Interesting that the "recommended working aperture" stated in the Data Sheet is limited to f/6.5. Other Digaron lenses have a range of recommended working apertures.
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!
Rodenstock 138 Heft
- Thread starter hotshoe
- Start date
dchew
Well-known member
I've done a bunch of testing on the 138f, some with Jim Kasson. I am convinced that recommendation is just a comment on how to achieve the absolute sharpest image on-center. I can say that stopping down to f/8 does help on the outer edge of the image circle. The example below is wide open shifted L/R 20mm AND rise/fall 20mm, so the corners are at 123mm image circle. The f/8 version measures a tiny bit better on the corners, not quite as good in the center. I say "measures" because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference on screen. I have no issue shooting this lens up to f/16 using just C1's basic diffraction correction.
Note the image below is a resized jpeg from the tiff. The original tiff has almost identical aliasing in all five crops. It really is a special lens to do that wide open @ 123mm IC. If anyone wants the originals, pm me.
Dave
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
One final consideration on x-shuter: retrofitting x-shutter after the fact is significantly more expensive than ordering it right away with the lens - also something to consider. I am retrifitting one Alpa lens, costs north of USD4500 ... whereas list price difference is like 2000 I think ...
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Confirmed, if ordering an X Shutter mount vs an Aperture Mount, the difference is in the $2,000 -$2,3000 range, depending upon the lens.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Good to know. Thanks for letting us know.
hotshoe
Member
Thanks again for all the inputs on the 138. My copy arrived yesterday (thank you @Steve Hendrix 
), and my first impression is very positive. I don't have enough time with the lens to comment on it optically, other than to say I have no regrets buying this lens after reviewing my first batch of test images. I think it will make a great complement to the 40 as part of a two-lens kit. Also, while not a small or light lens, it's smaller in person that what I was envisioning (I have SB version) and no problem whatsoever making room for it in my backpack. The lens looks and feels to be built like a tank, and has weight to match, but it doesn't make sense IMHO to have the extra pound relative to other options be a deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how I feel about getting it in AU (instead of waiting for X-Shutter version) after a year or so of shooting both it and the 40 (which has X-Shutter). I'm not convinced I need X-Shutter for what I shoot (mainly landscape), but it's certainly a nice-to-have. Similar to my reaction with the 138, the X-shutter subassembly (on the 40) is smaller in person than what I was envisioning, and probably lighter too. Having now seen the 138 and the X-Shutter assembly in person, had X-Shutter been available today on the 138 (or in the very near future) I'd would have given consideration to paying the extra ~$2,200 for the option (over AU), but by no means would it be an easy decision for me. Sometimes it's nice not needing to decide.
), and my first impression is very positive. I don't have enough time with the lens to comment on it optically, other than to say I have no regrets buying this lens after reviewing my first batch of test images. I think it will make a great complement to the 40 as part of a two-lens kit. Also, while not a small or light lens, it's smaller in person that what I was envisioning (I have SB version) and no problem whatsoever making room for it in my backpack. The lens looks and feels to be built like a tank, and has weight to match, but it doesn't make sense IMHO to have the extra pound relative to other options be a deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how I feel about getting it in AU (instead of waiting for X-Shutter version) after a year or so of shooting both it and the 40 (which has X-Shutter). I'm not convinced I need X-Shutter for what I shoot (mainly landscape), but it's certainly a nice-to-have. Similar to my reaction with the 138, the X-shutter subassembly (on the 40) is smaller in person than what I was envisioning, and probably lighter too. Having now seen the 138 and the X-Shutter assembly in person, had X-Shutter been available today on the 138 (or in the very near future) I'd would have given consideration to paying the extra ~$2,200 for the option (over AU), but by no means would it be an easy decision for me. Sometimes it's nice not needing to decide.
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Let us know your impressions on sharpness shifted and centered on your Alpa
dchew
Well-known member
Great news! That was much faster than my delivery. Congratulations. I will be surprised if you are not thrilled with the images.
One tool I suggest you find is a piece of black ABS you can use to cover the hood for black reference frames. The hood Alpa supplies is great and, as near as I can tell, light tight. You can just hold the ABS tight against the end of the hood instead of removing it and covering the lens with the lens cap.
Dave
One tool I suggest you find is a piece of black ABS you can use to cover the hood for black reference frames. The hood Alpa supplies is great and, as near as I can tell, light tight. You can just hold the ABS tight against the end of the hood instead of removing it and covering the lens with the lens cap.
Dave
Interesting focal-length choices for a two-lens kit. I wonder, why didn't you get the 32mm instead of the 40mm? This way you would had both ends of the Digaron-(S)W line covered.
Last edited:
hotshoe
Member
Hi Dave, I doubt you'll be surprised based on first impressions
Given the 138's price point, for me to say "no regrets buying this lens after reviewing my first batch of test images", is essentially saying I'm thrilled. I can be pretty obtuse at times. Thanks for the tip re: capturing black reference using black ABS. Makes a lot of sense. I may build on your suggestion and glue a thin sheet of rubber to surfaces to help ensure no light leakage.Will do Paul, I shot shifted yesterday but was short on time. I like what I'm seeing so far, but I need more time with the lens. It'll be a week or two before I can get a complete series. I'll be happy to share images if interest.
Dude, I considered the 32 and I opted for the 40 instead for several reasons. 1) It's lighter and more compact than the 32, 2) I reach for < 24mm (35mm equivalent) less than 20% of time, so I'd be overreliant on cropping with the 32 as part of a two-lens kit (compensating for fl with my feet is often not an option), 3) I can take advantage of the tech cam's movements to easily shoot to stitch when wanting a larger fov (i.e, put the tech cam to work for me w/ understanding that there are limitations and caveats), 4) it keeps a slot open to get the 23 if/when I decide to add a third lens, and 5) the 40 came highly recommend for it's optical performance by a few persons whose opinions I trust.
I also have a concern about the 32's "gooseneck" from the perspective of how easily the lens might get damaged (although, I don't have any evidence to support this being an issue), and it doesn't hurt that the 40 is less expensive. However, neither of these were dominant decision factors, which is why I'm calling them out separately.
Last edited:
I think you made the best decision for the reasons you stated. (Always somewhat tricky to ask, to "question", others why they bought what they bought.)
Another advantage is that 23mm, 40mm, and 138mm have the same filter thread size (67mm). (The 32mm requires 86mm filters, an awkward and unique size.)
Last edited:
hotshoe
Member
Thanks Dude. I welcome the question and it's a good one to ask. I agree the 32 seems like a more natural choice since I shoot mainly landscape, so hopefully I didn't overthink it . Ask me again in a year and I may feel differently. That said, I'm confident I'll put the 40 to good use and I'll add more lenses over time. The two-lens kit is mainly about what I start out with and am willing to stuff into my backpack at any one time, so wanting to get started w/ my best foot forward. The decision to go w/ the 40 isn't one that locks me into a particular lens pairing in the long-term.
Good point on the filter size.
Thanks,
. Ask me again in a year and I may feel differently. That said, I'm confident I'll put the 40 to good use and I'll add more lenses over time. The two-lens kit is mainly about what I start out with and am willing to stuff into my backpack at any one time, so wanting to get started w/ my best foot forward. The decision to go w/ the 40 isn't one that locks me into a particular lens pairing in the long-term.Good point on the filter size.
Thanks,
Last edited:
We all know the feeling!
The only lens in the current Digaron line that is regarded as a bit weak is the 70mm Digaron-W, which in fact is identical to its predecessor except for the name, the Apo-Sironar Digital 70mm. (A knowledgable and well-informed source told me that the current 70mm Digaron-W is scheduled to be replaced by a 70mm Digaron-SW.)
Last edited:
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Yes, Dave Chew - you were the early bird (with the late arrival!).
It was quite a wait, but in those early days, we even wondered if for sure they were going through with it, given all the pre-production hiccups. Glad they got things straightened out.
Steve Hendrix/CI
For various reasons, I found it surprisingly stressful having lenses with widely varying filter thread sizes.On the other hand, the Apo-Sironar Digital 70mm could be an inexpensive way of getting a 70mm Digaron-W!
Last edited:
this is a great point that I hadn’t put much thought into regarding my own tech cam setup.
I love the flexibility of my IQ4150 achromatic, but boy did it add a lot of filters to my bag (orange/red/uvir/IR/etc etc). Yes there are adapter rings but common filter thread sizes sure are convenient