Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,302   Posts: 1,536,240   Online: 737
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,464
    Images
    1
    they are not sharper, but the smaller you print,the sharper they appear!
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  2. #12
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    I used my 80mm Rodenstock lens and I think the prints look sharper than printed my Nikon 50mm.
    I had the exact opposite result when comparing my Nikon 50/2.8N with a Rodagon 80/4 (current version) and a Rodagon 80/5.6. Same negative, same magnification.
    Is your Nikon clean? Haze acumulates over the years and reduces contrast.
    And which Nikon 50 is it? There is the f/4 which is a 4 element and not as good as the f/2.8.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    I agree with Ralph. My 80mm is no sharper than my 50mm lenses, but for mechanical vignetting reasons I am forced to use a 63mm for 35mm negs.

    Ctein tests (I recall) show that the shorter focal lengths are often sharper and that as long as you do not have coverage issues, soft corners should not be an issue. Certainly hasn't been for me. That 63mm is killer sharp and so is the 50mm Neonon I have.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,591
    I find the Nikon 80/4 to be a very nice lens for 35mm at least one stop down (there's focus shift
    from max aperture). That's because I'm just using the center of the lens. But it would be a relatively
    poor choice for the 6X6 format it is nominally marketed for, due to poor resolution toward the edges.
    It's the economy version and not as well corrected at the six-element 5.6 lens. But for true med format enlarging I actually use a 150 Apo Rodagon, which does a remarkable job, as does purportedly
    the 105 equivalent (wish I had one of those too). For 4x5 I use a 180 Rodagon or 240 Apo Nikkor,
    depending, and once in awhile the 150 Apo Rodagon if I need a wider max aperture at expense to
    eveness of illumination. Each has its own personality, and sometimes too much MTF becomes a bad
    thing because every tiny scritch, scratch, or ding on a negative will be printed as well.

  5. #15
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    246
    Images
    79
    I started with a 6 element El-Nikkor 80mm and only print b&w on a Beseler 23c with dichroic head. Later I bought a bunch of gear when my local darkroom at the community center closed and acquired a Rodagon 80mm f4 (At the time I thought it was a 50). Realizing I had duplicate lenses (IIRC the Nikkor may have been f5.6 so advantage Rodagon) I decided one had to go so compared a really crisp 645 Delta 100 image printed back to back and the Rodagon seemed to have a very slight edge so I sold the Nikkor and kept the Rodagon. The difference was very subtle and could just be sample variation. Didn't slow me down from later buying a El-Nikkor 50mm because they are such great bargains.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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