Rodenstock Scitex LFOV 108mm f/5.6 Lens Test Results

[RobertOToole]

Test results for the LFOV have been posted on my site:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/scitex-lfov-lens

These is the lineup for the test at 1.1x. The LFOV is a big lens! This copy came from a Scitex Eversmart flatbed scanner.

Crop areas highlighted on the full un-cropped disk image

These are the center crops at 1.1x, you can also see edge and far corners crops on the full test on my site.

LFOV vs Componon-S 5.6/100. CPN mounted in reverse, LFOV normal mount. The CPN is optimized for 0.5x. LFOV is optimized for 0.6-1.5x.

LFOV vs Scitex S-3 110. S-3 was measured at f/5.2, LFOV, f/5.8. Both lenses mounted normally. Both lenses optimized for the same range.

LFOV vs Makro Symmar 5.6/80. Both lenses mounted normally. MS80 optimized for 1x. Super results from both lenses.

This is the setup of the lens in the Scitex Eversmart flatbed scanner.

Test Notes:
The LFOV is not easy to find. I bought one used and for a second copy I was lucky to find an Scitex Eversmart Scanner in California for $200 (with a free mac ). The LFOV also makes a great tube lens BTW. LFOV mount is M45 x 0.75 (similar to Printing Nikkor). RafCamera has adapters available.

2 other lenses were tested but left out of the results since they were too far out of their designed range at 1.1x, the Linos Inspec. x L 5.6/105 3.33x model and Fuji EFC 5.6/108 lens. The linos had fantastic results in the center but the corners fell off quickly.

Test Setup:
Camera: Sony α6300, model # ILCE-6300, also known as: A6300
Sensor size: APS-C. 23.5 × 15.6 mm. 28.21 mm diagonal. 3.92 micron sensor pitch
Flash: Godox TT350s wireless flash x 2 with one Godox X1s 2.4G wireless flash transmitter
Vertical stand: Nikon MM-11 with a Nikon focus block

For this test a stack of images was made with 10µ (10 micron) steps and the sharpest frame was then chosen using Photoshop at 100% actual pixel view. Separate images were selected for each crop area. Each image was processed in PS CC with identical settings with all noise reduction and lens correction turned off, all settings were zeroed out (true zero) and the same settings were used for all of the images. All of the images shown here are single files.

Final Thoughts:

The LFOV lens is highly recommended, if you can only find one!

Questions comments always welcome.

[typestar]

Dear Robert,

thankyou for another test of a rare lens and your appreciated work, again!

I am still curious, how powerful other lenses out of (former) high end scanners will work,
in direct comparison to this - like the lens out of the Screen Cezanne scanner ;-)

ALL THE BEST for a better 2021 -
for you -- and all members here.

Christian

[RobertOToole]

Dear Robert,

thankyou for another test of a rare lens and your appreciated work, again!

I am still curious, how powerful other lenses out of (former) high end scanners will work,
in direct comparison to this - like the lens out of the Screen Cezanne scanner ;-)

ALL THE BEST for a better 2021 -
for you -- and all members here.

Christian

Hi Christian,

Thats right the Screen Cezanne vs MacroVaron test was done some time ago wasn't it!

That's on my list of things to do for sure, I promise

Next on my list is the Makro-Symmar 80mm vs 10 other lenses, mostly 80mm, shot at 1.4x. That should be interesting.

Best,

Robert

[chris_ma]

interesting test and great write up, thanks Robert.
I specially liked that you included the original mounting mechanism of the scanner, very interesting construction.

looking forward to the 1.4x results, I suspect the Macro Varon will be hard to beat.
on the exotic list another interesting one would be the Nikon Rayfact 1.4S (I think that's the fixed mag version of the 1-2x), but it seems unlikely that that turns up for a reasonable price anytime soon.

[RobertOToole]

interesting test and great write up, thanks Robert.
I specially liked that you included the original mounting mechanism of the scanner, very interesting construction.

looking forward to the 1.4x results, I suspect the Macro Varon will be hard to beat.
on the exotic list another interesting one would be the Nikon Rayfact 1.4S (I think that's the fixed mag version of the 1-2x), but it seems unlikely that that turns up for a reasonable price anytime soon.

Hi Chris,

From what I remember looking at embedded jpegs, the MacroVaron was at the top with the Rayfact GF but I believe the ScannerNikkor 45mm (7 element) beat the both of them. Not really fair since the maximum aperture is 1.5 stops wider but I couldn't resist.

The Eversmart setup is interesting. They use one cold and one hot mirror to filter the light, the pink hot mirror passes only vis, filtering out UV and IR.

Something else interesting, the forum supposedly has a 300k limit to upload inline photos but I had to save the file above at quality 29 and 100k, otherwise the forum upload feature would not accept it

[viktor j nilsson]

From what I remember looking at embedded jpegs, the MacroVaron was at the top with the Rayfact GF but I believe the ScannerNikkor 45mm (7 element) beat the both of them. Not really fair since the maximum aperture is 1.5 stops wider but I couldn't resist.

Oh really? After all your incredible finds, I have sort-of almost forgotten about how good the 7 element Scanner Nikkor really is.

[rjlittlefield]

Something else interesting, the forum supposedly has a 300k limit to upload inline photos but I had to save the file above at quality 29 and 100k, otherwise the forum upload feature would not accept it

A problem something like that was reported a long time ago. That one was an interaction between the upload facility and something odd about the image format, like some bit of Exif that specified the original image size instead of the actual reduced size.

But I thought we had that fixed.

Please see if you can reproduce the problem. If you can make a file that seems to be within specs but won't upload, send me a copy of it outside the forum so I can experiment to see what's going wrong.

--Rik

[RobertOToole]

Something else interesting, the forum supposedly has a 300k limit to upload inline photos but I had to save the file above at quality 29 and 100k, otherwise the forum upload feature would not accept it

A problem something like that was reported a long time ago. That one was an interaction between the upload facility and something odd about the image format, like some bit of Exif that specified the original image size instead of the actual reduced size.

But I thought we had that fixed.

Please see if you can reproduce the problem. If you can make a file that seems to be within specs but won't upload, send me a copy of it outside the forum so I can experiment to see what's going wrong.

--Rik

Hi Rik,

Will do that now.

I tried the offending jpeg file on other apps to check and it was from 205-217 k depending on the program.

Robert

[RobertOToole]

From what I remember looking at embedded jpegs, the MacroVaron was at the top with the Rayfact GF but I believe the ScannerNikkor 45mm (7 element) beat the both of them. Not really fair since the maximum aperture is 1.5 stops wider but I couldn't resist.

Oh really? After all your incredible finds, I have sort-of almost forgotten about how good the 7 element Scanner Nikkor really is.

In November I spotted a 7 element Scanner Nikkor lens on eBay for $60 usd w/free shipping, and even though I had one already, I hit buy-it-now, I couldn't pass it up. After peeking at the 1.4x test results I'm glad I got that second lens.

Have you seen the Nikon Coolscan prices lately? Not cheap.

About a week later the same seller sold another SN lens for $50!

Best,

Robert