Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Anderson, Ferrel E wrote: > "Erwin: > . . . Also, how does the 50mm f2.8 Apo Rodenstock stack > up against the Leica 50mm f4.5 Focotar-2 lens? My test of this lens resulted in > performance very close to what you report for the Rodenstock lens. This last > comparison is what I would like to see from you. > I too would like to see such a report. Late last year I purchased a 50mm Apo-Rodagon-N. I made several prints (color) using the full negative (I made several 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20) using both the Rodagon and the 50mm Focotar-2. I did not see any appreciable difference in the center or at the corners in either resolution or apparent contrast. Granted these were unsophisticated "wysiwyg User Tests", I believe they are reasonably valid. I also used the 40mm Focotar and the corners were not as sharp (mildly so) on the 16x20 prints as with the 50mm lenses. All these tests were at f5.6 and were printed in a Durst RCP 40 processor.One really big difference was the ease of focusing denser negatives through the 50mm f.2.8 lens vs the 50mm f.4.5. Ed Kowaleski