Doppler9000
Well-known member
Forgive me if this has been discussed, but a search proved fruitless. The Rodenstock has a bigger image circle, but do people have any other insights?
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Any insights on SK 72mm L versus Rodenstock HR Digaron-W 70mm?
- Thread starter Doppler9000
- Start date
I think there is still a side by side comparison with sample pictures here on getdpi somewhere.
I had both lenses and decided to keep a 72L just becasue it behaves better at wide range of scales - it's image quality remains great regardless if you are shooting at 1:3 or 1:300. It is also smaller and lighter, flare resistant, does not distort the image, has beautiful colour rendition and I really love that lens - it never fails me.
At the scales approaching infinity both lenses are great and it is really a coin toss - both lenses are fantastic. The image circle is very similar although 70HR's is slightly larger, you get around 90mm from 72L and at least 100-110mm at f11 and below from 70HR.
I had both lenses and decided to keep a 72L just becasue it behaves better at wide range of scales - it's image quality remains great regardless if you are shooting at 1:3 or 1:300. It is also smaller and lighter, flare resistant, does not distort the image, has beautiful colour rendition and I really love that lens - it never fails me.
At the scales approaching infinity both lenses are great and it is really a coin toss - both lenses are fantastic. The image circle is very similar although 70HR's is slightly larger, you get around 90mm from 72L and at least 100-110mm at f11 and below from 70HR.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
With one you can shift 15ish mm plus minus, with the other somewhere up to 25mm plus minus with back extension. Big difference.
SK smaller, rectilinear.
RS better at F4 - they will be similar within sweet spot at F11, with RS a hair more microcontrast, potentially.
Its the known differences between the brands with the biggie relating to IC on this one.
If you do not need the same amount of shift, you can't go wrong with the SK. For some, shift is important so RS it is.
SK smaller, rectilinear.
RS better at F4 - they will be similar within sweet spot at F11, with RS a hair more microcontrast, potentially.
Its the known differences between the brands with the biggie relating to IC on this one.
If you do not need the same amount of shift, you can't go wrong with the SK. For some, shift is important so RS it is.
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
The difference is that the 70 HR can be shifted more - its a nifty lens.
Both the 70mm Digaron-W and the 90mm Digaron-W are identical, but for name and color band, with their predecessors, Apo-Sironar Digital 70mm and Apo-Sironar Digital 90mm, respectively.
The 90mm Digaron-W got replaced by the 90mm Digaron-SW. A person who is in-the-know told me few years ago that the 70mm Digaron-W is scheduled for the "SW" replacement, but now I doubt we will ever see a SW version. Hence, the still current 70mm Digaron-W is an older lens design. Could be even the same generation as the SK 72mm.
The 90mm Digaron-W got replaced by the 90mm Digaron-SW. A person who is in-the-know told me few years ago that the 70mm Digaron-W is scheduled for the "SW" replacement, but now I doubt we will ever see a SW version. Hence, the still current 70mm Digaron-W is an older lens design. Could be even the same generation as the SK 72mm.
rdeloe
Well-known member
Someone on DPReview asked recently about the APO-Sironar Digital 70/5.6 version because he couldn't find accurate lens information. Oren Grad came through with a brochure from the original announcement of the lens. Here's the link:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
The generation or age per se does not matter in some instances as the lens design can be so good that it holds its own vs what comes after. SK and Rodenstock, depending on the lenses, often just relabeled analogue lenses to “digital” if the resolution was deemed sufficient for digital use.
The 70 HR is a true high resolution lens with an exceptional image circle and the Sironar digital labelled one was already excellent when it come out compared to the lenses of the same range.
It’s by all means every bit a modern HR lens than the other Digarons. Exceptional sharpness, no LCC, small and compact. Perfect.
The 70 HR is a true high resolution lens with an exceptional image circle and the Sironar digital labelled one was already excellent when it come out compared to the lenses of the same range.
It’s by all means every bit a modern HR lens than the other Digarons. Exceptional sharpness, no LCC, small and compact. Perfect.
Shame, states nowhere the year.
Apparently, the APO-Sironar Digital 70/5.6 must have been the last lens of the Apo-Sironar digital line.
I have no firsthand knowledge to either agree or disagree here, but there seems to be a general consensus that for the 90mm there was jump in performance going from "W" to "SW". I think it is reasonable to assume that we might have seen something similar for the 70mm.
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
The historic context is important.
The 70 sinaron digital was deemed so good that it didn’t need an update to be classified as an HR lens. The 90 sinaron digital was also classified as an HR lens. That was around 15 years ago Rodenstock’s highest res lens line. The 90 SW was part of a new class of lenses which have a very large IC and sharpness to the edges of a 120mm IC optimized for 5 microns. The only other lens like this is the 138mm.
So the reason you need an SW class is because the longer you get the more useful it is to have a large IC to stitch and the more complex it becomes to have a 100 plus IC that’s totally sharp.
The 90 HR was already a great lens, but the edge performance was updated to SW for larger stitches which does make sense with this focal length.
So it is important to note that from the old sinaron digital line the 70 and 90 were taken over as HR W lensss while the 23 HR S was taken on the widest side to remain part of the portfolio while all focal lengths between the 23 and 70 were updated around 15 years ago with new 90mm IC designs to cater to the then emerging new line of sensors with 80 megapixels and a size of 54x40 mm which required a larger IC to have enough shift.
The Digaron S lensss were created in a time where there were still smaller than full frame sensors.
The 70 sinaron digital was deemed so good that it didn’t need an update to be classified as an HR lens. The 90 sinaron digital was also classified as an HR lens. That was around 15 years ago Rodenstock’s highest res lens line. The 90 SW was part of a new class of lenses which have a very large IC and sharpness to the edges of a 120mm IC optimized for 5 microns. The only other lens like this is the 138mm.
So the reason you need an SW class is because the longer you get the more useful it is to have a large IC to stitch and the more complex it becomes to have a 100 plus IC that’s totally sharp.
The 90 HR was already a great lens, but the edge performance was updated to SW for larger stitches which does make sense with this focal length.
So it is important to note that from the old sinaron digital line the 70 and 90 were taken over as HR W lensss while the 23 HR S was taken on the widest side to remain part of the portfolio while all focal lengths between the 23 and 70 were updated around 15 years ago with new 90mm IC designs to cater to the then emerging new line of sensors with 80 megapixels and a size of 54x40 mm which required a larger IC to have enough shift.
The Digaron S lensss were created in a time where there were still smaller than full frame sensors.
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
That's most likely because of market value (function of the ring colour and supply of other blue ring for not a so high price), condition, and the fact that you have unmounted lenses which means its another 1.2-2.5k to mount per lens, but not due to performance.
The 70 was updated to blue ring so that devalued magenta ring. 90 was updated to blue ring and then replaced by yellow ring which means that between magenta and blue ring, despite being the same, the blue ring has a higher value.
On top magenta ring are older lenses which often do not look like on day 1 anymore and where the risk of a slightly bent copal is also higher - ofc to be validated via tests.
Lastly some people don't want an "ugly duckling" magenta variant within their HR-W blue ring collection.
That's why especially the 70 and 90 magenta ring are not so sought after, but in return excellent value. I've seen magenta 90s go for 800-900 bucks, which is a steal. The 90 deteriorates when shifted beyond 15mm, but for practical purposes its a great lens, on top of being symmetrical in design ie with lower distortion.
exactly, amazing value for folks with an Actus or pico
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Its a bit of a subjective list focused on 645 frame size with regards to the Rodie HR classification IMHO; the 35 HR is sharper than the 32 HR but has no shift - is this why it is an A vs. A++ considering the list is for "645" sensors? I have the 35 - it is absolutely brilliant for one-shot, but if you want to use it on 645 the 32 has shift and is therefore more useful. So in this regard i find singling out in the title "performance" not ideal, at least to me as a word, primarily implies sth about sharpness across the frame, but clearly here we also have elements of shiftability and hence "usefulness" for "full frame" included and it would have been great if this list had a few more comments to it, mentioning for example that the 35 is great say on an Alpa TC as an compact wide-angle landscape lens.
The 40 and 50 HR are also basically the same except that you might argue that at the edges the 40 HR performs less well, but this has to do more with the wide-angle nature than the lens per se - its absolutely sharp. I also have not seen a big sharpness loss on a 70 HR or anything like that - its more like most people prefer the 90 as next step up from 40/50 and the 70 HR is often overlooked in portfolio composition - its like the 75mm focal length of Leica lenses - its great, but not popular.
On the 90 - a lot of people are enamored with it and I like it too - but it tends to be on too much on the long side to be an all-purpose lens for tech cams, except if you really like the slightly longer than 50mm in 35mm terms "natural" perspective it gives you - but for landscape photography of course a must, especially on a cam like a Pano.
So from all lenses above, the 50 HR both in terms of sharpness and usefulness tops my personal list - its truly useful as a focul length for many applications, very sharp, compact, really great and the 35 / 70 HR are maybe not A+, but that's not solely due to performance in the strict sense, but more like a combo of elements like usefulness, sharpness, IC size and just lens size - it is physically not that large.
The 40 and 50 HR are also basically the same except that you might argue that at the edges the 40 HR performs less well, but this has to do more with the wide-angle nature than the lens per se - its absolutely sharp. I also have not seen a big sharpness loss on a 70 HR or anything like that - its more like most people prefer the 90 as next step up from 40/50 and the 70 HR is often overlooked in portfolio composition - its like the 75mm focal length of Leica lenses - its great, but not popular.
On the 90 - a lot of people are enamored with it and I like it too - but it tends to be on too much on the long side to be an all-purpose lens for tech cams, except if you really like the slightly longer than 50mm in 35mm terms "natural" perspective it gives you - but for landscape photography of course a must, especially on a cam like a Pano.
So from all lenses above, the 50 HR both in terms of sharpness and usefulness tops my personal list - its truly useful as a focul length for many applications, very sharp, compact, really great and the 35 / 70 HR are maybe not A+, but that's not solely due to performance in the strict sense, but more like a combo of elements like usefulness, sharpness, IC size and just lens size - it is physically not that large.
Last edited:
To be honest, I thought this listing was just profit-oriented back then, the more expensive the better!
If I remember correctly, even the 120 BR macro was only A at first but I think they got a call from Phase One.
And today the 70 HR XT tilt is selling for 10.5k dollars, how embarrassing.
If I remember correctly, even the 120 BR macro was only A at first but I think they got a call from Phase One.
And today the 70 HR XT tilt is selling for 10.5k dollars, how embarrassing.
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
You are right, I also thought about that back then. Ie it cannot be that 120 BR is worse than the Hassy equivalent! And DT has been also very strategic in the past in selling tech cam gear with reserving the domain for the digital back phasoneiq4 and I also remember once trying to make a case for Arca vs. Alpa only to then in the end concede that they are an Arca, but not Alpa dealer and that Alpa camera do look good, etc.
So definitely good to form one's own opinion first hand.
I agree on the 80 LS, 55 LS lenses though - I thankfully sold the 55 which had mushy corners and the 80 LS never struck me as great corner-wise too which it should for a standard lens of a system; which is why the 80 MK II came out which is really outstanding, most likely the sharpest 80 2.8 for full frame MF.
Last edited:
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Officially, the Rodenstock 70 HR-W Tilt for XT is $10,490, not $14,000. You're only off by about 30%, so perrretty close.
Steve Hendrix/CI