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!

Schneider 72 vs Rodenstock 70

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
What I really want is a 28,43,72 combo. But I do like the 35 very much so I could go 35,60,100 or something. For landscape work I put a lot of mileage on my phase 55 and 110. My issue is I don't mind having a combo kit between phase and tech in most cases. But I want a independent kit of tech only. Just run out with 3 tech lenses. Trust me I know this is exactly what wall I would hit when I bought a tech cam, wanting more. LOL
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
What I really want is a killer 28 retrofocus design with a decent IC... That would idealize my stable to 28/40/70/120 as an overall kit.

Re the 70 versus the 80. One of the other reasons I went to the Rodie 70 over the SK 72 -- and this is going to sound ridiculous -- was those wee little 2 extra mm taking me that much wider. I can't tell you how many times even with the 75-150 zoom on the DF, I wanted "just a little bit wider." (It's actually another reason I chose the R 40 HR over the SK 43 -- it's just that skosh wider.) I know the 120 is my ideal long because I often wish my 110LS were just a tad longer...

Overall, I am really happy with my 40/70/120 trio, but would like a solid 28 option in there. For me, the 23 is really wide, and probably too wide. For now I am left stitching my 40 to a net 28, so I manage...
 

Christopher

Active member
I'm not sure if there ever will be something wider than the 32. And I'm not sure if it makes sense. The Color cast is already quite strong. I only would want something wider than 32 if I could have the same Image cirlce which is useable. I don't need a wider lens if i can only move 2-3mm.
 

gazwas

Active member
I'm not sure if there ever will be something wider than the 32. And I'm not sure if it makes sense. The Color cast is already quite strong. I only would want something wider than 32 if I could have the same Image cirlce which is useable. I don't need a wider lens if i can only move 2-3mm.
My thoughts exactly.Maybe its a change in chip design that's needed because in many ways, lenses seem to have taken a step back with the new 80MP Dalsa.

The SK28 looks like an excellent lens but suffers from catastrophic fall off very quickly on the new chips and if Phase/Leaf/Blad continue on the same path by just upping pixel count we'll start running into all sorts of trouble with many of our present lenses.
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
...those wee little 2 extra mm taking me that much wider.
In Alpa mount, the SK 72mm has an effective focal length of 74.9mm and Alpa uses a 75mm helical mount - so those extra 2mm become almost 5mm.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
In Alpa mount, the SK 72mm has an effective focal length of 74.9mm and Alpa uses a 75mm helical mount - so those extra 2mm become almost 5mm.
Interesting, never even considered checking that! According to Schneider's data, the 43 is in fact a 44.9mm lens! One wonders why they didn't call it a 45, perhaps because they want more differentiation between it and the 47??? FWIW, the SK 120 is actually a 125 as well. Both those facts make me even happier about my choices ;)
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
An other interesting point is the AOV .

As per the RODENSTOCK and SCHNEIDER data sheets:
The HR DIGARON- 5,6/70 has an AOV of 70º and the
SK DIGITAR 5,6/72 has an AOV of 62º .

I have the SK SUPER ANGULON XL 5,6/72 in ALPA mount .
This lens has an extreme IC of 229 mm and is a surviver from my LF time .
Using a shift of 15 mm on the ALPA STC , I still get very good images with my CFV-39 .
I have not tried the CFV-50 yet .
 

etrump

Well-known member
I've been traveling so I missed this interesting thread.

I have the SK72 and for the money and weight it is a stellar performer. Very sharp for me, even wide open. Mine was calibrated a little past infinity when I first received it whited caused some frustration early on. Once I learned to calibrate it I have been very impressed with it.

At the extreme edges of the image circle it does get slightly soft, especially at wider apertures and there is a noticeable vignette. Still very useable with an LCC but an extra 10mm of image circle would allow a full 20mm shift with the IQ180 with no loss of sharpness IMO. At 20mm shift on the IQ180 the corners are just past the image circle so a slight crop is necessary anyway. I aways shoot the full shift but rarely use the full image. My thinking is rather than shift to 15mm I might as well take the whole slice. With two shots stitched then cropped to 6x17 I can print 118" wide prints and you wouldn't notice the softness unless you took a magnifying glass to it.

That said, the SK72 has a different look than my HR glass. Not that the SK is bad, just different. To my eye, the HR23 and HR32 have a more appealing look. I would be interested in knowing if someone has compared the 70 and 72 and found the 70 to render more like the HR32&23.
 

etrump

Well-known member
How many total lenses do you want to carry? I thought I would stick to three and ended up with four: 43,100,150, then added the 70. This is longer than most people want. But the point is I really missed the 70mm perspective, so now the 100 gets left behind half the time because I prefer to carry only three. For you, 35, 70/72, 120 seems like the cat's pajamas.

I'm not helping your addiction, am I?

Dave
I'm with you Dave. I have been surprised at how much I use my HR23. So I am hauling around HR23, HR32, SK72, SK150.

Do you have problems with flare on your 150? Is it the SK? Mine is so bad it is almost not useable in some lighting conditions. A longer exposure with cloudy skies gives me fits. I don't use it often but have almost decided I need a snoot the shoot it reliably.
 

etrump

Well-known member
What I really want is a 28,43,72 combo. But I do like the 35 very much so I could go 35,60,100 or something. For landscape work I put a lot of mileage on my phase 55 and 110. My issue is I don't mind having a combo kit between phase and tech in most cases. But I want a independent kit of tech only. Just run out with 3 tech lenses. Trust me I know this is exactly what wall I would hit when I bought a tech cam, wanting more. LOL
Guy, Are you shooting the IQ160 or 180? I would wonder if the SK28 would be useable on the 180. I switched the SK24 and 25 to the HR glass when I had problems with the P65+.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I would be interested in knowing if someone has compared the 70 and 72 and found the 70 to render more like the HR32&23.
Yes, I have. The 70HR renders like the 40HR and the 72SK renders more like the 43SK. I have not shot the 32 extensively, but from the few files I've seen, it appears to render like my 40 and 70. Generally speaking, I find the Rodie's a bit more clinical for lack of a better word, very clean, very sharp, and moderate contrast. By comparison, I find the SK's while also sharp, have slightly lower contrast, and overall draw a little softer and not quite so clinical. But we're talking subtleties, not grand sweeping differences. IMHO there is not a wrong choice; the real choice is more about consistency vs variations in renderings.

:)
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, I have. The 70HR renders like the 40HR and the 72SK renders more like the 43SK. I have not shot the 32 extensively, but from the few files I've seen, it appears to render like my 40 and 70. Generally speaking, I find the Rodie's a bit more clinical for lack of a better word, very clean, very sharp, and moderate contrast. By comparison, I find the SK's while also sharp, have slightly lower contrast, and overall draw a little softer and not quite so clinical. But we're talking subtleties, not grand sweeping differences. IMHO there is not a wrong choice; the real choice is more about consistency vs variations in renderings.

:)
I have shot both and frankly they are about 15 points apart on the C1 clarity scale.
-bob
 

dchew

Well-known member
...Do you have problems with flare on your 150? Is it the SK? Mine is so bad it is almost not useable in some lighting conditions. A longer exposure with cloudy skies gives me fits. I don't use it often but have almost decided I need a snoot the shoot it reliably.
Ed,
Interesting, it is the SK. I've only had the lens a few months, and have not used it in a way that would challenge it in regards to flair. I hope to get out this weekend; the colors are changing here. I will try a few situations and let you know.

Dave
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Hopefully I'll be able to drop in on you guys in the white mountains.

I was there yesterday and the color was not looking good but it is still early.
Love to see you but be careful. 3 Cambo Anniversary models ready to take home there. Not sure I can resist. LOL
 

yatlee

Member
Got my IQ180 couple days ago. Testing all the glasses I have and sold off the rest of my Hassy setup. I pretty much decided on Schneider 55/80/150 on the 645DF, For the Techno, I already have Rodie HR40/50/70/90 and want to get the SK120. A question for all of you, I purchased the HR50 couple months ago thinking that is more closer to 35mm in 135 systems which I like a lot. Now, I kind of think that's a bit over kill. I'll probably sell it and wait for a wider version or get the 32mm. Any thoughts?
 
Top