Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Linos Inspec.x L 120 float for studio work?

That looks amazing, and they are offering 105mm and 120mm versions. There have been several threads in the past year where people were pining for a lens like this.
 
I could be wrong, but this is the industrial version of the Digaron 5.6/105mm from 2017, but unlike the Digaron, it's only calibrated for the sensor width. There was a test on closeuphotography.com, and the Mejiro Genossen FL0530 was better in every aspect.
 
Phase V said:
I could be wrong, but this is the industrial version of the Digaron 5.6/105mm from 2017, but unlike the Digaron, it's only calibrated for the sensor width. There was a test on closeuphotography.com, and the Mejiro Genossen FL0530 was better in every aspect.
Click to expand...

Robert O'Toole's untimely death was such a loss for the photography community. I'm glad to see someone is paying the bills to keep his site up.

I think the "win" with these lenses is that they cover a range of magnifications, like the HR-Digaron 105/5.6 Macro that was discontinued. Previously you had to buy a set of 105mm Linos lenses to cover 1x to 0.33x
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 1x
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 0.76x
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 0.5x
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 0.33x
I can't speak to your point about "calibrated for the sensor". However, the MTF charts suggest both lenses do well across their 82 mm image circles.
 
Well, I haven't had a chance to test the Digaron or Linos 105 yet; I can only compare my Mejiro FL0530 against my SK 120mm BR, and it doesn't stand a chance against it.
 
Phase V said:
I could be wrong, but this is the industrial version of the Digaron 5.6/105mm from 2017, but unlike the Digaron, it's only calibrated for the sensor width. There was a test on closeuphotography.com, and the Mejiro Genossen FL0530 was better in every aspect.
Click to expand...
Yes - you are correct. However, I'm specifically interested in the 5.6/120mm float lens.
 
The Mejiro surpasses the SK 120 BR in every respect! However, this could also be due to its serial number G00001, which likely means it's the very first example of this series ever produced. :)
 
There are nearly four brand adjustable magnification macro lens.
Schneider Macro Varon 85mm f4.5 0.2X-2X;

Rodenstock Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105mm 0.33X-3X
or 120MM
Rodenstock Linos Inpec.x 120mm /f5.6 0.064X-0.52X


Nikon( Rayfact) 150mm printing f2.8 third edition or something?

Another japan lens brand Mejio something.

The adjustable magnification lens can't beat fixed magnification lens at specific magnification, it beat it by convenience with the price of compromise between quality and convenience. So I choose fixed Mag-lens to do specific job.

The Schneider Xenon Sapphire 3.2/96mm 0.5X has brilliant MTF achievement which shown near 45% flat @f4 @ 108LP/mm and 60% @f4 72LP/m with 62.5mm image circle,

The Schneider Xenon Sapphire 3.7/96mm 0.29X's MTF shown 50% @f4.5 108LP/MM, which Linos 0.3X shown 52% with 72LP/MM

schneider xenon sapphire 3.7 96mm 0.29x.JPG
which is better than linos
MTF chart please refer link as below

SAPPHIRE 0.03/0.29x V70

Line scan lens (0.29x) for 16k/3.5µm & 12k/5µm sensors, enabling precise AOI & FPD inspection in a compact, robust design.
schneiderkreuznach.com schneiderkreuznach.com
https://schneiderkreuznach.com/appl...79/SAPPHIRE_005_05x_V70_1071189_datasheet.pdf

The Schneider Xenon Sapphire 3.9/95mm 0.23X's MTF shown 52% @f4.5 108LP/MM, which Linos 0.13X shown 53% with 72LP/MM

SAPPHIRE 0.02/0.23x V70

Line scan lens with V70-Mount, designed for 16k/3.5µm and 12k/5µm sensors, enabling precise, high-speed PCB and defect analysis.
schneiderkreuznach.com schneiderkreuznach.com
schneider xenon sapphire 3.9 95mm 0.23x.JPG


Here is the 0.5X Magnification lens MTF comparation between Schneider Xenon Sapphire 3.2/96mm 0.5X with
Linos 105mm f5.6 float 0.5X and retro fixed 2X.

Schneider Xenon Sapphire 96mm 0.5X shown 45% @ 108LP/M with Linos 105mm 0.5X shown 55% @ 50LP/M

schneider xenon sapphire 3.2 96mm 0.5x.JPG

Linos 105mm f5.6 0.5X.JPG

I am waiting Schneider Sapphire 3.2/96 0.5X and 4.5/95MM 0.07X posted from China.
The larger magnification the worst MTF chart. 0.07X is much better than 0.5X.
it has 57% @ f4.5 108LP/M

schneider xenon sapphire 34.5 97mm 0.07x.JPG
 
Last edited:
hasselblad 503cw said:
There are nearly four brand adjustable magnification macro lens.
Schneider Macro Varon 85mm f4.5 0.2X-2X;

Rodenstock Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105mm 0.33X-3X
or 120MM
Rodenstock Linos 120mm /f5.6 0.064-0.52X


Nikon 150mm printing f2.8 third edition,

Another japan lens brand Mejio something.

The adjustable magnification lens can't beat fixed magnification lens at specific magnification, it beat it by convenience with the price of compromise between quality and convenience. So I choose fixed Mag-lens to do specific job.

The Schneider Xenon Sapphire 3.2/96mm has brilliant MTF achievement which shown near 45% flat @f4 @ 108LP/mm and 60% @f4 72LP/m with 62.5mm image circle, unbelievable.

The Schneider Xenon Sapphire 3.7/96mm 0.29X's MTF shown 50% @f4.5 108LP/MM, which Linos 0.3X shown 52% with 72LP/MM
Click to expand...
There are a number of Rayfact (Nikkor) lenses with adjustable elements, including the

L-OVM30093MN​

The late Mr. O’Toole had a page that discusses it, along with others.
 
The Digaron 105 HR float is the best lens for scanning because of the variable magnification ratio. You can work at 0.3x and stitch 8x10, or do 4x5 with ultra high quality, then go in at different mag levels and scan a 35mm picture in a double stitch if you want and still have excellent performance.

A lot of people say you can buy the cheaper inspec variant, but, funds permitting, the floating element design with variable operating distance makes the lens extremely useful for macro and scanning. I constantly change the setting, depending on what I scan and whether I want to do stitched scanning.

The inspec lenses are also not checked the same way by Rodenstock and are not recommended for general photography, but his ofc in practice may not be so relevant.

With its floating lens element design and distance setting ring the 105 HR is unique.
 
I just tested the 105mm Linos .76x in a film digitization test situation The sensor used was the GFX 100s II. I compared the Linos 105mm to the GF 120mm Macro without a macro adapter, with the 18G and the 45G extension tubes. We can read on paper how lenses react or perform but nothing beats side by side comparisons in a controlled environment. To effectively compare them I used the USAF 1951 transmissible 1X target printed on glass and can calculate up to 500 line pairs per mm.

Screenshot 2026-02-16 at 4.09.11 PM.jpg

The goal was to find the best lens for scanning 35mm and 2 1/4 negs. I chose the .76x as the math works perfectly for the 33x44 sensor to medium format film.

FilmLensOptimal Magification
35mmLinos inspec.x L 5.6/105mm VIS NIR1x
120mmLinos inspec.x L 5.6/105mm VIS NIR.76x
4x5 and largerLinos dFine HR-M /80mm.2x

In order to compare the Linos to the standard macro supplied by Fujifilm's GFX line, the following ext tubes would need to be used:

FilmLensOptimal Magification
35mmFujifilm GF 120mm f/4 MacroMCEX-45G Ext Tube1.04x
120mmFujifilm GF 120mm f/4 MacroMCEX-18G Ext Tube.71x
4x5 and largerFujifilm GF 120mm f/4 MacroNo ext Tube.5x

There were a multitude of questions I was looking for answers to:

How good will the Macro 120mm be at its closest working distance of 10.75"? How much do the tubes help or hinder optical quality or resolving power? How does the singular magnification of the Linos lens compare to the float version with multiple magnification options? How well does the singular lens compare reversed?

The first image is the 120mm Macro alone and then with an 18G and a 45G macro adapter.

Screenshot 2026-02-16 at 4.27.04 PM.jpg

The 18G allowed the close focus distance of 8.75" and slightly improved the system's results. I was shocked to see how poorly the 45G image rendered. So I then reshot the 45G test with a new lens, a new adapter, and controlled the flare as much as possible. The results illustrate the best I could render with all of my changes and tweaks.

Now to compare the 120mm macro with the 18G adapter to the Linos inspect 105mm .76x side by side.

Screenshot 2026-02-16 at 4.42.11 PM.jpg

First thought was that the Linos lens can focus much closer to the subject.... but that is what a macro needs to do. The 120mm fell apart with the 45G never mind any closer.

The fixed Linos was much easier to use and half the price of the floating element alternative.

I found that reversing did not yeild any better results. And how flare on the neg is the deadly killer to film digitization.

I am still in the testing phase here and would like thoughts from you on where to go from here.
 
Zoom lens vs Prime?
Zoom lens never beat Prime in anyway.
Zoom lens is normally designed for comprising with convenience and image quality.
So does float macro vs fixed macro lens.

Get fixed macro lens for the best quality, or get float for comprising.

Get all four below fixed lens from China cost nearly £700-900
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 1x
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 0.76x
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 0.5x
  • Linos Inpec.x L 5.6/105 0.33x
Get best Linos float 120mm ( 120mm is much better than 105mm)lens from China nearly cost £1100-1300;
Lino’s float 120mm no chance for beating fixed 105mm at designed magnification.
 
Last edited:
hasselblad 503cw said:
Zoom lens vs Prime?
Zoom lens never beat Prime in anyway.
Zoom lens is normally designed for comprising with convenience and image quality.
So does float macro vs fixed macro lens.

Get fixed macro lens for the best quality, or get float for comprising.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about - zoom is changing focal lengths by moving multiple lens elementa around. Zooms often have many more lens elements than primes and therefore more aberrations which need to be balanced in the design. The FLE in the 105 HR is used for a different purpose - it is to reduce field curvature, coma, and astigmatism at different mag ratios while the optical construction remains focused on highest macro performance, especially beyond 1x.

This means if you scan a 35mm negative at 3x and stitch or scan a 4x5 the edges and center will be absolutely flat and sharp.

This is extremely helpful for scanning as mag ratios vary depending on what you scan and whether you want just a crop.

A zoom lens is a different beast as the lens designers compromise on aberrations to keep the zoom lens as compact as possible given you need more lens elements to cover a zoom range.

The 105 HR is sharp very flat edge to edge even at an extremely high magnification when you adjust the FLE. It is very useful for scanning at high DPI. It comes into its own at magnifications above or at 1 with practically no vignetting or distortion.

The 105 is also rather compact and just an all around great macro lens with 0 CA and extremely even rendition across the IC.
 
Zoom lens is normally designed for comprising with convenience and image quality.
So does float macro vs fixed macro lens.

Stitched with fixed 3X macro lens is better than stitched with vario-magnification (float) macro lens @3x
Lino’s has specific 3X fixed macro lens

We only talk about best quality, not compact, all round, convenience which is left for float lens.

Linos 120mm float is maybe the best float macro lens, but it is not best macro lens, it will be beat with same magnification fixed lens.
 
Last edited:
hasselblad 503cw said:
Zoom lens is normally designed for comprising with convenience and image quality.
So does float macro vs fixed macro lens.
Click to expand...

A FLE design is versatility without meaningful penalty - so although it is a compromise in theory, vs a lens calculated perfectly for one mag. FLE designs are in practice indistinguishable form a fixed counterpart, as they correct just aberrations across various magnifications, while the fundamental optical formula stays the same.

They are more versatile than fixed macros, without much penalty. Would take an FLE macro any day of the week except if you always photograph at the same distance which inspec lenses do - e.g. chips zipping by a production line.

Real world photography is more flexbile, so a more flexible macro makes sense. That's why Rodenstock had an FLE macro - one for photography and the fixed ones for inspecting stuff in factories, e.g., computer chips.
 
hasselblad 503cw said:
We talk quality, not flexible,versatile.
At same specific magnification, does fixed macro beat float?
Click to expand...

I do not have any other macro lens, but most likely differences won't be really noticeable in practice. I am talking about the top class stuff linked above, not system macros. This woudl have been a great subject for closeuphotography.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top