Lens update: How much better are they?

[watsonking]

Years of architectural work has taught me more than a thing or two about clarity and straight lines but when it comes to updating the gear and moving into a technical camera for the bulk of your workflow, there seems to be many pros and cons to the lens selections!

Dealers have a wealth of knowledge however, will always pass over the Rodenstock Sironar Digital series to the latest "HR Digaron", is there that much difference when shot with either a 50MP (1.3 crop) or a 100MP? What about Schneider?

If you've used or have in use these lenses, I need some practical hands on review/opinions of both.

Tech Camera: Cambo WRS1600 or equivalent?
Lens Selections: Rodenstock or Schneider..... and why?

Cheers....Rodd

[Ray Harrison]

While Dave Chew isn’t an architectural photographer, he uses tech cameras extensively and has series of articles going over at phtotopxl on the subject. He’s just done one on lenses that’s worth checking out. https://photopxl.com/members/dchew/

If you haven’t, a great place to ask questions would be getdpi.com (Dave is very free with his knowledge and hangs out there, among many others).

[drewharty]

Hello Rodd,

I own and use both the Rodenstock Sironar digital lens and HR lens and have tested all of them. What distinguishes the HR lens is better sharpness at wide apertures and better sharpness in the corners. Some HR lens also have F4 apertures. HR lens have smaller image circles than than Sironar digital lens, which means I am sometimes using them tilted and shifted to their limit. From my experience, HR lens also offer better contrast and color saturation, but this is subjective and something you have control over in editing.

In a direct test between my Sironar digital 105 and HR 100, the 100 is noticeably sharper at F4 than the 105 at F5.6. At F8, the HR 100 still has a very slight advantage in sharpness, but not to a degree that I really notice it when making 30x50 or 40x60 prints on mat paper. The reason I prefer the HR 100 is because of its wider aperture is useful when photographing moving subjects in low light.

My HR 40, however, is the sharpest lens I own, and it did offer a noticeable improvement over my Sironar 45mm at all F-stops. I have only seen the HR 40's sharpness surpassed by Canon's TS-E 90 macro and Sony's 35 F1.4 GM. (I am sure there are other lens that will match its sharpness, but the 90 macro and 35 GM are the only ones I have tested.)

In my experience, your choice of tripod, your ability to focus precisely, and the media you print on or display to could have equal or greater affect on the sharpness you ultimately achieve from these lens.

Drew Harty
www.drewharty.com

[Doug Peterson]

Dealers have a wealth of knowledge however, will always pass over the Rodenstock Sironar Digital series to the latest "HR Digaron", is there that much difference when shot with either a 50MP (1.3 crop) or a 100MP? What about Schneider?

If you've used or have in use these lenses, I need some practical hands on review/opinions of both.

The largest improvement in lens quality in the past couple decades has come in wide-angle lens design. So there is very little comparison between older tech camera wides (e.g. Schneider 47 Super A) to newer tech camera wides (e.g. Schneider 47XL Digitar, or even more recent 43XL Digital, or Rodenstock 50HR). There simply isn't an old lens that can match the Rodenstock 32HR or 50HR.

With longer lenses the difference is still there, but is much less profound. For example the 90HR-SW is unquestionably a better lens than the 90HR but the latter is still a very strong lens.

With macro lenses (not heavily used in architecture I know, but while I'm discussing different lenses...) the difference is even less. Even a quite old 120mm Macro design like the 500 Series Zeiss 120mm (not a "tech cam lens" but works on a Cambo with the 500 adapter assuming you're using an IQ3 100mp or newer with an ES) will hold up pretty well to modern scrutiny. A more recent macro like the Schneider 120mm ASPH) is a better performer, but again, the difference is less stark.

As a separate but related topic, some digital sensors don't handle wide angle symmetrical lenses very well. So, for example, an IQ2 50mp or H5D-50c is not going to work especially well with a Schneider 28XL Super Digitar, especially with movement applied (even though the image circle spec would imply it would). Other sensors like the IQ4 150mp have no problem with wide-angle symmetrical. So do make sure you're aware of your specific model's limitations in this regard (you didn't mention which back you're using).

So if you're looking to balance budget and performance I'd stick with more recent wides, and older longs or macros.

By the way if you're working with a dealer that will "always pass over" older tech rather than trying to help you understand the performance and price of each option available to you (regardless of age) then you should consider working with a new dealer .