging lenses
from the major lens manufacturers, unless one starts looking at APO models,
and even then many have a hard time distinguishing them. This assumes that
one uses the lens at its optimum aperture, which is usually 2-3 stops closed
from wide open (some APO lenses work better about 1-2 stops closed from wide
open).

At the end of the article, the last paragraph:

"Apochromatic lenses are good but they don't work miracles. In fact
top-notch lenses are already so well corrected for lateral chromatic
aberration that the practical distinction between ordinary and 'apo'
lenses isn't great. You can do excellent color separation work, such as
dye transfer, with a good conventional lens."

It is interesting to note that there are process lenses made with four
elements, albeit, perhaps there are more dialytes than there are
tessar-types...(I don't know either way) But, I do own a fantastic
Axinon 90mm four element enlarging lens which I cannot fault at all next
to my Nikkor 80mm or Rodenstock 80mm, both 6 element designs at 20x24in
in the corners at F8-11. I do know that optical theory says that a good
6 element lens should outclass a good 4 element lens. :-s

The reason I posted this initially was to reference an article where the
conclusion seemed to me to be very interesting, that each lens is unique
and therefore cannot be judged on pedigree alone and that if a person
truly wants a decent (enlarging) lens, they should try one on a properly
aligned enlarger - for themselves.

In article ,
nicholas t wrote:

Apochromatic lenses are good but they don't work miracles. In fact
top-notch lenses are already so well corrected for lateral chromatic
aberration that the practical distinction between ordinary and 'apo'
lenses isn't great. You can do excellent color separation work, such as
dye transfer, with a good conventional lens.

What he also left out is that the Apo Rodagon-N are multicoated which
makes a difference in their performance when compared to non MC coated
lenses. The older Apo Rodagon were not MC.

He also did not, or could not, test for the differences in distortion
between a lens like the Apo Rodagon N and non apo or other apo lenses.

And like his article on focus shifts with MG he used a test for
centering that no lens manufacturer uses or that can be repeated.

You would be better off aligning your enlarger critically, adding a
glass carrier and doing your own test to see what lens works best for
you. You will never find the variability between lenses theat Ctein did.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

You can't remember what brand of enlarger lens you use? Could you possibly
get up and walk into the darkroom and LOOK at the lens.

If it walks like a Troll, and talks like a Troll...

--
darkroommike

----------
"Peter Burke" wrote in message
...
Im printing at 12 x 16 inch, and cannot stand the softness from the
current lens im using, (cant even remeber the brand its that bad)

Im looking at the Componon S, and the APO Componon (a bit expensive for
me)

Im looking to get the best price to performance ratio.

Should I be looking at Rodenstock lenses also?

And does anyone have extensive experience with both?



THanks in advance

Peter