Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,969   Posts: 1,558,519   Online: 1059
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Berkeley, Ca.
    Posts
    178
    There's an APO Rodenstock N 150mm on ebay now. $600 start bid//$800 buy now. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=2928720821)

    Is this worth the signif. cost over say a Componon S or regular Rodenstock? These go for $150/$120 respectfully. I'm leaning towards holding off, but it looks extremely sharp.

    Thanks for any opinions,

    Chris

  2. #12
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    I bought a Rodenstock Omegaron 150mm for less than 150. It looks and works like new. I am not sure how different it is than a Rodagon. I wouldn't necessarily make assumptions though. I bought a relly nice looking Schneider Symmar off e-bay and found it was single coated (I only looked after reading an artical in View Camera Magazine) the serial number was just a little shy of the midyear shift to MC.

    BTW I have two Nikkors that I really like. The Rodenstock is EASILY as good though..

    Frank
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    I received a Omegaron 50mm with an enlarger I bought. The 50mm is certainly a lower grade then the Rodogan.

    150mm lenses can be real cheap. My Rodogan cost about $50. It just takes a little bit of time.

    I think the general feeling towards the APO lenses is everything else in your system must be perfect first. No use spending the money if your enlarger isn't 100% aligned. If you aren't using a glass carrier. Etc. It's not that they aren't better lenses. They most certainly are but if you have other problems in your setup you might not notice.

  4. #14
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  5. #15
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ May 14 2003, 09:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I purchased a used comparon (schneider) f4.5 last fall.&nbsp; What I would like to know is it any good.&nbsp; I have no knowledge of lenses for enlargers other than what is good for what film size.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    What focal length? If it is the 105mm, I have one in the turret of my Omega D5500. The thing is a *gem* for smaller enlargements (optimized at 3X). I use mine on both 35mm and 2 1/4 film.

    I rescued mine from the top of a pile in a dumpster moving down the aisle in one of the places I worked.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  6. #16
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Berkeley, Ca.
    Posts
    178
    Aggie, I&#39;ve read alot of posts, apparantly even a 135mm will give slight light falloff at the corners on 4x5 enlargements. So I&#39;m looking for a 150mm. Also I thought a Componon S is a better lens than a Comparon?? They sell for alot less on ebay.

    And Thanks for the suggestions on a lens too guys&#33; I&#39;d like to believe I have a &#39;perfect&#39; setup lol, but prob. don&#39;t. So I&#39;m holding off on that APO lens.

    Chris

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    357
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chrisl @ May 14 2003, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also I thought a Componon S is a better lens than a Comparon??</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Chris,
    the Comparon is a long discontinued 4-element design. It was optimized for a 4x mag-ratio. The Componon-S will perform better on a larger mag-ratio range.

  9. #19
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I haven&#39;t tried my 4x5-setup yet, having too much fun with 5x7 I guess. But a 135mm on 4x5 should be equivalent to 180mm on 5x7 - and I haven&#39;t noticed any light falloff with that combination. Mine&#39;s a Rodagon...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    357
    The Specs of both Schneider and Rodenstock do specify that a 135mm el-lens covers 9x12cm (the european conterpart to 4x5"). Although their specs are usually conservative, they do not leave you much tolerances in practice. So you may find it difficult to exactly center a 4x5 in your 5x7 carrier.

    Light fall-off might is not necessarily a bad thing. You may even use it consciously to compensate light fall-off of a super wide camera lens.

    BTW: the 180mm lenses officially do cover 13x18cm (which equals 5x7" quite exactly) - so it&#39;s not really the same situation here

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin