Fuji GF 30mm Tilt Shift and Rodenstock 32mm HR Digaron-W Lens Comparison

[diggles]

Just in case anyone is interested, I've added a short article on my website comparing these two lenses. It includes a link to a Flickr album with the full size JPG files. The caveat is that the 32HR images were made 2 years ago and the 30mm TS images were made over the weekend. However, despite the time gap, this comparison can still help you see how these lenses stack up against each other.

Fuji GF 30mm Tilt Shift and Rodenstock 32mm HR Digaron-W Lens Comparison - Diggles Photography

Read articles about commercial photography topics related to professional headshots, architectural photography, industrial photography, and medical photography.

www.digglesphotography.com

Warren

 

[rdeloe]

Warren, this is amazing. Thanks for doing the work and sharing the results.

Some observations from pouring over the images...

• I compared the Schneider to the Rodenstock, and am impressed by the Schneider. Yes, it falls apart at the far shifted side, which is a liability, but otherwise it looks sharper to my eye than the Rodenstock.
• The Fuji is astonishing. I don't see any part of the image that isn't better or dramatically better in the Fuji scene. It does look a bit crunchy, so I might dial back sharpening a bit. But otherwise it's just excellent.

Samples I've seen from the GF 110mm t-s lens are also superb. I think Fuji could wrap up your field of photography with a bow and own it if they could (1) get the corrections you have in C1 into Lightroom, and (2) release a 21mm and 50mm t-s lens. Done and done.

 

[P. Chong]

Thanks for the interesting comparison…if anyone is interested, I did one comparing the Rodenstock HR50 with the cheap GF50. Here is the article.

 

[rdeloe]

Thanks for the interesting comparison…if anyone is interested, I did one comparing the Rodenstock HR50 with the cheap GF50. Here is the article.

I enjoyed that comparison too. Nicely done. The Rodenstock darned well better be a big improvement over the GF 50! I'm glad to see that it is.

 

[jng]

Hi Warren,

This is an interesting and timely comparison. The performance of the Fuji 30 t/s lens is indeed impressive! To bring make this more of an apples-to-apples comparison, how do the 32HR and SK 35XL fare when the image is cropped to 101 Mp to emulate the sensor size of the Fuji?

Re: the "crunchiness" that @rdeloe mentioned above, in my experience the modern lenses, such as those in the Hasselblad XCD line, tend to render more clinically than the older lens designs and even the more recent Rodenstock lenses. Is this your impression as well? In any case, I wonder whether this is mainly due to the default settings in C1 for these lenses (or Phocus in the case of Hasselblad lenses) than a property of the glass itself.

John

 

[rdeloe]

I cropped the same common section around the building for each corrected sample and exported them to 10000 pixels on the long edge. That gets us closer to an apples-to-apples comparison. Here are four samples at 200% that show sections of the images that stood out for me.

In each comparison image, it goes Fuji GF 30mm, Schneider-Kreuznach 35mm XL, and Rodenstock HR Digaron 32mm.

 

[rdeloe]

Hi Warren,

This is an interesting and timely comparison. The performance of the Fuji 30 t/s lens is indeed impressive! To bring make this more of an apples-to-apples comparison, how do the 32HR and SK 35XL fare when the image is cropped to 101 Mp to emulate the sensor size of the Fuji?

Re: the "crunchiness" that @rdeloe mentioned above, in my experience the modern lenses, such as those in the Hasselblad XCD line, tend to render more clinically than the older lens designs and even the more recent Rodenstock lenses. Is this your impression as well? In any case, I wonder whether this is mainly due to the default settings in C1 for these lenses (or Phocus in the case of Hasselblad lenses) than a property of the glass itself.

John

On the crunchiness, I'd have to see RAW files to be sure, but I suspect it has to do with how the files were processed. For example, I find with the same lens, a GFX 50R looks very sharp and crunchy in comparison to a GFX 100S file when it comes into Lightroom with all defaults. I can make the 100S file look a lot more like the 50R file, and vice versa, with some adjustments.

 

[John Black]

Crunchy or not, if the Schneider and Rodenstock results were what I was getting off the IQ3-100 or IQ4-150, I'd be upset. I'm just looking at the crops posted by Rob. I haven't read Warren's article, so maybe I'll have a different opinion after reading it, but if going solely by the crops, sure looks like an easy win for the Fuji.

 

[usm]

wish there would be a way to use the Fujis on the 907x...

Whats the price difference of the Fuji and the Rodenstock lens?

 

[Ben730]

I did a comparison with my IQ3100 + 32 HR-W vs. GFX100s + 30t/s in front of a camera store.
My conclusion was that focusing with the Fuji is very time-consuming and not always 100 percent reliable for me.
The 32HR-W had more CA in the corners but was clearly sharper with 10 mm shift.
If you compare the prices, the Fuji is the clear winner. Both systems are excellent.
My favorite setup remains Cambo WRS, 23 HR + IQ250.

 

[diggles]

Warren, this is amazing. Thanks for doing the work and sharing the results.

Some observations from pouring over the images...

• I compared the Schneider to the Rodenstock, and am impressed by the Schneider. Yes, it falls apart at the far shifted side, which is a liability, but otherwise it looks sharper to my eye than the Rodenstock.
• The Fuji is astonishing. I don't see any part of the image that isn't better or dramatically better in the Fuji scene. It does look a bit crunchy, so I might dial back sharpening a bit. But otherwise it's just excellent.

Samples I've seen from the GF 110mm t-s lens are also superb. I think Fuji could wrap up your field of photography with a bow and own it if they could (1) get the corrections you have in C1 into Lightroom, and (2) release a 21mm and 50mm t-s lens. Done and done.

Hey Rob,

The crunchiness was noticeable to me as well. At first I was addressing this by lowering the clarity slightly, changing the radius to .5, and upping the sharpening amount a bit as well. In ACR, this formula does a nice job of smoothing out blocks of color and sharpening the finest details, but I started to feel like I was influencing the final images in this test so I scrapped those adjustments and just used C1's default sharpening instead. My understanding is that the default sharpening is determined by the camera/digital back being used.

Fuji really did deliver with these two tilt shift lenses. Here is a 15mm left right stitch image of the Denver skyline made with the GF 110mm TS…
Lens Test - GF 110mm TS - Downtown Denver by Warren Diggles, on Flickr

I've made panoramic images of this same scene with the 120 ASPH and the 110mm TS delivers every bit of detail that the 120 ASPH does.

I'm hoping Fuji views the TS lenses as a successful venture so they continue the line. A 21mm and 50mm would be fantastic!

 

[Paul Spinnler]

For the price the Fuji TS is clearly a winner. But what about these points:

1. Fuji only allows for one-directional shift; that's sometimes inconvenient in the field and makes multi-row stitching difficult
2. DR – from what I understand it does not approach IQ4
3. Frame averaging – no substitute
4. Modularity – the camera is the back and as such the system is not modular, meaning down the line you cannot play around with systems; I've over time expanded the homes for the IQ4 from Alpa only to Alpa, Cambo via XT and Arca
5. Compactness – the Fuji system is less compact that a Cambo with IQ4!
6. Haptics – I haven't tried Fuji TS, but the Fuji base lenses felt not as nice and solid as Rodie HR lenses – a factor at least to me
7. The lenses have an IC of 80 which is below the SK lenses at 90+, the Rodie W and SW lines and the sensor can only be shifted within the remit of the pre-defined shift area of the TS lenses, ie you cannot go 35mm left and right as you can with the 120AA
8. User experience as outlined in the view camera thread is totally different – not better or worse, but one can have a preference

So it seems to me that it is a good option from 35mm to migrate to Fuji and overall a good price / performance ratio with the new T/S offering, but, all things considered, it is only compareable to a certain extent.

For 20 Fuji systems sold you have 1 P1 system sold; that's fine and a function of the value proposition.

But is it really that compareable?

 

[diggles]

Hi Warren,

This is an interesting and timely comparison. The performance of the Fuji 30 t/s lens is indeed impressive! To bring make this more of an apples-to-apples comparison, how do the 32HR and SK 35XL fare when the image is cropped to 101 Mp to emulate the sensor size of the Fuji?

Re: the "crunchiness" that @rdeloe mentioned above, in my experience the modern lenses, such as those in the Hasselblad XCD line, tend to render more clinically than the older lens designs and even the more recent Rodenstock lenses. Is this your impression as well? In any case, I wonder whether this is mainly due to the default settings in C1 for these lenses (or Phocus in the case of Hasselblad lenses) than a property of the glass itself.

John

Hey John,

As much as comparing the lenses to one another, my goal was also to compare the camera systems for wide angle tilt shift photography. In a way it is an apple-to-apples comparison because the Phase One XT + 32HR X-Shutter and the GFX 100 II + 30mm TS are comparable in a number of ways.

• The same sensor technology / pixel density
• 15mm of shift in any direction
• Image circle doesn't really matter because both lenses should be able to use all 15mm of shift
• Automatically record movements in meta data
• Lens distortion is easily addressed in Capture One

In my opinion the 32HR is to the XT what the 30TS is to the GFX. Of course there are number of pluses and minuses for each system.

• The 32HR + XT has XY shifting, but tilt direction is dependent on camera orientation
• The 30TS + GFX does not have XY shifting, but tilts independently of the camera orientation
• The XT is compatible with a full range of lenses, while the GF TS lineup is very limited
• The GFX 100 II + 30TS + 110TS is roughly the same price as the 32HR X-Shutter with Tilt lens without the camera or back

The SK 35XL is a bit of an outlier in this test. It is a wonderful lens, but the IQ4 150 shows its limitations. If and when Hasselblad comes out with the CFV 100C, pairing it with the 35XL will be an excellent combination for wide angle tilt shift photography with many benefits.

• No need to capture movements in metadata because the lens does not exhibit distortion
• Compact and light
• Readily available
• 35XL + CFV 100C + Tech Cam will be roughly the same price as the Fuji system
• etc.

My opinion is that the crunchiness is mainly due to the default settings in C1, which is something I'm still learning how to deal with.

 

[rdeloe]

For the price the Fuji TS is clearly a winner. But what about these points:

1. Fuji only allows for one-directional shift; that's sometimes inconvenient in the field and makes multi-row stitching difficult
2. DR – from what I understand it does not approach IQ4
3. Frame averaging – no substitute
4. Modularity – the camera is the back and as such the system is not modular, meaning down the line you cannot play around with systems; I've over time expanded the homes for the IQ4 from Alpa only to Alpa, Cambo via XT and Arca
5. Compactness – the Fuji system is less compact that a Cambo with IQ4!
6. Haptics – I haven't tried Fuji TS, but the Fuji base lenses felt not as nice and solid as Rodie HR lenses – a factor at least to me
7. The lenses have an IC of 80 which is below the SK lenses at 90+, the Rodie W and SW lines and the sensor can only be shifted within the remit of the pre-defined shift area of the TS lenses, ie you cannot go 35mm left and right as you can with the 120AA
8. User experience as outlined in the view camera thread is totally different – not better or worse, but one can have a preference

So it seems to me that it is a good option from 35mm to migrate to Fuji and overall a good price / performance ratio with the new T/S offering, but, all things considered, it is only compareable to a certain extent.

For 20 Fuji systems sold you have 1 P1 system sold; that's fine and a function of the value proposition.

But is it really that compareable?

I prefer digital view cameras, for many of the reasons you outline here. The GF 30mm t-s is much better than what I'm using now in 28mm and 35mm. I could easily replace both those lenses with a GF 30mm t-s lens. The total weight would be a tiny bit more, but it's close. Logically, that is the smart thing to do. However, I don't like t-s lenses, and I don't really need what the GF lens does extremely well (shift 15mm).

However, were I a commercial photographer like Warren, shooting architecture and interiors, it would be a no brainer: Fuji GF all the way, especially when (if) they bring out a 21mm and 50mm t-s lens.

 

[rdeloe]

The SK 35XL is a bit of an outlier in this test. It is a wonderful lens, but the IQ4 150 shows its limitations. If and when Hasselblad comes out with the CFV 100C, pairing it with the 35XL will be an excellent combination for wide angle tilt shift photography with many benefits.

Your demonstration has put that lens back on my radar for down the road. The light falloff on the SK 35XL in your sample images was not as bad as I was expecting, and to my eye it looked better overall than the Rodenstock 32mm in your samples.

There's no point in me getting the SK 35 XL now because it's severely movement constrained on a GFX setup. However, with a CFV 100C back, I'd get the full image circle back on my F-Universalis. I'd also get the full image circle back with my Mamiya N 43mm f/4.5 L, which is currently movement constrained on GFX. Oh dear, financially speaking.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I prefer digital view cameras, for many of the reasons you outline here. The GF 30mm t-s is much better than what I'm using now in 28mm and 35mm. I could easily replace both those lenses with a GF 30mm t-s lens. The total weight would be a tiny bit more, but it's close. Logically, that is the smart thing to do. However, I don't like t-s lenses, and I don't really need what the GF lens does extremely well (shift 15mm).

However, were I a commercial photographer like Warren, shooting architecture and interiors, it would be a no brainer: Fuji GF all the way, especially when (if) they bring out a 21mm and 50mm t-s lens.

I think the Fuji is the ideal upgrade for "35mm"ers or "35mm natives" if this is a term. Ie it beats in all regards what the Canon stuff does, especially optically with the new T/S stuff. For the money it is a no-brainer if you are into architectural photography with Canon T/S to look at Fuji T/S and upgrade. Ie primary concern is bang for the buck and sharpness to the edges vs. the inferior Canon optics.

Legacy "LFers" and "film people" look at this from the "view camera approach to photo life" angle, meaning the tech cams of today are neatless transitions of a beloved, slower and more focused working style – but in the digital domain.

Phase One IQ4 – is therefore a totally different value proposition with overlaps with the Fuji, but then also so much more. Including, but not only, the view camera way of life.

Price-wise no comparison and each and everyone needs to make a choice constrained by their budgets and preferences.

 

[diggles]

For the price the Fuji TS is clearly a winner. But what about these points:

1. Fuji only allows for one-directional shift; that's sometimes inconvenient in the field and makes multi-row stitching difficult
2. DR – from what I understand it does not approach IQ4
3. Frame averaging – no substitute
4. Modularity – the camera is the back and as such the system is not modular, meaning down the line you cannot play around with systems; I've over time expanded the homes for the IQ4 from Alpa only to Alpa, Cambo via XT and Arca
5. Compactness – the Fuji system is less compact that a Cambo with IQ4!
6. Haptics – I haven't tried Fuji TS, but the Fuji base lenses felt not as nice and solid as Rodie HR lenses – a factor at least to me
7. The lenses have an IC of 80 which is below the SK lenses at 90+, the Rodie W and SW lines and the sensor can only be shifted within the remit of the pre-defined shift area of the TS lenses, ie you cannot go 35mm left and right as you can with the 120AA
8. User experience as outlined in the view camera thread is totally different – not better or worse, but one can have a preference

So it seems to me that it is a good option from 35mm to migrate to Fuji and overall a good price / performance ratio with the new T/S offering, but, all things considered, it is only compareable to a certain extent.

For 20 Fuji systems sold you have 1 P1 system sold; that's fine and a function of the value proposition.

But is it really that compareable?

While I don't agree with all of the above, they are all valid points I've considered when choosing a camera. Like you, I've played around with a number of different systems and ended up where I am now with the GFX. I'm a huge fan of tech cameras and am seriously considering getting the HBLD CFV 100C if and when it does come out. Beyond the back, I'm not sure if I'll go with a field camera or tech cam setup.

 

[diggles]

However, with a CFV 100C back, I'd get the full image circle back on my F-Universalis. I'd also get the full image circle back with my Mamiya N 43mm f/4.5 L, which is currently movement constrained on GFX. Oh dear, financially speaking.

Lol! I'm looking forward to the "CFV 100C back on the F-Universalis" review article!

 

[Paul Spinnler]

While I don't agree with all of the above, they are all valid points I've considered when choosing a camera. Like you, I've played around with a number of different systems and ended up where I am now with the GFX. I'm a huge fan of tech cameras and am seriously considering getting the HBLD CFV 100C if and when it does come out. Beyond the back, I'm not sure if I'll go with a field camera or tech cam setup.

I can see you are lurking a lot in the MF section I think you might come back for an Arca down the line with a Hassy back. Look, no shame to be dragged in again.

It happens a lot here.

 

[diggles]

I can see you are lurking a lot in the MF section I think you might come back for an Arca down the line with a Hassy back. Look, no shame to be dragged in again.

It happens a lot here.

Yes it does. The tech cam gear I recently sold was my second time around, third time is a charm!