New Rodenstock HRSW coming - 135/140mm!

[narikin]

Well, I for one hope that Alpa have an aperture only option for forthcoming lenses, like this.

They do after all make the FPS camera, (which effectively was the first MF digital mirrorless, over 4 years ago!) Using the FPS in its other incarnation, as a shutter module in the STC or Max, also means aperture control is all that's needed. It's been years since I've used the Copal shutters on my Alpa lenses for anything but aperture.

(I'm on 60,000+ exposures with my FPS, and still love the results every day. A deeply wonderful camera for my way of working. YMMV of course)

 

[narikin]

I think the point Alpa /Rodenstock are making, is specifically that these newest high level HRSW lenses, designed for 150mp sensors with <4 micron pixel pitch (!) have such tight tolerances, that factory calibrated shimming, to 1 or 2 microns accuracy, is necessary for true planarity, 1/1000mm accurate spacing, to hit the design specifications. It doesn't have to be an eShutter that is shimmed of course, but it does need to be calibrated and custom shimmed by someone with finely calibrated instruments.

If you or I were to randomly stick such a lens into a used Copal shutter, which we all can do/have done, it might work ok for older generation lenses, but not for these ultra resolution ones. We may not notice any change, and believe it is all fine, but the ultimate resolving power is degraded. Or so their argument goes.

 

[TheDude]

Well, I for one hope that Alpa have an aperture only option for forthcoming lenses, like this.

They do after all make the FPS camera, (which effectively was the first MF digital mirrorless, over 4 years ago!) Using the FPS in its other incarnation, as a shutter module in the STC or Max, also means aperture control is all that's needed ....

I need only a sensible priced, used 50mm Digaron-W Rodenstock! (Was waiting all these years for Rodenstock to release a 50mm Digaron-WS.)

 

[TheDude]

these newest high level HRSW lenses .... It doesn't have to be an eShutter that is shimmed of course, but it does need to be calibrated and custom shimmed by someone with finely calibrated instruments.

That's basically what I have been also told from various persons who ought to be in the know.

 

[vjbelle]

Well, I for one hope that Alpa have an aperture only option for forthcoming lenses, like this.

They do after all make the FPS camera, (which effectively was the first MF digital mirrorless, over 4 years ago!) Using the FPS in its other incarnation, as a shutter module in the STC or Max, also means aperture control is all that's needed. It's been years since I've used the Copal shutters on my Alpa lenses for anything but aperture.

(I'm on 60,000+ exposures with my FPS, and still love the results every day. A deeply wonderful camera for my way of working. YMMV of course)

I appreciate and respect your love for the FPS. I had one for a brief period and returned it due to shutter vibration - if not for that I would still have it. This was some time ago and I do believe they have addressed this issue. Regardless I also was drawn into the elegance until I found that for movements my STC also had to be incorporated which added lots more weight. However they did get around the archaic copal shutter which was, for me, the real draw. It's good to hear that you have been and are still happy with that piece from Alpa.

Victor

 

[vjbelle]

I think the point Alpa /Rodenstock are making, is specifically that these newest high level HRSW lenses, designed for 150mp sensors with <4 micron pixel pitch (!) have such tight tolerances, that factory calibrated shimming, to 1 or 2 microns accuracy, is necessary for true planarity, 1/1000mm accurate spacing, to hit the design specifications. It doesn't have to be an eShutter that is shimmed of course, but it does need to be calibrated and custom shimmed by someone with finely calibrated instruments.

If you or I were to randomly stick such a lens into a used Copal shutter, which we all can do/have done, it might work ok for older generation lenses, but not for these ultra resolution ones. We may not notice any change, and believe it is all fine, but the ultimate resolving power is degraded. Or so their argument goes.

This could all be true but the proof will come soon enough. That one piece of planarity is just one part of the camera system. I'm a little less demanding. I just want the newer generation of lenses to be visually better than the last (not tons). A little more movement without degradation and visual accuracy side to side top to bottom at 100% pixels. I would like to think that this new generation would be as good as the GFX lenses that I own that are knock your socks off sharp with very low CA. They are very impressive. Lets see how this all shakes out......

Victor

 

[TheDude]

want the newer generation of lenses to be visually better than the last (not tons). A little more movement without degradation and visual accuracy side to side top to bottom at 100% pixels. I would like to think that this new generation would be as good as the GFX lenses that I own that are knock your socks off sharp with very low CA

Myself having waited for a 50mm Digaron-WS, I think we will be disappointed.

Twenty years ago, Rodenstock upgraded and replaced their lens line up on a regularly basis. These times are gone.

 

[algrove]

This could all be true but the proof will come soon enough. That one piece of planarity is just one part of the camera system. I'm a little less demanding. I just want the newer generation of lenses to be visually better than the last (not tons). A little more movement without degradation and visual accuracy side to side top to bottom at 100% pixels. I would like to think that this new generation would be as good as the GFX lenses that I own that are knock your socks off sharp with very low CA. They are very impressive. Lets see how this all shakes out......

Victor

Victor
That is some statement that I did not realize since so many have had to try multiple GFX lenses in order to get one that is acceptable to them whatever their level of acceptableness is today.

So my old Roddy and Schneider tech cam lenses are not up to GFX standards? Please help or disappoint.

 

[Christopher]

Some people must have bad luck. I have 5 GFX lenses and all are perfect. I had no need at all to test multiple copies.

Victor
That is some statement that I did not realize since so many have had to try multiple GFX lenses in order to get one that is acceptable to them whatever their level of acceptableness is today.

So my old Roddy and Schneider tech cam lenses are not up to GFX standards? Please help or disappoint.

 

[vjbelle]

Victor
That is some statement that I did not realize since so many have had to try multiple GFX lenses in order to get one that is acceptable to them whatever their level of acceptableness is today.

So my old Roddy and Schneider tech cam lenses are not up to GFX standards? Please help or disappoint.

Any and all lenses should be tested regardless of manufacturer. I'm so used to testing that I have a quick down and dirty routine established. For sure I don't want skewing which is easy to test for. I also test to see how the lense transitions from in focus to out of focus which is a little more difficult. On to the GFX lenses...... I kept my first 45mm and 63mm lenses. They are both very impressive and for me on the money. My first and only 120mm lens was returned as it had a very unusual transition from in focus to out of focus on the left hand side. It's hard to describe but the transition was very abrupt regardless of aperture and was very different than the right hand side. I've seen this before with a 135mm Batis that I also returned. This was a little ways back when I was considering an A7Rlll.

I decided to get the 110 instead of another 120mm lens and although it was more than likely a lens anyone else would keep I decided to try another and that lens has turned out to be the finest lens I have ever owned. It is unbelievable - not just sharpness but contrast, bokeh and lack of to no CA. I'm very careful with it......

Don't be afraid of the GFX lenses and don't buy from anyone who won't take a lens back no questions asked.

Victor

Edit: I want to emphasize that the first 110 was easily 98% of the second one. I was just super fussy.... The GFX lenses are in another class from what I am used to.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Some people must have bad luck. I have 5 GFX lenses and all are perfect. I had no need at all to test multiple copies.

This has been my experience too. 23mm. 32-64mm, 120mm, 250mm & TC. My GFX lenses all match my Phase One blue ring lenses across the board. Of course my technical cameras are a level above the GF lenses but to be honest it's very, very close.

The only lens I've had that exhibited nonlinear resolution was my $9k Rodenstock/Alpa 23HR. How sad is that? (it went back 2x before I finally gave up on it for various other reasons)

 

[GrahamWelland]

Victor
That is some statement that I did not realize since so many have had to try multiple GFX lenses in order to get one that is acceptable to them whatever their level of acceptableness is today.

So my old Roddy and Schneider tech cam lenses are not up to GFX standards? Please help or disappoint.

Victor must be super picky. This has not been my experience at all. However, I'm not shooting resolution targets and brick walls but real images in the real world so maybe my standards are lower. I'd rather shoot a less technically perfect great image vs a boring technically perfect boring image every day (and btw I'm not implying that Victor is any different).

For technical camera images I use my Actus G (IQ3100/GFX) system with my Rodie 40/70, SK120 ASPH, 135 Rodie and 210 Rodie but all shot using live view/electronic shutter on my IQ3100 (by far vs GFX). For DSLR work, GFX vs XF every time. Resolution is almost irrelevant at this level so 50mp vs 100mp is really a moot point for most shots that matter.

 

[vjbelle]

So far I have found the GFX lenses to be sharper than any of my Schneider lenses. And..... for this I do shoot a lens chart as it quickly dispenses with any doubt. The differences however are small and subtle but are there. Contrast is also different with the GFX lenses definitely more contrasty (deeper blacks) than the Schneiders. Again.... the differences are small. Mostly though these differences would never show up in print which to me is most important. I've also found that if I really need more pixels I can easily get more by shooting a 3 shot portrait and crop to 4X3 which produces a 11008 X 8256 image (91MP). However the focal length does change as the effective size of the sensor has changed. For sure the change is at least 1 focal length change to wider.

The Schneiders, though, do transition from in focus to out of focus very differently than the GFX lenses. There is a smoother transition which I never noticed before until I acquired the GFX lenses. Whether that is better or not is personal preference.

Again.... I'm being picky

Cheers.....

Victor

 

[TheDude]

I have found the GFX lenses to be sharper than any of my Schneider lenses

For once, the GFX lenses are much newer, very likely state-of-the-art. How old are the Schneider lenses? A decade?

My understanding is that the GFX lenses, unlike the Schneider lenses, were designed in view of the upcoming 100mp 44x33mm sensor.

 

[vjbelle]

For sure the GFX lenses are state of the art and carefully QC'd. I am really impressed. However I wouldn't part with even my least favorite Digitar in favor of the GFX lenses. Rather its best to have them together to compliment each other. My Digitar lenses can easily handle 100mp. They are just not quite as sharp as the GFX lenses. To even see this I had to shoot a lens chart in a controlled lighting environment and view the files at 100% pixels and even then the differences are subtle. In real life shooting this difference would never be seen. I can certainly understand from my business background the reasons for Schneider to say goodbye to these lenses but for me personally it's a shame. As I said before I am glad I have my lenses ( 35XL, 60XL, 72, 100, 120 Asph, 150, 180). Some had to be tweaked by Schneider but these are stellar lenses.... the 72, 120, and 180 are the last ones being purchased new from Linhof a couple of years ago.

Time marches on......

Victor

 

[TheDude]

I wouldn't part with even my least favorite Digitar ... My Digitar lenses can easily handle 100mp. ... I am glad I have my lenses ( 35XL, 60XL, 72, 100, 120 Asph, 150, 180). Some had to be tweaked by Schneider but these are stellar lenses.... the 72, 120, and 180 are the last ones being purchased new from Linhof a couple of years ago.

Although I have only one "digital" Schneider lens, you would have to pry my 210mm f/5.6 Apo Digitar T from my cold, dead hands.

 

[narikin]

Can I just add a sober thought that one person's "sharp" is not another's.

I've lost count of the lenses that people have assured me are 'laser-like' or 'incredible' only to find they are nothing special when I get them. It might be 'batch variation' of course, but it's happened so often that I've learned to be cautious when accepting individual opinions as fact.

Everyone has different standards and different priorities, so its best to buy from a dealer with no quibble returns, and not accept online opinions as fact.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

The more I've learned about lenses and the more I have tested and compared multiple copies of the same lenses, the more doubt I have about lens claims and opinions. With used as well as new lenses, there can be so much variance, one man's trash can indeed be one man's treasure and vice versa.

I also appreciate Victor acknowledging that just because one lens is not as sharp as another doesn't mean the lens is unsuitable and without value. It still may be sharp enough for your needs. And sharpness shouldn't be the only factor in evaluating the quality the lens brings to the image. Finally, end use should always be a dominant factor in lens choice.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[TheDude]

Can I just add a sober thought that one person's "sharp" is not another's.

I've lost count of the lenses that people have assured me are 'laser-like' or 'incredible' only to find they are nothing special when I get them. It might be 'batch variation' of course, but it's happened so often that I've learned to be cautious when accepting individual opinions as fact.

Everyone has different standards and different priorities, so its best to buy from a dealer with no quibble returns, and not accept online opinions as fact.

Also as resolution of the sensors keeps going up, lens limitations/deficiencies, especially in older lenses, are becoming more apparent. I expect that lenses that were originally designed for film, which were then deemed to be "very sharp", are now rather indifferent if used on a high resolution digital sensor.

Rodenstock already recommends as a working aperture for their Digaron lenses only f/5.6 (for some Digaron also f/8) in order to limit diffraction and to obtain maximum resolution. Seems that soon resolution of (prime) lenses will be mainly limited by diffraction.

P.S. The 90mm Digaron-SW lens is apparently a very sharp lens in combination with remarkable wide coverage. Looking very much forward to seeing any new Digaron-SW lenses.

 

[TheDude]

One advantage of the eShutter via a Copal shutter is that no manual shutter cocking is required, which may be very helpful for techniques that require multiple exposures like HDR, focus-stacking, or stitching. But of course a DB with electronic shutter can do the same.