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

A

akaru

Active member
As an aside, since you mentioned you’re on a gfx…why can’t manufacturers figure out a way to use IBIS with a tripod? Always seemed so odd to me that we just have to turn it off. Ideally you could leave it on and it would help stabilize any camera shake, even on the tripod in the wind.
 
N

nazdravanul

Member
akaru said:
As an aside, since you mentioned you’re on a gfx…why can’t manufacturers figure out a way to use IBIS with a tripod? Always seemed so odd to me that we just have to turn it off. Ideally you could leave it on and it would help stabilize any camera shake, even on the tripod in the wind.
Click to expand...

With my Hasselblad x2d I’ve successfully used the 135 + 1.7 TC (230mm) with a light tripod in the wind, column center fully extended and IBIS on, with none of the usual weird artefacts that I would get on GFX or other 35mm systems when doing that.

In that particular situation, a shifted 180mm would have allowed me to frame better, while keeping the center column down, for addded stability. A 138mm would have definitely been too short.

I will need to go back to the same location, in a few months, as I need the angle of the light and level of the water to be in a specific combination in order to expose the red salt bed underneath.

I will use the GFX 100, because of the built-in mechanical shutter, with IBIS off, on the tripod, with my Arca m2 and the yet to be decided / most probably Rodie 180 tele 🙂 The framing I’m aiming for is a 15-20mm shift up, a bit of tilt for uniform DOF and then a 3 shot stitched composite with 15-20mm left / right (camera in portrait orientation). I think this will take me just outside the official Rodenstock IC, but within user reported limits of actual IC … I hope 😅
 
Last edited:
T

ThdeDude

Well-known member
Would be interesting to know what Rodenstock could do if no retrofocus design required and instead a float design could be used where advantageous.
 
T

ThdeDude

Well-known member
Paul Spinnler said:
Bang for buck the 180 HR wins!
Click to expand...
I feel comparing the 180mm and 138mm has a touch of comparing apples and oranges.

Having said this, I can see that having the 138mm may make it unnecessary to also have the 180mm, unless one really (only) needs the 180mm focal length and weight is a consideration (hiking).

Another good argument for the Digaron-SW 138mm is that its well spaced between the Digaron-SW 90mm and the APO-Digitar 210mm (which was the longest focal length "digital" lens available): 1.5 from 90mm and then the 210mm is 1.5 from the 138mm.
 
Last edited:
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
That's why I've been saying the 138 covers anything in-between 90-210. It covers 120, 150, 180 ... I personally went for: 90 HR, 138 HR, 210T although there's a case for the 120 ASPH as it is incredibly light and in terms of its features unique as well. The 138 is super heavy as a lens so more often than not the 120 ASPH becomes a very nice proposition.

I feel the 120 ASPH is super easy to take along, while the 138 is a bit more of an exercise.

So depending on size, cost there combos are different.
 
cunim

cunim

Well-known member
I am going to say this as someone who regards the 138 as the best lens I have ever used. It is not a particularly practical outdoor tool. Two primary reasons: 1) open seams, no sealing, additional entry points for water and dust around the shutter; b) Rodentock's internal lens elements have shifted in at least one of my other lenses. The 138's weight, complexity and need for precise alignment (extreme in a lens this good) seem to pose a real challenge to long term reliability. This lens may have to go back to the mothership every now and then and I hate that.

End result, I am very careful when I take the 138 out and I take it out less than I would like to. It's not a money thing. It is a desire to maintain the level of performance I am so fond of. I would be interested to know if more experienced users of this lens feel the same way. Does that caution mean I would give up the 138? Only from my cold dead hands.

As to the 180, I did have one but rarely used it so I can't be of much help there. It was a fine lens but my landscape photos are not good enough that it matters much which lens I use. Many on this site can do better with a Sony zoom than I can do with my fancy tech camera and 138. In studio, my skill level takes better advantage of the 138 and there are no worries about robustness. Clear win. Outdoors, the 138 won't make much practical difference to my images.. You have to ask yourself "When is the last time I was limited by lens performance?"
 
Last edited:
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
cunim said:
I am going to say this as someone who regards the 138 as the best lens I have ever used. It is not a particularly practical outdoor tool. Two primary reasons: 1) open seams, no sealing, additional entry points for water and dust around the shutter; b) Rodentock's internal lens elements have shifted in at least one of my other lenses. The 138's weight, complexity and need for precise alignment (extreme in a lens this good) seem to pose a real challenge to long term reliability. This lens may have to go back to the mothership every now and then and I hate that.

End result, I am very careful when I take the 138 out and I take it out less than I would like to. It's not a money thing. It is a desire to maintain the level of performance I am so fond of. I would be interested to know if more experienced users of this lens feel the same way. Does that caution mean I would give up the 138? Only from my cold dead hands.

As to the 180, I did have one but rarely used it so I can't be of much help there. It was a fine lens but my landscape photos are not good enough that it matters much which lens I use. Many on this site can do better with a Sony zoom than I can do with my fancy tech camera and 138. In studio, my skill level takes better advantage of the 138 and there are no worries about robustness. Clear win. Outdoors, the 138 won't make much practical difference to my images.. You have to ask yourself "When is the last time I was limited by lens performance?"
Click to expand...
I feel the same about the 138 – I am very cautious to take it out. That's why I love the 120 ASPH. It is basically a little copal lens thingie which weighs nexta to nothing and is very sharp still. So that's where I say it makes sense to go for an SK tele.

I doubt the 138 needs to go to the mothership every now and then except if you drop it or don't protect it. I wrap it in a large lens protector all the time.

I wouldn't take it along to Iceland or any exteeme location though; the 120 ASPH? No problem!
 
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
It comes down to the fact that the lens costs so much. An x shutter variant costs more like 16k ... clearly you feel different when taking it out than a 4k (180 HR) tele or 8k (120 ASPH). It is normal to be a bit more careful with this one. It makes you avoid extreme weather and be more careful when handling it.

On the flipside it is a nice feeling knowing you have the ultimate resolution lens on assignment. So in my mind the 138 comes into play when it gets serious and the conditions are not extreme.

Let's say a controlled city panorama shoot under good conditions vs. an iceland trip with uncontrollable weather conditions. No rain, sea water or sand, no storm, no extreme temperatures. In such instances better safe than sorry.
 
A

akaru

Active member
Insurance?

I’d be more upset about the 120 getting irreparably damaged. Much cheaper, yet priceless!
 
A

akaru

Active member
Isn’t Switzerland the epicenter of insurance? 😆

I haven’t had a policy since university, though I really should. Saved my broke ass on a broken laptop.

I think owning the 138 puts you in a whole new bracket though!
 
dchew

dchew

Well-known member
I take my 138 everywhere I go, but I may not be normal. :cool:

I'm always in the camp of, "Get the lens that is the focal length you want to use." In this case, I doubt you would see a quality difference between the 138 and the 180 in the field even at full frame. The air between you and that subject across the valley will usually be the limiting factor at the level of detail we are eeking out of these systems.

Dave
 
P

Phase V

Member
Paul is one of P1 best known ambassadors, i am pretty sure they throw everthing at him what he is asking for...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top