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!

comparision between Digaron-W 50 mm, Grandagon 65 mm, Biogon 53 mm

doccdiamond

Member
So here are some answers:
Grandagon-N lenses are indeed a new generation of the grandagon design but totally different.
You dont see it from outside but inside.
The glasses inside except the big outer glass are different mounted and itself different. I repaired and cleaned both of these lenses and could always get substitute glasses for the newer N but the glasses for the earlier Grandagon were sold out. It was not possible to use Grandagon-N glasses inside Grandagon, they are physicly not compatible.
Mr Wenzel tryed always to help but the was no way to get Grandagon parts any more.
Also the coutings inside are different: the grandagon has single couted glasses inside, the Grandagon -N glasses are all MC couted- therefore the N have more contrast especially at wide aperture.
When used it classic way for 4x5 at aperture 22 the differences are not so clear, but at 11 you will see it, especially with digital back or camera.
Why Rodenstock lenses were sold under different names?
The reason is that at the 80 ties Rodenstock wants to expand.
Thay start to sell Rodenstock lenses at cheaper prices under calumet name, the production had to be cheaper so the end control of the calumet lenses was poor compared to Rodenstock original lenses.
Sinar did not liked the quality of rodenstock lenses at this time and startet to use the Sinar name for Rodenstock lenses as a best quality standart. So about 30 procent of the rodenstock lenses Sinar has to send back becouse of poor quality- these were the statements it these times. So with Sinar selected lenses you got the best quality for sure.
Rodenstock maybe and caltar maybe not. But this must not mean that all caltars are poor. More that the possibility to get a poor lens is with caltar the highest.
Later Rodenstock get much critics from users and the quality at all become better.
Schneider tryed also to go this way - globalisation- and wanted to start a schneider lens production in Korea.
So there are some strange Schneider lenses with wrong names on it - these are the glasses from this try, that schneider left in korea.
And this might be the case today with differently branded Rodies as well - tighter tolerances or another quality check like SINAR did.
 

Alkibiades

Well-known member
And this might be the case today with differently branded Rodies as well - tighter tolerances or another quality check like SINAR did.
nowerdays the Digaron lenses are so complicated lens designs, they need much higher precision in production and in mounting, so the quality control at Rodenstock is on much higher level.
What we as users would really need is a full system check: that means the back, the backadapter, the technical camera, the lensbord or helical mount, shutter and the lens. That means the whole system.
Till know the user is the real end controler of such system, I would wish the companies could do this whole check.
 

doccdiamond

Member
nowerdays the Digaron lenses are so complicated lens designs, they need much higher precision in production and in mounting, so the quality control at Rodenstock is on much higher level.
What we as users would really need is a full system check: that means the back, the backadapter, the technical camera, the lensbord or helical mount, shutter and the lens. That means the whole system.
Till know the user is the real end controler of such system, I would wish the companies could do this whole check.
That's unfortunately true but some suppliers assist you by this or design at least their equipments that it is adjustable, e.g. by making spacers available between the back and the camera/frame. It is especially a topic in the TechCam world as these are very often components sourced individually from different suppliers (Lens, Frame/camera, Back).
I am already satisfied if the supplier accepts the challenge to fine-tune/improve the performance and not just telling you "it is in spec..." (first ALPA/Rodenstock and Leica, latter one is e.g. Nikon, more than once)
 
Top