But I should think the comparative image circle for the enlarging lens
is the the diagonal of the film... not the print. The only difference
between the enlarger lens and the camera lens is the direction of travel
of the light.
Chuck Norcutt
Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Ed, the 80/4.0 Macro will likely beat the pants off an Apo Rodagon at
> 1:1, since that (and similar enlarging lenses)
> are not optimized for 1:1 work? However, at 10:1 the enlarger lens
> will surely whip the Zuiko 80mm. (but I don't
> think the Zuiko 20mm f/2.0, since both lenses are apparently kind-of
> diffraction-limited at open aperture, so
> the f/2.0 lens will always win). Of course, the image field being
> photographed will be much much smaller with
> the 20mm, so comparison would be difficult. Also, the Zuiko macro
> lenses can get away with pretty small image circles,
> whereas a Rodenstock enlarging lens has to be capable of huge image
> circles (for huge prints). It's not easy to
> make a lens of the same quality with such huge image circles, I imagine.
>
> There is also at least one account of the zuiko being better than the
> Apo Rodagon 1:1 75mm f/4 lens
> here: http://photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00H25k (although it's not
> a very scientific test, admittedly).
>
> On the matter of cost / construction: I am a regular user of a
> Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm f/4.0 enlarging lens, I can also
> assert that the Zuiko 80mm f/4.0 (manual version) appears to be built
> to a much higher mechanical standard than the
> german enlarging lens. And both lenses are 6-element designs. I don't
> think we should assume that the more expensive
> german optics should be better. This goes to many aspects of the OM
> system. For example, tests claim the Zuiko 50/1.8
> to out-resolve any Leica 50mm Summicron, and it was less than a tenth
> of the price new.
>
> For example, an Olympus double cable release is built like an
> expensive, priceless jewel compared to the (much more
> expensive) Linhof cable release that I use for my Technorama. In fact,
> cool as the technorama is, an OM-1 is
> just plainly built better in terms of finish.
>
> Now, I get the point of your post, and we should not get all lyrical
> just because of Zuikoholism, but this is
> why I would like to get some hard numbers on the resolution of the
> 80/4.0 Macro at 1:1. I am going to
> perform my own experimentation in anyway, but I wanted to draw on
> pervious experience to aid my expectations
> in terms of the print sizes I could achieve with ultra-fine-grain B&W
> film for a pet project of mine.
>
> Common wisdom seems to have it that there really are not many 1:1
> lenses that approach the 80/4.0, and
> all that I really want to know is whether the 80/4.0, like the 20/3.5,
> is diffraction-limited (or near that)
> at wide-open aperture.
>
> keep well,
> Dawid
>
>
> On 02 Oct 2009, at 3:26 PM, Sawyer, Edward wrote:
>
>> I would think the Apo Rodagon 75/4 enlarger lens would be better.
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|