Rodenstock HR vs Schneider Phase One lenses

[marcmccalmont]

Has any one made a comparison of Rodenstock HR lenses on a technical camera VS the Schneider phase one leaf shutter lenses on a Phase One DF when used with an IQ180?
Thanks
Marc

[dchew]

Marc,
I have not, but I do have the 80mm Schneider w/ DF body and a 100 HR w/ Alpa STC.  Is that close enough in focal length for you? I have the dealer's IQ180 for today so I could take a few shots. I have not shimmed the Alpa to this back but I could do a bit of focus bracketing. I just won't shoot at infinity in case this back needs to be shimmed in closer.

Dave

[marcmccalmont]

Yes any shots would be great
I have a Cambo wrs with rodenstock hr 40, hr 70 and 105
With my  AFDII I have the 35, 55-110, 80,120, 150, 105-210 and 300
I have a DF and IQ180 on order just wondering if the Schneider's are the equal to the Rodenstock HRs
too bad live view isn't implemented yet!
Marc

[tashley]

Marc,

There's a lot of stuff going on over at GetDPI on this subject. Results are not yet in but Doug Peterson at Capture Integration and Guy Mancuso have run some tests and are due to report soon.

The general opinion seems to be that Rodies have worse (and very complex) distortion but that Schneiders, with their rear element closer to the sensor, will likely give worse colour casts and that it isn't yet clear, especially on the wider lenses, whether this will be fully correctable with the sorts of shifts people were used to making on previous generation Phase backs.

I myself am a Cambo user too, and keen to find out whether my Go To lens, the 35XL, will perform usefully on the IQ180 which I am expecting to take delivery of sometime soon.

I will post anything useful I discover if I get to test this combo before anyone else posts results!

HTH
t

[michael]

I've only done one similar comparison – between the Schneider 120mm and Mamiya 120mm Macro.

The Schneider was on an Alpa STC and the Mamiya on a DF camera, both with the new IQ180.

I had the Schneider focused on infinity (a subject with fine detail about 3km away) because I was shimming the back on the IQ180. The air was exceptionally clear that day.

The only exactly matching focal length that I have between the two is the Macro, so I threw it on the tripod, just for fun.

What I found is that wide open the Schneider was slightly sharper than the Macro when it was stopped down 2 stops.

With both lenses stopped to their optimum apertures the Schneider was clearly resolving more detail.

BUT... this was at the 100% on-screen pixel peeping level. Real world, even in really (large prints) I doubt that you'd see much difference except with a loupe.

Anecdotally – I find that in almost all cases good technique trumps small difference in optical quality. Solid tripod, cable release (or self timer at more than 5 seconds), mirror lockup, critical focusing, etc, etc.

Michael

[dchew]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Marc you are interested in the leaf shutter Schneider lens for the DF camera vs an HR on a tech camera not a direct Schneider vs Rodenstock on tech cameras, right?

T is correct, the latter is well-discussed in other threads.

Dave

[michael]

The Schneiders on a tech camera are definitely my choice over the Rodenstocks when used with the IQ180 for the reasons mentioned.

But – I find movements limited to about 10–12mm before lens cast becomes uncorrectable when used with an IQ180.

My guess is that there will be an update to the lens cast correction in C1 that will address this in the not too distant future.

Michael

[marcmccalmont]

Marc,

There's a lot of stuff going on over at GetDPI on this subject. Results are not yet in but Doug Peterson at Capture Integration and Guy Mancuso have run some tests and are due to report soon.

The general opinion seems to be that Rodies have worse (and very complex) distortion but that Schneiders, with their rear element closer to the sensor, will likely give worse colour casts and that it isn't yet clear, especially on the wider lenses, whether this will be fully correctable with the sorts of shifts people were used to making on previous generation Phase backs.

I myself am a Cambo user too, and keen to find out whether my Go To lens, the 35XL, will perform usefully on the IQ180 which I am expecting to take delivery of sometime soon.

I will post anything useful I discover if I get to test this combo before anyone else posts results!

HTH

Thanks for your input but my question is more about the new schneiders on the DF camera, in other words is there an IQ difference between the digital view camera lenses (rodenstock HR's) and the new SLR lenses (schneider leaf shutter)? if the IQ is the same then there would be no need for 2 camera systems (cambo and P1 DF) unless the tilts shifts and swings are important to you. The primary reason I went to the WRS and Rodenstock HRs was for the improvement in  color and resolution over the Mamiya lenses. I might be better off with just the DF camera and the new schneider SLR lenses?
Marc

[marcmccalmont]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Marc you are interested in the leaf shutter Schneider lens for the DF camera vs an HR on a tech camera not a direct Schneider vs Rodenstock on tech cameras, right?

T is correct, the latter is well-discussed in other threads.

Dave

Yes

[Guy Mancuso]

Did a test the other day Phase One 55 LS lens against the Schneider 60mm on a Cambo . The edge goes to the Schneider 60 but not by much at all and in print most likely will not be noticeable. All the Phase One LS lenses are extremely good on the 180 which this test was shot with.

[JonMo]

Isn't it at the wide end that the large format lens on tech cam is heads and shoulders above the DF lens?
I haven't seen an exceptional wide angle to fit my afdIII.

[Doug Peterson]

Isn't it at the wide end that the large format lens on tech cam is heads and shoulders above the DF lens?
I haven't seen an exceptional wide angle to fit my afdIII.

+1 (also true of contax, hassy h, and hassy v lens lineups).

Simple physics; having a mirror box in the camera requires optical design compromises. The wider the lens the more the compromise and the greater the real world impact, regardless of manufacturer.

The difference for 28 and 35 is large.

The difference for 45 and 55 is moderate.

The difference (outside of having movements available) for 80/120/150 is quite small.

[Wayne Fox]

+1 (also true of contax, hassy h, and hassy v lens lineups).

Simple physics; having a mirror box in the camera requires optical design compromises. The wider the lens the more the compromise and the greater the real world impact, regardless of manufacturer.

The difference for 28 and 35 is large.

The difference for 45 and 55 is moderate.

The difference (outside of having movements available) for 80/120/150 is quite small.

I happen to like the 28mm on the DF, not tack sharp but really good, and no LCC.  My Schneider 35mm on my Alpa has a 2 stop difference between corners and centers  so getting good exposures is tough, am going to have to resort to a center filter (losing those two stops of light.)  so despite the optical compromise because of the mirror box, it seems it also moves the optics far enough away from the sensor to help with fall off and color casts.

[marcmccalmont]

Well I'll have to see how my 40mm works with the IQ180!