| | | -
300mm f5.6 Rodenstock Rodagon
I just bought one of these in near perfect condition and was wondering if I can use it for anything besides enlarging/printing. I have 4x5 and an 8x10 cameras, but before I go through all the trouble of crafting a lens board for it I thought I'd ask. I will say one thing, it's one impressive piece of glass! JohnW
-
It's optimised for enlarger use 1:1 to 1:6, but will be OK on a camera stopped well down, but rather heavy although a large image circle. There's no shutter that'll fit in 
I have the Schneider equivalent Componon S, and a 240mm Rodagon.
Ian
-
Ian, I couldn't pass it up for $57.00 as it is a very impressive lens. I thought if I couldn't get my use out of it I could at least sell it and maybe make a buck or two. I have a Bausch & Lomb Zeiss Triple Convertible in an Ilex No.4 shutter for my 8x10 and it's a very fine lens, but thought I'd like to see just what the 300mm Rodagon could do. I would assume stopping down to f22-f32 should give me enough coverage for the 8x10. I just got the lens today so haven't had time to play with it on the 8x10 or know if it would even cover it at infinity wide open(not that I would use it at f5.6). Maybe I'll have to make a horizontal enlarger and enlarge some of my 8x10 negatives, but that sure seems like over-kill for anything smaller than a 16x20 print. JohnW
-
That 300mm should cover 10x8 at f5.6 at infinity easily, a 240mm Rodagon is OK (& recommended) as an enlarger lens for 10x8 negatives.
A Packard shutter perhaps  One issue is the enlarger lens barrels don't stop down as far as a camera lens barel/shutters.
Ian
-
Yes, I noticed that the smallest aperture is f45, but that shouldn't be a big problem. I'm glad to hear it covers 8x10 wide open as it will make initial focusing easier. Ian, is there any advantage reversing this lens for pictorial use? I had three Packard shutters that I sold about a year ago and now wish I had one of them back. I'll just use the "old cap" method to try it out. If it's much better than my Protar, which I doubt, then I'll spring for a shutter or rig something to work. Thanks Ian! JohnW
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
They are symmetrical so reversing is
I think they cover 11x14 which is why they are SO large. It may well be better than a Protar because it's so much more modern.
Ian
-
Sounds more encouraging than I thought and might just be worth the effort. Although the old Protar seems to be a very nice lens and makes for nice pictures(contacts). I will admit that it's not bitingly sharp, but 8x10 makes up for that. JohnW
-
If you don't like it as a camera lens, you could still double your money and it would be a good deal for enlarging. I have seen many cases of 8x10 enlargers trading hands or on the market without 300mm lenses for whatever reason.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...&postcount=163
-
ic-racer, that's kind of what I figured and was the reason I didn't pass it up. It's really a "buyers market" when it comes to darkroom equipment and if I had more money I'd probably have a warehouse full. Good thing I don't have more money! JohnW
-
John,
I just picked one up as well. Was yours the one off of Ebay that had a stuck aperature?
Did yours come with a retaining ring? Mine didn't, and finding one is turning out to be a bit of a hastle.
Cheers,
Bryan
| |
Adv Reply
