Rodenstock 180 vs 138 in the wind

[ThdeDude]

Very interesting to see the yellow band instead the blue band. The Digaron-SW 90 mm has a yellow band, while Digaron-Ws have a blue band.

At Rodenstock's website, the blue band is (still) shown www.rodenstock-photo.com/product/hr-digaron-sw/138-mm

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Two points:

There are two generations of the Rodie HR, the second was modified to accept the X shutter as well. I think one needs to check with the manufacturers which variant is copal 0 compatible as P1 also re-designed the X shutter and there's now an MK I and MK II (the MK II have a Phase One embossing). It is quite confusing because the 138 at the factory needs another special version of the X shutter apparently.

So: Check with Alpa or Cambo when buying and then with Adam at SKG or maybe you can directly supply your copal 0 and ask say Alpa to mount it at Rodenstock direct.

This is not a yellow band. This is the Alpa exclusive Alpagon "Gold Band". Gold band lenses can only be bought as such from Alpa and not when remounted - they need to be bought new like this. Like the Helvetar variants of the 43 and 60 XL.

Very rare. There's a handful of them and maybe 1-2 X shutter MK II Alpagons (I know because I got the first).

The other point beyond looks and collectability of the gold band lenses is that Alpa does their own quality testing at their offices when receiving the lenses from Rodenstock. Mine was sent back at first as it didn't fullfil the quality requirements of perfect sharpness to the utmost edge of the Pano when delivered.

So basically you get looks and an added layer of confidence in having an excellent copy.

I never had a quality issue with Alpa products, but quite a few with XT and Arca ex factory.

Same with the Alpa bodies – their extreme precision and solid build only becomes apparent when using it in practice.

Yellow band is the 90 SW commonly sold via Cambo, Arca, Linhof or naked via Linhofstudio.

 

[ThdeDude]

This is not a yellow band. This is the Alpa exclusive Alpagon "Gold Band". Gold band lenses can only be bought as such from Alpa and not when remounted - they need to be bought new like this. Like the Helvetar variants of the 43 and 60 XL.

Yes, you are right. I was so taken seeing a Copal shutter on the 138mm that it didn't click that I am looking at an Alpagon not a Digaron (even if Alpagon is a rebranded Digaron).

 

[cunim]

I was told that AS could not mount an X shutter to the first version of the 138. They could mount a user-supplied Copal, if it were a perfect sample. They have had to reject some

in contrast, they were able to mount the latest version of the 138 lens in an X shutter and provided a mount that works in both the R-mount and 110 mm board cameras. This ability to move lenses between tech and view cameras is the key feature of AS

Anyone buying a used 138 and planning to install a shutter needs to check which lens version it is

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Even the current MK II 138mm needs its own specific modified X shutter. Apparently at the factory at Rodenstock they have X shutters and a specific box with those that fit the 138 MK II.

The point about the 138 is that it is a bit of a coincidence that it exists. The development started in 2013 when tech cams where selling a lot more and it came to market just before the pandemic in 18/19. In today's environment such a beast of a lens would never be commissioned or developed.

From that perspective it is a lucky thing that it made it to market and can be bought and that P1 even jointly with Rodenstock re-developed an MK II.

Why lucky? Not many of these are sold so to have all that R&D amortized for the few units ... is a lucky thing!

Should Rodenstock stop this business in the coming years this lens will be the unicorn of the tech cam lens world!

 

[Jacob Buchowski]

Although I don’t have the 180, I have the Schneider 150 and the Rodi 138 with X shutter. The 138 is superior and at this point my 150 is mostly gathering dust.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think what's often also misunderstood conceptually is that focal length FOV differences are relative in nature, rather than linear. Ie it sounds like 180 is a lot closer, but it is only 30% closer (180/138-1), meaning the 138 would need to capture 30% more detail like for like to match the 180 when interpolated.

It easily does this.

It has pixel level contrast on an IQ4 150.

 

[nazdravanul]

I think what's often also misunderstood conceptually is that focal length FOV differences are relative in nature, rather than linear. Ie it sounds like 180 is a lot closer, but it is only 30% closer (180/138-1), meaning the 138 would need to capture 30% more detail like for like to match the 180 when interpolated.

It easily does this.

It has pixel level contrast on an IQ4 150.

The MTF difference between the Rodie 180 and 138 is nowhere near 30%! So, if you don’t have both lenses and you have never seen a side by side proper test … how can you know ?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The MTF difference between the Rodie 180 and 138 is nowhere near 30%! So, if you don’t have both lenses and you have never seen a side by side proper test … how can you know ?

You cannot see the full potential of the lens by just looking at these pdfs. The 138 is significantly sharper, I cannot tell you more than what I clearly see and I have no other agenda at stake here since I own most lenses and have on purpose not acquired the 180 because I think it is pointless based on my own 210T tests which, by the way, is the same as my sinaron digital 210 which is just a Sinaron S210.

The 138 is in a whole different league. Most people cannot afford it so it is a futile discussion if you somehow search for a reason to believe that you will be just as fine with a more than 10 year older, much simpler lens design.

Also you cannot take these PFDs to compare the limits of the resolving capabilities side by side like that.

You would need with a high end measuring bench from Zeiss do MTF response tests at different lp/mm levels for each lens to the point where you reach about 50% contrast which is still “sharp”. You will go easily beyond 100lp/mm on the 138 I am sure before you reach 50% contrast.

The 180 HR is a bit below 50% already wide open at maybe 70-75 cycles per mm while the 138 is significantly above. Let’s assume the 138 tops out at the centre at 105/mm for 50% and the 180 just at 75/mm - there you can already extrapolate that the 138 in theory should already reach the 30% more resolution.

In any case 138 will significantly outperform the prior gen lenses and an evidence of this is the pixel level acuity and contrast I see on my achromatic back. The 210T is sharp, but in direct comparison you see it is on another level.

As said, if you can swing it, you should get it; if you can’t then get a 180. It is IMHO primarily a question whether you can spend this much and not much else as the 138 will give you everything you wish for in a tech cam tele and then some.

I mean it is 12-14k (as they are rare used) vs 3-4k second hand for the 180 HR. This is the reason why for most use cases this discussion here is rather theoretic. I bet 95% would just get a 180 and be happy to be honest. Given with back extender it has a shift of circa 15-20mm it is a good lens.

Have you looked at the raws from the Alpagon review on YouTube? The detail across the frame jaw dropping I would say.

 

[daz7]

138 does outresolve digarons. You can clearly see it once you can test it
I've compared it against 90hr and 100hr (which basically equals more or less 180hr) and there was no competition.
The 138 is so expensive for a reason.
Obviously, 90hr, 120asp, 150N or 180hr are not too shabby but it is a different league for the rodie 138.
The difference is about the same as if you've compared old 90mm designs with 90hr - you could see it quite clearly.
I am pretty much sure that good dealers would provide you a sample raw files from both lenses if you cannot test it yourself.

 

[ThdeDude]

138 does outresolve digarons.

Looking back at Rodenstock's large format and large format style (medium format) lenses, in particular Sironar, have in chronological order:

- Sironar

- APO-Sironar (at one stage relabelled as Apo-Sironar-N)

- Apo-Sironar-S

- APO-Sironar digital

- APO-Sironar digital HR (now relabelled as HR Digaron-S)

- Digaron-W

- Digaron-SW

Generally, each subsequent generation offered better performance. Therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise that the latest series, Diagron-SW, offers the highest performance.

 

[BigBoy]

My goal is to buy the 138 next year and it be my only lens for the next 5-10 years.

 

[akaru]

This lens. It goes from a “portrait” lens, to a replacement of the 180HR (which is just phenomenal), to an option for a two-lens kit because of its stitching ability…and now we have someone saying it will be their only lens

 

[Mexecutioner]

Only one lens? Blasphemy!!!! Dante would be pissed!

 

[BigBoy]

Only one lens? Blasphemy!!!! Dante would be pissed!

Yup just master one lens and be done with it lol.

 

[nazdravanul]

138 does outresolve digarons. You can clearly see it once you can test it
I've compared it against 90hr and 100hr (which basically equals more or less 180hr) and there was no competition.
The 138 is so expensive for a reason.
Obviously, 90hr, 120asp, 150N or 180hr are not too shabby but it is a different league for the rodie 138.
The difference is about the same as if you've compared old 90mm designs with 90hr - you could see it quite clearly.
I am pretty much sure that good dealers would provide you a sample raw files from both lenses if you cannot test it yourself.

Good to hear from someone with direct experience / access to relevant lenses - I’m surprised the 138 surpasses the 100 HR in actual sharpness, according to official Rodenstock MTF it shouldn’t (whithin the comparable IC). Are you sure you have a good copy of the 100 ?
Yes, once framing is carefully matched during capture, the 138mm will probably provide superior results to the 180mm (who is a bit inferior, on paper to the 100HR and the 138) . But that’s not how I intend to use the lens.I need the 180mm for the extra reach over the 138mm, and I’m still not very convinced that cropping the 138 to 180mm Rodie HR FOV will produce equivalent or even better results … I want to shoot across valleys and bodies of water, from distances where “zooming with my feet” is not really an option!

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think you should get the 180 - is the 138 a real option?

It seems to me you are dead set on trying to be somehow reconfirmed in your belief that the 180 is the right choice for you and are comparing PDF specs to do so even when people recount their first hand experience. Ie wasting everyone’s time a bit.

I think you should get the 180. And be happy? It has the reach you need and according to your paper analysis is absolutely unbeatable. It is a great lens, well documented, but the last and latest generation 138 is just something else.

The 180 in Cambo mount that was offered here a few weeks back sold on eBay for I think less than 4K, which is a good price. For 1/3 of the cost, effectively, it is hard to beat.

 

[nazdravanul]

I think you should get the 180 - can you even afford a 138?

It seems to me you are dead set on trying to be somehow reconfirmed in your belief that the 180 is the right choice for you and are comparing PDF specs to do so. Ie wasting everyone’s time a bit.

I think you should get the 180. And be happy? It has the reach you need and according to your paper analysis is absolutely unbeatable.

The one offered here a few weeks back was sold on eBay for I think less than 4K, which is a good price.

A potentially disastruous financial decision (not my first and certainly not my last ) could allow me to stretch for the 138mm )) But if my usecase is served equally well by the 180 Rodie HR, I’d rather not. That’s why I’m trying to have, as much as possible, an informed conversation about my options. I’m clearly not in the position to say “the hell with it, just get the latest and the greatest and be done with it” - the 10k conversation is worth having, for me.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The problem is there aren't many who own both the 138 and 180 – would have happily sent you raws. I just took Greiner's word for it and on top formed a view based on my 210T plus all other Rodies I have, incl. 90.

 

[akaru]

Unless I needed the absolute best, or needed the FOV, just the fact that you want to use this on a view camera would answer the question for me.

I believe for Victor it’s worth having the helical + rails, but if packability is of any concern, the bare 180 would be tough to beat. (Not to mention some challenges in sag.) The 180 is such a good lens, so much cheaper especially since you don’t need a helical and can purchase used, and saves tons of weight and space and is just simpler. I don’t have direct experience here but common sense would tell me that a slightly shorter bellows—but still a bellows—along with a big honking lens in the front would give more trouble in the wind (and in general) than a more balanced setup. (Unless of course your particular bellows is a perfect fit for the 138 and to step up would require using some oversized one.)

But the fact that you said you “need the reach” should also answer this for you