Rodenstock questions

[fredjeang]

Hi,

It seems to me that Rodenstock is maybe the most respected or loved brand amongs LF/tech cameras users (I ignored that they have a glass department)

I have many questions about this brand and sorry for this kind of thread that many will find basic, but if I knew from experience I would not ask.

- Are those Rodenstock really that good in general or is it just a few models out of price? In other words, can you buy any Rodenstock with total confidence and not only the most expensive models?

- They have a line specially designed for digital, but are you using the analog series with succes as well on digibacks? What is the real advantage of those specially designed for digital?

- Can you recommend what would be a good price/quality or a "money-for-the-buck" model (any focal), something reasonably priced but very good.

- Is the second-hand market active and a good option?

[adammork]

Hi,

It seems to me that Rodenstock is maybe the most respected or loved brand amongs LF/tech cameras users (I ignored that they have a glass department)

well it depends who you ask 

when I used film, I had only Rodenstock, around 12 lenses - now it's only Schneiders and a lonely 23mm Rodenstock.....

main reasons - larger image circles and way less distortion
/adam

[gazwas]

- They have a line specially designed for digital, but are you using the analog series with succes as well on digibacks? What is the real advantage of those specially designed for digital?

The digital versions resolve at a lot higher rate than the older analogue lenses, showing more detail in the projected image to all those tiny pixels on the sensor surface. 

As for Rodenstock being the best is a matter of oppinion. Both Schneider and Rodenstock make fine lenses each with excellent properties and advantages in different areas. It all depends i suppose what you want out of the lens IMO and its a difficult choice between the two brands.

I'm new to all this LF stuff and have only just dipped my toe in the water of this big pond and its all research at first. Can't wait for my camera to arrive and stop reading and start taking pictures.  

[RobertJ]

With 4x5 film, the Schneider Super-Symmar HM , APO-Symmar, Makro-Symmar HM, and 72/90 SA XL lenses were/are highly respected lenses, equal to or superior to any Rodenstock.

With digital, it seems the Rodenstock HR Digaron-S series are the sharpest lenses.  Of course, they do have smaller image circles than the HR W or Schneider Digitar lemses (most of them at least).  Choose the right lens for the job.  You can't go wrong with either brand, but each lens has it's pros and cons.  You either trade sharpness for image circle, or image circle for sharpness.

[dkaufman]

I used both Rodenstock and Schneider lenses for 4x5 colour and b&w work for many years, since 1984. As time went on, though I started with Rodenstock, Schneider brought out lense with newer formulations and larger image circles, and I gradually switched. The best Schneider 4x5 lenses were their XL series--90mm XL, 110mmXL, 72mmXL--all fantastic lenses for 4x5 colour. Nevertheless, there are subtle differences between Schneider and Rodenstock in how they transmit colour. For 4x5 work, the Schneider lenses seemed slightly more clinical, but also slightly more "biting" in resolution.
I am using for digital work now four Rodenstock lenses (32mmHR, 40mmHR, 55mm apo, 70mmHR), and two Schneider lenses (47mm and 100mm digitars). The Rodenstock lenses have much more sumptuous colour rendition, especially compared to the 47mm lens which has a large image circle but real colour cast issues about two-thirds of the way out in the image circle (correctable with Phase One or other LCC procedures). The Schneider 100 has better consistent colour but is not quite as sharp as the 40mmHR lens, which is my sharpest lens. The 55mm Rodenstock apo is from a different line of digital lenses, not quite as sharp as the HR lens, but with bigger image circle and excellent colour. The Schneider 100 is slightly sharper than the Rodenstock 55mm which is fine at f/11 and has a very large image circle. The 32mmHR and 70mm HR are not quite as good as the 40mmHR off centre, but colour is excellent. The 32mm and 40mm HR lenses have complex distortion and need a program like Alpa's to correct them.
So to sum up, Rodenstock lenses have a very beautiful rendition of colour. The best in my experience for resolution is the 40mmHR, followed by the 70mmHR, the 32mmHR and the 55mm apo in that order. The Schneider 100 has good colour and good sharpness, at least equal to the 32mm. The Schneider 47mm is very sharp and has a large image circle but colour cast issues that are significant, but far less distortion than the wide angle Rodenstocks and easier to correct. The HR lenses are definitely worth the money, except maybe the 32mm which is overpriced in my opinion, but has no competition for its particular features (flange focal distance) and useability with Dalsa chip backs.

[dchew]

Fred,
In the "meat" of the focal ranges, 35-100mm, the Rodenstock HR-S are considered by most to be the "best" in resolution (looks to be verified in the MTF charts).  But you give up advantages in other areas:  small image circles, size/weight, and distortion.  I'm brand agnostic when it comes to these two companies.  It is the classic "right tool for your specific style / subject" decision.

Like gazwas I'm in the throws of this decision right now.  I chose the Schneider 43XL because of size/weight and because it will be on a 54x40mm sensor, so the image circles on the S line were too limiting for me; essentially no movements.  The HR-W's are a nice compromise between resolution and image circle: Generally in between the "S" and the XL's in both regards.  Retrofocus which is nice but again larger & heavier than the Schneiders.  That 70-100 range is going to be another tough decision.  I plan to rent lenses for a short period so I can figure out how often I would use a larger image circle in that focal length.

I know nothing about the older options.  I've been working along the assumption that these two companies have been coming out with new lines for reasons associated with image quality, specifically resolution and CA due to smaller MF pixel sizes.  I'm sure there are specific cases where older versions are as good...

Ciao,
Dave

[BillOConnor]

One thing I noticed about the Rodenstock HR lenses, especially the wides is they say the ideal aperture is f5.6. Smaller apertures than that can cause diffusion issues. The Apo Sironar digital lenses have from f8-11 as ideal apertures. Even a 35mm lens at f5.6 doesn't have really great DOF, so it would seem that the 35mm Apo Sironar digital 35mm lens might be a more useful lens.

[cng]

The size and weight yes are important, I'd like the smallest possible camera.

If size/weight are the most important factors, then the Schneiders are generally smaller than their equivalent Rodenstocks.  From memory, I think the Schneider 35mm/43mm is around 300grams but the equivalent Rodenstock is about 900grams, not to mention also physically larger.

However, Schneider recommends centre filters for its wide lenses, costing you about 2 stops.  Whether you can get away without using a glass CF (and maybe relying on software) is up to you to test and decide.

No such thing as a free lunch ...

The Alpa website has a very useful PDF that summarises the specs for these lenses.  I can't find a link to it at the moment because I'm posting this using my phone.

[dkaufman]

The Rodenstock HR lenses are fine at f/8, in practical terms better than at f/5.6, especially to maintain sharpness in the corners with wide angle lenses and/or stitching, and nearly as good at f/11 or even a half stop smaller (but not quite as good in the centre). At f/16 diffraction begins to be quite visible.

[cng]

You can find specs for Schneider/Rodenstock/Alpa lenses on the attached PDF.  I originally downloaded it from the Alpa website but couldn't find it again for some reason.  Ignore my struggling brain ...

If you are looking mainly at weight and size, for example:
Schneider Apo-Digitar 5.6/35mm XL = 319 grams, 90mm IC, 52mm front filter thread (CF recommended)
Rodenstock HR Digaron-S 4.0/32mm = 990 grams, 90mm IC, 86mm front filter thread

[fredjeang]

Curious such a difference in weight! I wonder is this can have something to do with built quality, durability (don't know if that exists in english, I mean more enduring)

[gazwas]

The Rodenstock HR lenses are fine at f/8, in practical terms better than at f/5.6, especially to maintain sharpness in the corners with wide angle lenses and/or stitching, and nearly as good at f/11 or even a half stop smaller (but not quite as good in the centre). At f/16 diffraction begins to be quite visible.

So with the Schneiders f11 is usually the recommended working aperture which probably means you can get away with f16. f16 on a wide gives pretty deep depth of field and If I'm not mistaken on none retrofocus lenses the image circle also gets larger.

All fingers still point to the Schneiders being the better all round option pending the vertical lines isuue.  

[dchew]

Curious such a difference in weight! I wonder is this can have something to do with built quality, durability (don't know if that exists in english, I mean more enduring)

I think it is
1) Retrofocus design
2) f/4 vs. f/5.6

Actually a few have claimed you need to be careful with some of the Rodenstocks because the diameter is so small in the middle (you know, like a very skinny waist on a curvaceous... nevermind).  But I think that concern is just perception.  Can't imagine actually breaking one in half without trying really hard.  All these options are built quite well.  

Dave

PS: Fred, I think durability is the correct word you were looking for.  I've seen translations use "enduring" before. But that should be used more to describe something that you would love forever, vs. something that lasts forever (at least in Yankee English).  Ex: "Rodenstock's curvaceous figure gave her an enduring quality."  Jeeze, I hope Rob C is not lurking on this thread. He'll point out my anthropomorphism has gone out of control.  ;-)

[fredjeang]

Thanks. Lu-La has been (and is) the best english school for me! a part from photography.

Yes, this curve in the middle, like a pin-up body is not very reasuring.
The wired thing is that I thought that lenses with bigger image circle generally weighted more, but there is a sort of consensus here to point that the Rodenstock have a smaller IC than the Schneiders and despite the Schneiders are lighter.
Maybe of the metal used.

I have to go to Fotocasion, a dealer in Madrid, and see the 2 brands.

[cng]

I think build quality is comparable between the two brands.  They just have different optical design philosophies, obviously resulting in different form factors and outcomes.  You choose what makes sense for your needs.

For example, Schneider lenses generally:
- are meant to have less distortion than the Rodenstocks (although distortion is correctable in software like Alpa's)
- have larger IC's and are more likely to exhibit greater colour cast with movements than a comparable Rodenstock (although, again, this is correctable in software)
- have more diffuse falloff but require glass centre filters, whereas the Rodenstock IC's cut-off relatively abruptly and don't require glass CF's
- are physically smaller and lighter
- have recommended optimal apertures of f8-f11, versus the Rodenstock HR's with f5.6-f11
- have maximum apertures of f5.6, versus the Rodenstock's f4 (although there are a few Schneider Digitars that are f4).
etc etc

For me, the largest IC's, lowest distortion possible and small size = Schneider.  I have to admit though that the decision was not an easy one to make.  This may sound silly, but the Rodenstocks look more "serious" being so large and imposing, but a set of lenses in your kit adds up in weight very fast.  Also, the apertures on the Schneider lenses have click-stop settings of 1/3 stops, which I find quite nice to use.  The last time I used Rodenstocks they had smooth "clickless" aperture settings (I'm not sure if they've changed), although the benefit of this is that you can set intermediate apertures other than 1/3 stops (in theory).

[gazwas]

The larger f4 aperture on the Rodenstock's is the one thing that is holding me back on the Schneider 40ish lenses. A stop brighter GG for focusing would be a nice feature in a lens but would it be worth giving up the larger IC and less distortion? 

[dchew]

Great point.  I guess it depends on how you plan to focus and what back you have. I'm not even buying a ground glass, at least for now.  I'm hoping the combination of Alpa HPF rings and the IQ back features will eliminated the need, which in turn eliminates the brightness advantage while focusing.  So I went with the Schneider.  But I still think if you don't care all that much about size and weight, the 40HR-W is a great option.  I'm planning to backpack or canoe for multi-day trips with this stuff, so for me weight was something to think about.

The larger f4 aperture on the Rodenstock's is the one thing that is holding me back on the Schneider 40ish lenses. A stop brighter GG for focusing would be a nice feature in a lens but would it be worth giving up the larger IC and less distortion? 

[gazwas]

Great point.  I guess it depends on how you plan to focus and what back you have. I'm not even buying a ground glass, at least for now.

One of the great features of a LF camera for me is composing the shot on the GG. Its a habbit from my 5x4 days that i've never been able to quit. Thats how I use my Canons now (live view) as I very rarely ever look through the viewfinder when my camera is mounted on a tripod..... maybe I'm wierd?

When I tested the Phase DF it was one thing I couldn't get used to loosing and hence my voyage into LF (well 6x9) again.

[dchew]

I don't think that's weird at all.  I use live view on my Canons exactly the same way.  I'm just hoping the new "live view" and focus mask features in the IQ backs will function well enough so it essentially replaces the ground glass.  Then not only will I not have to swap the ground glass in and out, but I won't have to carry it to begin with.

Dave

[gazwas]

I'm just hoping the new "live view" and focus mask features in the IQ backs will function well enough so it essentially replaces the ground glass.

I've been told the live view will be pretty limited and not a replacement for all GG use. Works exactly like the Capture One version. Under artifical light it will be ok but under bright lighting conditions you'll need to use ND filters to tame the light hitting the sensor and not great with contrasty scenes.  Sounds like more work than a GG to me but well have to see how things finally turn out in a few weeks when the IQ180's start to arrive.

IMO until Phase release a CMOS based system, the GG will still have to stay part of the camera kit.