Menu
What's new
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 180 vs 138 in the wind

N

nazdravanul

Member
So, on an Arca M2, assuming cost is not the primary factor (I know, hilarious 😅 ) which of the 2 (Rodenstock Digaron-S 180 vs Digaron-SW 138) would be better on a windy day ?
The 180mm suits me better as a FL and guess what … price is also an issue :)) But I would use the lens outdoors, mostly where wind is an issue. Any pros and cons on longer bellows + rail & lighter lens vs shorter bellows + rail &heavier lens ?
Anyone with direct experience with the 2 lenses ? I would use it on my Arca M2 with the GfX 100 …
 
D

DNN

Well-known member
Just get a large golf umbrella and spill the wind around the bellows/camera. That is what I do with my Canham 12x20 with a Schneider Fine Art XXL 1100mm lens with 4 feet of bellows extended at infinity. So a comparatively short bellows with 180 (or 138) won't be a problem if you do this. Don
 
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
I have the 138 and SK 210T. The 210T is like the 180T which is considered 98% like a 180 HR.

The 138 HR equals the 210T in micro detail when rezzed up to show the same scene excerpt and blows it completely away at 100% on a like-for-like micro-contrast comparison.

The 138 IMHO – and I've stated this a few times – makes anything between 90 and 180 not worthwhile except if it is too much price and size-wise.

It is the best lens I know. You get what you pay for. It will outresolve the 180 and negate the need for it.

Did I mention it shifts 35mm left and right with no loss of sharpness almost?
 
N

nazdravanul

Member
Paul Spinnler said:
I have the 138 and SK 210T. The 210T is like the 180T which is considered 98% like a 180 HR.

The 138 HR equals the 210T in micro detail when rezzed up to show the same scene excerpt and blows it completely away at 100% on a like-for-like micro-contrast comparison.

The 138 IMHO – and I've stated this a few times – makes anything between 90 and 180 not worthwhile except if it is too much price and size-wise.

It is the best lens I know. You get what you pay for. It will outresolve the 180 and negate the need for it.

Did I mention it shifts 35mm left and right with no loss of sharpness almost?
Click to expand...
You’re the only source stating this, also based on indirect comparison - Geiner supposedly tested this against a 180 Schneider, not against the much sharper (smaller IC) Rodie 180 Digaron-S.
I’m glad you’re enjoying your 138, but I would like to see / hear some other direct experiences, if possible, with these lenses!
In real life, the extra reach of the 180, which I do need, should put up a solid fight against the 138. Of course, with equal framing, I expect the 138 to be peerless. But I would not use the 138 indoors, in a lab / studio environment, as stated initially.
 
T

ThdeDude

Well-known member
The big selling point of the 138mm is of course its "float" design "intended for a wide distance range from infinity up to an image scale 1:5" (Rodenstock)

Wouldn't a more appropriate comparison be the Schneider APO Digitar ASPH 120mm f/5.6 and the Rodenstock Apo-Macro-Sironar 120mm f/5.6, the 138mm being a possible replacement for both.
 
N

nazdravanul

Member
If I could test them we wouldn’t have this conversation :) No dealers in Romania, I normally buy from Arca in France, so direct contact with the lenses is very hard. I anyway doubt there are many dealers in Europe or anywhere else with these 2 lenses in stock.
 
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Indeed difficult to test. There is a review of the 138 on Alpa on YouTube where the guy posted a google drive link with some raws from the 138.

Just search Alpa and 138 and the link is down in the comments.

Did you see these? You will understand what I mean with jaw dropping performance when you look at the files
 
V

vjbelle

Well-known member
I have both the 138 Float and a Schneider 180 Digitar and an M-Two. It goes without saying that the longer the focal length the greater the effect of wind. Wind is the killer of all longer focal lengths and the 138 is no exception. If you have wind issues with the 180 and could immediately change to the 138mm you would also see wind issues. They may be slightly mitigated but no matter what they will be there.

So my advice is if you need and like 180mm focal length then by all means go for it. On an M-Two you will be able to take advantage of the Orbix tilt capabilities which you cannot with the 138mm and you will save lots of money. The 138mm also needs some tilt adjustment as it's forward weight does cause some sag which it would with any bellows camera made that I know of.

Victor B.
 
Last edited:
N

nazdravanul

Member
vjbelle said:
I have both the 138 Float and a Schneider 180 Digitar and an M-Two. It goes without saying that the longer the focal length the greater the effect of wind. Wind is the killer of all longer focal lengths and the 138 is no exception. If you have wind issues with the 180 and could immediately change to the 138mm you would also see wind issues. They may be slightly mitigated but no matter what they will be there.

So my advice is if you need and like 180mm focal length then by all means go for it. On an M-Two you will be able to take advantage of the Orbix tilt capabilities which you cannot with the 138mm and you will save lots of money. The 138mm also needs some tilt adjustment as it's forward weight does cause some sag which it would with any bellows camera made that I know of.

Victor B.
Click to expand...
Thank you, the Orbix tilt + forward snag arguments are quite compelling, actually, and they were not on my radar, until now!
 
A

Alkibiades

Well-known member
the 180 HR have notreally big image circle: 80 mm. This will be maybe the reason not to go for it. It is afcourse very sharp lens, as all HR lenses, but when big movements are needed so it is not the right lens. here the schneider Apo Digitar T 180 mm will be the right one.
The 138 mm is a superb lens, but much too expensive. Also it can be used only with newest backs with ES.there is no Copal version possible.
The 138 mm is usefull when you shot pano and much things on infinity. But when you want to use it on closer distance with focus on details and very creamy bokeh so the 138 is not the righ lens. here the 180 T or 180 HR, both with 5,6 aperture will deliver you way much better results. For example you want to photograph a tree or rock, or what ever and you want to isolate this object from background or enviroment. no way to do it exiting with 138! but with 180 mm HR and 180 T you get really exiting results, with dream of blurry backgrund and sharp detail of the object.
So it is always depending on what you shot primarly.
 
Steve Hendrix

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Alkibiades said:
the 180 HR have notreally big image circle: 80 mm. This will be maybe the reason not to go for it. It is afcourse very sharp lens, as all HR lenses, but when big movements are needed so it is not the right lens. here the schneider Apo Digitar T 180 mm will be the right one.
The 138 mm is a superb lens, but much too expensive. Also it can be used only with newest backs with ES.there is no Copal version possible.
The 138 mm is usefull when you shot pano and much things on infinity. But when you want to use it on closer distance with focus on details and very creamy bokeh so the 138 is not the righ lens. here the 180 T or 180 HR, both with 5,6 aperture will deliver you way much better results. For example you want to photograph a tree or rock, or what ever and you want to isolate this object from background or enviroment. no way to do it exiting with 138! but with 180 mm HR and 180 T you get really exiting results, with dream of blurry backgrund and sharp detail of the object.
So it is always depending on what you shot primarly.
Click to expand...

While the image circle of the 180 HR-S is only 80mm, it punches much larger when used in a short barrel configuration, providing +20 horizontal and + 20 vertical combined movement with little to no vignetting. And sharp.

Technically, yes, the 138mm is only available in Aperture Mount or X Shutter. But if you're buying a new 180 HR-S lens (ideally one that has been inspected and certified by CI!), then that lens also is only available in Aperture Mount or X Shutter. Of course, pre-owned 180 HR-S lenses were made in copal shutter and we do get them into our inventory from time to time, but relatively rare, compared to say, a 70 HR-W.

Steve Hendrix/CI
 
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Its not a problem to mount a copal on the Rodie 138:

1702050519401.png

It is just not an ex factory option as the shutters are not produced anymore. SK Grimes did one recently.

I also disagree that it is a Pano only lens. It is superb for details and portraits.

Given the price it is clear it is for most people not the right choice or even a choice.
 
D

daz7

Active member
yeah, the 138mm is the ultimate lens right now. I have had a pleasure to test it (Wish I could own it) and it is an amazing glass. I would happily get rid of my 180hr, 90hr, 135 and 150 rodenstocks just to get this one as it could replace 4 or 5 lenses, easily.
 
cunim

cunim

Well-known member
The 138 is not a bokeh lens, but there is very nice falloff at f6.5. Here is a sample vertical pano with a crop (about 50%) to show that falloff.
This may not matter to you, but the 138 is also a really good lens for tabletop. Not macro, but the repro ratio is better than other lenses in the HR family. Sample shown.

vert1-2.jpg

Crop
vert2.jpg

Minimum distance, tilted and swng.
rask7.jpg
 
N

nazdravanul

Member
For tabletop I would normally focus bracket my 135 XCD and further down I would use my 120mm Rodenstock Macro in the 1:5 to 2:1 range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top