Sorry, I'll use your thread to ask you a question. So, are Rodenstock and Schneider digital lenses for tech cam performing better than, let's say Schneider LS lenses for Mamiya/Phase One?
AF speed(or speed at all) is not my concern neither, ultimate quality is.
So, even if i don"t need TS movements, is it better to go with tech cam, because of lenses? I mostly do macro or middle range studio still life.
This would help me decide which path to go. Thanks!
I'm sure archivue doesn't mind.
The best way to answer this question is to work with a dealer to do your own testing (your own kinds of subject matter, your own working distances, your own eyes doing the judging).
Depending where you are we (Digital Transitions) can help you with that by testing-at-our-studio or shipped-rental-counted-towards-purchase.
But to answer your question generally: yes. The amount of difference varies from "tons" to "very little" depending on which lenses you're talking about and what digital back you're using them with.
For instance with an IQ160 and a Schneider 60mm XL the quality compared to the Schneider 55LS (which is a good lens) is pretty large. While the difference between a Schneider 150LS and a Schneider 150XL with an Aptus 22 is going to be "very little".
Here are some rules of thumb*:
- in every case that I can think of the Schneider/Rodenstock digital lenses are better (resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration, micro constrast). The only question is by how much.
- sharpness isn't the only thing to consider; you may well prefer the rendering of a particular lens for real-world work even if another lens offers you another X% of resolving power in a lab test. So make sure to, wherever possible, shoot actual objects relevant to your needs
- the wider the lens the greater the difference (e.g. 55LS vs. 60XL compared to 120D vs. 120XL).
- All the LS lenses are good, but the macro and portrait length DF lenses are all REALLY freaking good. Can I find differences between the 120D on a DF and the 120 Macro Digitar on an view camera: sure, but again - the 120D is really freaking good, even for those with very high standards.
- the higher the resolution the back the greater the difference (minor differences with a 22mp are often meaningful differences at 40mp and big differences at 80mp)
- the differences are more often at the corners than the center. Often product photography includes highly detailed and important subject matter in the corners, but often it does not. Look through your portfolio to get a rough idea of how often you place important subjects in the corners.
- most of the large format lenses are optimized fairly heavily for stopped down shooting while the SLR lenses have a greater design emphasis on good performance wide-open. If you shoot all products always stopped down versus food often wide open this can mean a big practical difference.
- diffraction will even out the sharpness differences for high-DOF apertures (e.g. f/22) depending on which digital back
- some lenses, like the Schneider 120 Macro Digitar are also made in a mount for the DF (e.g. the Schneider 120TS for the DF) in which case you get the quality of the best possible glass with the convenience of an SLR body.
- chromatic aberration in in-focus areas can usually be easily removed in Capture One (the algorithm in LR4 is not anywhere near as good) but chromatic aberration in out of focus areas can be a big problem in product photography where a specific brand-color can end up with a purple or green fringe that is very noticeable and ugly. The large format lenses show less CA across the board.
*All of these comments are in regard specifically to the latest generation of Schneider and Rodentock digital glass. Not to older view camera lenses, such as early digital designs made for low-res digital backs and especially designs made for large-format film which would need to be discussed separately (some are quite good, some are awful).
