Rodenstock Apo-Sironar digital HR 4/35mm and TILT

[mueller123]

Hi,
has anybody some experiences with the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar digital HR 4/35 mm and the ARCA Swiss Rm3di and tilt?

Is it possible to mount this lens to a Arca Mount for Rm3di?
Thank you.

 

[torger]

Just to make sure, do you mean the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar Digital 35mm or the Rodenstock Digaron-S 35mm? Previously the Digarons was called "HR", but change name so they wouldn't be mixed up as eaisly. I assume it's the lens that's now called Digaron-S you are referring to.

The Digaron-S is natively designed for digital and has 70mm image circle, the Apo-Sironar digital is a digital version of an analog design with 105mm image circle.

 

[mueller123]

HI torger,
UHHH. This is a really good question. I mean the first one the: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar Digital. This is cheaper, isn't it?

Is there a difference between the two with a 40Mpix Back?

 

[Paul2660]

Either version will be fine. 70mm image circle will limit shift to around 7mm but you should be fine on tilt. Very sharp lens.

Paul

 

[torger]

HI torger,
UHHH. This is a really good question. I mean the first one the: Rodenstock Apo-Sironar Digital. This is cheaper, isn't it?

Is there a difference between the two with a 40Mpix Back?

The Rodenstock Apo-Sironar Digital is cheaper yes. I've owned it for my 33 megapixel back but I was not pleased with the corner sharpness especially when shifted so I sold it and replaced it with a Schneider Digitar 35mm which performs much better.

The Digaron-S 35mm is AFAIK even sharper than the Schneider Digitar, but has a bit too small image circle for my needs. To answer the question specifically - yes there is a clear visible difference in corner sharpness when pixel peeping between the two lenses on a 40 megapixel back. If your sensor is 44x33 rather than 49x37 it may be a bit more forgiving in terms of shift, but the pixels are on the other hand smaller.

Many of the Apo-Sironar Digital lenses are sharp, but the 35mm is a bit weaker. Officially from Rodenstock the whole Apo-Sironar series is intended for 9um sensors, ie 22 megapixel backs. It's a bit simplified though. I'd say that you might be disappointed with the 35mm also on a 22 megapixel back, while some of the longer will work nicely with 60 megapixel backs.

I've heard others be disappointed by the optical performance of the Sironar Digital 35mm (and pleased with other focal lengths), so it's quite clear that it's not one of the stronger focal lengths in that series.

About price difference, the Digaron-S is about €2300+VAT and the Apo-Sironar Digital €1600+VAT, so in percent it's a large difference, but if you add upp the RM3Di lens mount the difference does not seem that large. If your sensor is 44x33 40 megapixel the Digaron-S will be a much better match by far.

 

[mueller123]

HI Torger,
as i interpred your comparison between these lenses, the Schneider should be a good alternative too? And i think it is cheaper and i found it sometimes on ebay.

The schneider 35mm ist OK with tilt?

 

[torger]

It depends on what back you have. The Schneider is a symmetrical design which means it can produce a strong color cast with some sensors which is not easy to solve with LCC. It works basically with all backs except the 80 megapixel backs and the old P30, plus the new IQ250.

So if you have a P40+ for example it's fine, but as with all wides you do need to correct color cast with LCC.

The Schneider has noticable field curvature and when shifting past 10mm I'd suggest f/16 instead of f/11 for best image quality. Tilting is no problem.

The Rodenstock Digaron-S will be the sharpest, but on the other hand has the smallest image circle and is hard-limited by a disc at 70mm. I think the Schneider is a good alternative and more all-around thanks to the larger image circle, and while not as sharp it's certainly not a poor performer. The Apo-Sironar however I'd say is poor performer.

 

[torger]

I'm a bit surprised that you care about tilt but not shift. Could you explain why?

Typically, wide angles don't need tilt as much. I do use tilt for my 35mm, but not nearly as often as for my longer lenses. The reason for this is that if you have the 35mm at standing height, and perhaps shifting up a bit the closest foreground will be far enough to not require tilt.

 

[mueller123]

HI Torger,
this is a very very good question. I new in the system and try to find out if tilt at these systems is required. Especially "do i need a system with tilt in combination with 35mm???".

If i dont need it there are more inexpensive alternatives. e.g. view cams with no tilt mechanism.

Thank you for that info.
mueller

I'm a bit surprised that you care about tilt but not shift. Could you explain why?

Typically, wide angles don't need tilt as much. I do use tilt for my 35mm, but not nearly as often as for my longer lenses. The reason for this is that if you have the 35mm at standing height, and perhaps shifting up a bit the closest foreground will be far enough to not require tilt.

 

[torger]

I'd say for architecture especially if indoors - never, for landscape - rarely but it does happen.

If you shoot a lot of open landscape scenes with a low tripod and/or downwards shift then you'd gain from tilt.

I've attached a file shot with the 35mm Schneider Digitar which sits on a low tripod and a down shift, I used tilt there to bring the close foreground into focus, and as the landscape is open, ie no high objects, the depth of field wedge is high enough close and covers the tree in the background.

The other file showing a winter image is also shot with the 35mm Schneider Digitar, but with a normal height tripod, and a tree up close. This would not be better with tilt, first the closest foreground is a bit away due to the high tripod, and the tree is too close for the wedge to cover it if we had tilted. If you shoot indoor architecture you will have things (ie walls) closeby all the time so you won't gain from tilting, plus that you rarely used low tripods in that style.

Note that my sensor is 48x36mm, so the 35mm becomes a bit wider than with a 44x33mm

If you're new to tilt focusing and shoot landscape, you might find this article helpful:
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/photography/focus-landscape.html

 

[Paul2660]

I feel it's all about shooting style on the 35mm SK or 35mm Rod.

From my use with the CF installed on the Schneider 35mm, the best aperture range is F11 to F16. My testing shows the Schneider 35mm SK has a hyperfocal range of around 20/25 feet to infinity at F11. If you add 1 degree of tilt with a rm3di, you can move that to around 12/15' to infinity. Of course you will lose some of the sharpness of the top of the shot due to tilt.

In my field use, I am mostly working with scenes where I want to grab as much foreground in focus. The ability to add tilt to the 35mm SK is a great asset. I have a series from last spring I need to dig up with the IQ160 and SK35, range is about 12 feet to infinity.

If I was out west, where the stage is much larger, I don't see that tilt would be as necessary for a lot of the shots, but working in close, it would be.

I feel the Rodenstock 35mm will have a slightly better hyperfocal range without tilt, I base that on my use of the 40mm Rod. And it will be much more forgiving in the F5.6 to F8 range where as the Schneider really needs to be F11-F16 for best results.

Paul