Opinions on Rodenstock 45mm f4.5 APO-Sironar Digital for Aptus II 7

[pemihan]

I'm contemplating a Rodenstock 45mm f4.5 APO-Sironar Digital in Cambo mount to use with my Aptus II 7.

I currently have the SK 47XL but I have a feeling it's not optimal on the 33 megapixel back.

I should mention that I use the47XL a lot for stitching and the purpose of the 45mm Rodenstoch would be the same.

Any thoughts?

Thanks
Pete

[Paul2660]

If it's anything like the 55mm in the same family,  it should be an excellent lens.   It has an excellent image circle of 125mm like the 55mm. 

Paul Caldwell

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

I never meet a Rodenstock lens I didn’t like and I have used a few over the years.

Cheers

Simon

[pemihan]

Thanks Paul and Simon... The Large image circle is one of the reasons I'm contemplating it.
And the retro-focus design..

It is retro-focus right? I can't really find much info about it..

Peter

[JoeKitchen]

Thanks Paul and Simon... The Large image circle is one of the reasons I'm contemplating it.
And the retro-focus design..

It is retro-focus right? I can't really find much info about it..

Peter

That 45mm looks like it is in the same family as the 55mm, which would mean it is fully symmetrical.  I am not 100% on this though. 

[Paul2660]

On the retro focus, I believe it is, but like out point the literature on their site is rather vague.  I know all the HR and HR-W are retro focus and the 45mm you are looking at is the generation before.

Paul Caldwell

[Steve Hendrix]

I have shot with and tested the 35mm and 55mm from the same family. The 55mm - as has been noted - is a great lens, especially for the money. The 35mm I was not as enthused about as I didn't find the edge to edge sharpness I expect from the better Rodenstock wides. My guess is the 45mm is likely somewhere in between - I have been told from several of our sources that it does suffer some focus shift (more than most lenses).

It does have the large circle - I'd bet it's a close race image quality-wise between the Rodenstock 45 and the Schneider 47, which is similarly priced. The Schneider 43mm Digitar or the Rodenstock 40mm HR would be better bets, but of course they have a higher cost.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

[yaya]

THe 47XL is an excellent lens and should perform really well with an Aptus-II 7, providing that you use it stopped down (1 stop) and that you are aware of its inherent field curvature (which most/ all wide lenses with a large image circle have).

The Rodenstock will be sharper at f5.6 compared to the SK and being faster it is a bit easier to focus through. If you shoot landscape then I would say it's a toss. If you shoot architecture then the SK IMO is the better option as it has less distortion. On the other hand the Rodenstock will have less colour cast and falloff when shifted (but will have a bit more CA)

What is it that you are missing with the 47XL and have you tried another copy or on another camera to eliminate any misalignment or calibration issues?

BR

Yair

[pemihan]

Thanks Paul & Joe, appreciate your input..

[pemihan]

I have shot with and tested the 35mm and 55mm from the same family. The 55mm - as has been noted - is a great lens, especially for the money. The 35mm I was not as enthused about as I didn't find the edge to edge sharpness I expect from the better Rodenstock wides. My guess is the 45mm is likely somewhere in between - I have been told from several of our sources that it does suffer some focus shift (more than most lenses).

It does have the large circle - I'd bet it's a close race image quality-wise between the Rodenstock 45 and the Schneider 47, which is similarly priced. The Schneider 43mm Digitar or the Rodenstock 40mm HR would be better bets, but of course they have a higher cost.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Thanks Steve, I didn't know about focus shift, but I guess it really doesn't matter as I almost always just set the wides at infinity and forget about it.. Or am I wrong?

Peter

[pemihan]

THe 47XL is an excellent lens and should perform really well with an Aptus-II 7, providing that you use it stopped down (1 stop) and that you are aware of its inherent field curvature (which most/ all wide lenses with a large image circle have).

The Rodenstock will be sharper at f5.6 compared to the SK and being faster it is a bit easier to focus through. If you shoot landscape then I would say it's a toss. If you shoot architecture then the SK IMO is the better option as it has less distortion. On the other hand the Rodenstock will have less colour cast and falloff when shifted (but will have a bit more CA)

What is it that you are missing with the 47XL and have you tried another copy or on another camera to eliminate any misalignment or calibration issues?

BR
Yair

Thanks Yair, my issue with the 47XL is that I on occasion see some centerfold lines, which are really hard to get rid off, even with a properly exposed LCC. I was hoping the Rodie would be better in that regard.
But maybe it is my back, as you might remember this is my second back which is much better that the first, but I still see the centerfolds now and then. Phase One support told me to get Rodenstock lenses instead of the Schneiders, but I really don't know if that's true with a 33 megapixel back...

Peter

[pemihan]

Update: The Rodie is on the way... I will post my findings once I have had a chance to do some testing..

Peter

[torger]

Thanks Yair, my issue with the 47XL is that I on occasion see some centerfold lines, which are really hard to get rid off, even with a properly exposed LCC. I was hoping the Rodie would be better in that regard.
But maybe it is my back, as you might remember this is my second back which is much better that the first, but I still see the centerfolds now and then. Phase One support told me to get Rodenstock lenses instead of the Schneiders, but I really don't know if that's true with a 33 megapixel back...

Peter

I use the 47XL al lot on my Aptus 75 (same sensor as yours), never have centerfold issues so I would suspect a calibration issue with your back? Centerfold is indeed found in the LCC shot if I increase contrast to a maximum, but in real imagemaking I have never had it visible even in plain skies and reasonably increased contrast.