Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm  (Read 7150 times)

Andrews

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm
« on: October 24, 2010, 09:19:48 pm »

Hello,
Sorry if this has been addressed, but my eyes are blurred from reading previous posts in several forums all day. I just purchased a Phase One p45+ back for use on my Sinar view camera, and I need a newer digital lens in the 90-105mm focal length range. I like the bigger image circle of the Rodenstock over the Schneider lenses in this range. The lens that I purchase will be my workhorse go-to lens for studio product work, so the decision is important.

I prefer the 105mm focal length, but the 90mm is more expensive, and I'm assuming a better quality lens since it a Digaron W. But on their web site, Rodenstock mentions that a couple of their Apo-Sironars were simply renamed to Digaron W, so I'm not sure about any difference in quality.

I have seen quite a few people who love the 90mm Digaron, but haven't seen much written about the 105mm Apo-Sironar. Does anyone have experience with this lens, or even better, a comparison between the two? Thanks for your help!
Logged

Policar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2010, 06:16:10 pm »

I am very curious what you find...I shoot film still so I don't know.  But if I shot digital I would love to use these lenses.

Rodenstock has mtf charts on their website for both lenses, but they're mostly useless since they use different lp/mm for each lens.

I think part of the reason the cost is higher with the digaron-w is because it's a wide angle design, whereas the sironar is a normal design, with less coverage relative to focal length.

I have an apo-sironar-s (135mm) and it's very sharp for large format--meaning it's not nearly sharp enough for digital, in theory.  But I assume the digital-specific sironar is much better over its more limited area of coverage, as its mtf charts indicate.  I bet both lenses are good by f11, but wide open I'd have my doubts about the sironar.

I doubt rodenstock relabled one as the other.  They appear to be distinct optical designs but I could be wrong.
Logged

Rod.Klukas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
    • http://www.rodklukas.com
Re: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2010, 07:50:06 pm »

The Apo-Sironar-'S' series are actually quite good on digital. This is one of the few lens designs, which does cross over to digital well.  But the digital specific lenses are usually noticeably better.
I use the 72mm Digitar and it is an excellent lens. Schneider may have an image or 2 from it up soon on their site.  But anyway, I use it a lot and really enjoy the images, both from color and sharpness standpoint.
Remember your digital back is more of a medium format size than large(4x5), and so a 90mm is normal or slightly longer for its sensor size.
And 105 would be even longer.  As the circle of confusion for Digital is 1/4 of what even 35mm film requires for a sharp image, the DOF is a bit truncated from whatever film would yield.
Also, on Digital you need to stay above F16, and F11 if possible to avoid diffraction which rears its soft head much quicker than on film.
On my web site:   RodKlukas.com  there is a link to a paper on the differences. It is named  'Why choose Digitar' which ha s some good info in it overall on choosing lenses no matter what type and brand :).
Hope this helps you.
Rod
Logged
Rod Klukas
US Representative Arca-Swiss

Andrews

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2010, 11:43:32 pm »

Thanks Rod,
Appreciate your input, and the link on your site was a good refresher. I'm aware of how lens length translates to my sensor size. I prefer a slight to moderate telephoto lens for most of my product work, even on seamless backgrounds, for the lack of perspective distortion which can occur with a 'normal' lens, and also the reduced amount of background that shows behind the product.

Although I'm committed to buying digital lenses when I need to add to my existing line, I have no problem using my 'film' Schneiders and Nikkors when needed. The only exception is my old Super Angulon 90mm, which is not as sharp as my 135 or 210. Like many working professionals, I've used these lenses for thousands of images for professional reproduction to produce very sharp images, and I've never seen or heard a complaint from a client or printer about sharpness or color fringing. Maybe I've been lucky in getting good lenses. But then, a number of my images from my Canon 1dsMk2 have been used for 6 foot posters, which looked fabulous. Sometimes I think we all get a little too caught up in the resolution race.
Logged

archivue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2010, 09:18:44 am »

Logged

nkpoulsen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
Re: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2010, 02:33:38 pm »

Rod,

Does your comparisons between digital specific lenses and film type lenses include those in the 105mm range?

I was told by a Schneider employee that, once the focal length becomes larger than the diagonal of the sensor, more or less, the advantages of three-color alignment characteristic of digital specific lenses become much less pronounced.  (I would think that they've done testing on this.)  Aligning accurate focus for the three colors to the same focal plane for digital specific lenses (versus different focal planes for film-based lenses) is advantageous primarily for shorter focal length lenses, where chromatic aberration is the most apparent.

So, I'd be interesting in what you've determined.  Is it really necessary to upgrade to digital specific lenses, once one is working with lenses higher than some focal length?  I can see where it might also depend on the sensitivity of the sensor.  The higher the resolution, the more likely that digital specific lenses will make a difference.

The Apo-Sironar-'S' series are actually quite good on digital. This is one of the few lens designs, which does cross over to digital well.  But the digital specific lenses are usually noticeably better.
I use the 72mm Digitar and it is an excellent lens. Schneider may have an image or 2 from it up soon on their site.  But anyway, I use it a lot and really enjoy the images, both from color and sharpness standpoint.
Remember your digital back is more of a medium format size than large(4x5), and so a 90mm is normal or slightly longer for its sensor size.
And 105 would be even longer.  As the circle of confusion for Digital is 1/4 of what even 35mm film requires for a sharp image, the DOF is a bit truncated from whatever film would yield.
Also, on Digital you need to stay above F16, and F11 if possible to avoid diffraction which rears its soft head much quicker than on film.
On my web site:   RodKlukas.com  there is a link to a paper on the differences. It is named  'Why choose Digitar' which ha s some good info in it overall on choosing lenses no matter what type and brand :).
Hope this helps you.
Rod
Logged

archivue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 105mm vs Digaron W 90mm
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2010, 06:50:41 pm »

i did test an apo symmar L 120 vs an apo sironar digital 90
and an other day, i did test 120 macro sironar digital vs non digital

in both cases, the digital lens was superior... with an aptus 22...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up