Any insights on SK 72mm L versus Rodenstock HR Digaron-W 70mm?

[Phase V]

OK, thanks for pointing that out, I have corrected it.

 

[Alkibiades]

I’ve got a 70 and 90 digital magenta ring. Had them on buy sell for awhile. No takers.

The problem is that the most people did not understand that the magenta 70 mm and 90 mm have absolutly no difference to the Blue ring 70 mm and 90 mm.
They think that for the change must be a real reason, an update or technical, optical progress, but there is non. absolutly zero.
I talk with the man who develope both lenses- there are no differences. The change of the color of the rings and of the name had only reason in new public relation.
So the new name was introduced: Digaron.
The Digarons get then 3 groups, the IC is there now the reason for the name of the lens.
But the 70 mm and 90 mm are a completely different lenses.
90 mm is a classic symmetrical wide angle lensedesign: Biogon/Grandagon. 8 Elements lensdesign, but compared with film grandagons with smaller IC. You can compare this lens to superior Nikkor 8/90 mm that have bigger image angle of 105°, or the latest Schneider Super Angulon 6,8/90 mm that has also 8 element lensdesign and smaller 100° image angle, that make him sharper.
The 70 mm is indeed a modern retrofocus lens and the father of all digaron-W lenses.
rodenstock made the new retrofocus apo sironar digital HR lenses indeed for smaller sensors, but the 70 mm was made for large scanning backs. also the classic apo sironar digital lenses should at this time be for scanning backs, that had big sensors. It was not clear in what direction the high end photography will go, small high pixels sensors or big scanning backs. the first is now the standart but it could be indeed the different direction the future.
The 70 mm has a much more easy lens design compared to 32-40-50 digaron -W or the new 90 mm digaron-SW. So at the edges you will see a difference. But the developer of the 70 mm was very proud of this lens, it is still pretty good and much cheaper, becouse of the easier lensdesign. Itis still a very good lens and easy to use.
when you need a superb lens for stichings the 90 SW is simply the best option here but if the movements are not crazy large the 70 mm will do the job.

 

[ThdeDude]

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.

If I may jump in. Someone here (Alkibiades, I think) did some testing of the Digaron-S 35mm and demonstrated/concluded that there is about 9mm useful shift on a Sony Type 4.2 sensor (53.7mm x 40.4mm)

I have both, Digaron-W 32mm and Digaron-S 35mm, and wouldn't say that one is intrinsically more or less useful than the other, it's really horses for courses.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I haven’t said anything else - the main point is that the list from a few years ago is not logically stringent as to the ranking approach; if you measure it by sharpness alone, the 35-S is a magnificent lens. If you say sharpness and image circle size for full frame - that’s then another criterium on top. I am just saying that the 35 is an excellent optic, right up there with the 32 if you have a smaller chip. The 32 replaced it of course as most want the larger IC, but this said it’s amazing in itself and more compact why there’s still a reason to own it.

This makes sense as the concentrated IC typically means that you’ll have higher res given a like for like lens system design (same or similar amount of lens groups, similar glass types, construction etc). The S series was and still is in some regards technologically cutting edge. Only the advent of 54x40 chips led to the development of the W and SW series to also provide shift on large chips.

The rattler Digaron S are amazing and we still have the 180s and 23s of course

 

[ThdeDude]

.. the 35 is an excellent optic, right up there with the 32 if you have a smaller chip. The 32 replaced it of course ...

I don't want to come across as argumentative but, IMHO, the Digaron-S 35mm is very useable lens even on a Sony Type 4.2 sensor (53.7mm x 40.4mm).

As I wrote previously, someone here (Alkibiades, I think) did some testing of the Digaron-S 35mm and demonstrated/concluded that there is about 9mm useful shift on a Sony Type 4.2 sensor (53.7mm x 40.4mm). Not much, but sometimes just a little shift or tilt goes a long way.

But you are correct in that if someone wants, for example, to use 6x7 rollfilm, then the Digaron-W 32mm is the (only) way to go.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I have the 35 and a full frame sensor, there is a bit of shift, but not much. Would need to check tomorrow how much again, I slap it just on the Alpa TC so it’s not a problem.

The 35S is unique because it’s as wide as the 32 almost, so wide, but very compact so perfect as a one shot system like back in the day the P1 A series

 

[AreBee]

...testing of the Digaron-S 35mm and demonstrated/concluded that there is about 9mm useful shift on a Sony Type 4.2 sensor (53.7mm x 40.4mm). Not much, but sometimes just a little shift or tilt goes a long way.

Alas, my understanding is that on an ALPA the 35mm cannot tilt (available LB only).