Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
"Although I shoot only B&W in LF, I still want the red correction of an Apo lens since the film is panchromatic. I'm striving for the absolute highest quality images I can make on 4x5 "
That is not why the apo is better with black and white. The difference would be lack of color fringing. In B&W this means that fine details in a high contrast field, like the twigs on a tree against the sky, will be reproduced with finer lines then with a non-apo lens.
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
That is not why the apo is better with black and white. The difference would be lack of color fringing.
Hi Bob,
That's true. It's just a consequence of the lack of correction in the red portion of the spectrum for non-Apo lenses.
Just different ways of expressing the same thing. One looks at the design end of the process, the other looks at the result.
Thanks.
- Leigh
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
It depends on the lens. Each brand encompasses a fairly wide variety of lenses.
For example if you want a wide angle lens for 4 x 5 architectural photography, it is hard to beat the Schneider Super-Angulon XL 72/5.6. It has a 230 mm image circle. Compare to this my Rodenstock f/4.5 75 mm Grandagon-N's 195 mm image circle. I would clearly be better off with the Schneider lens. But it is too heavy for my camera and quite a bit more expensive.
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
I've only bought two lenses new. One being the apo symmar just before they switched to the more $$$ L series. It wasn't sharp compared to the lens I replaced it with, a fujinon. I own 4 different brands and I bet you can't tell which lens the transparencies were shot on. With b+w? forget it. When the print is hanging on the wall, does it really matter?
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leigh
Hi Bob,
That's true. It's just a consequence of the lack of correction in the red portion of the spectrum for non-Apo lenses.
Just different ways of expressing the same thing. One looks at the design end of the process, the other looks at the result.
Thanks.
- Leigh
The definition is that the lateral chromatic aberrations of the secondary spectru have been corrected to within a very small percentage of the focal length. The practical result is a reduction of color fringing compared to non-apo lenses and that ensures that with process lenses that each color sep negative would match dimensionally when they were sandwiched and printed. The above is the specification as set and met by DIN for the optical industry for camera lenses.
The definition for microscobe lenses and systems is the Abbe definition.
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leigh
My current kit includes Rodenstock Sironar-N (actually an apo design), Nikkor SW and W, and Fujinon SWD and CM-W lenses. They’re all excellent. But I prefer to standardize on a single manufacturer (and as few product lines as possible) to maintain image consistency when changing from one FL to another.
Can you better describe the inconsistent results you’re getting now? Are there any?
You say you don’t have a lot of experience, so you might be “hearing” about inconsistent results on forums like this – not actually seeing them in your personal results. If so, my recommendation would be to get more experience w/ all the excellent lenses you already have, before deciding to “upgrade” to a single-manufacturer’s kit “to maintain image consistency.”
If you can describe the inconsistent results you’re getting now, the information would greatly help everyone recommend new lens purchases for you; better, people might offer useful tips on technique that might generate better consistency and save you a lot of money. That is, your concerns about “image consistency” may have little to do with lenses.
And I’d call that splendid news!
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
Hi Heroique,
I'm really not experiencing any issues at present. I just felt this would be a good opportunity to standardize.
I've been shooting LF since 1960, so it's not exactly new to me.
I'm changing techniques, shooting landscapes and scenics with a field camera. Most of my previous work has been in-studio (product, still life, figure), and architecture.
The newness is in using a field camera as opposed to a monorail, and working in a less structured environment.
In the studio I almost never use more than one lens for a particular subject, so I'm not concerned about consistent chromatic rendering and differences between lens manufacturers and families. However, in the field I've used multiple FLs on all of the subjects I've shot, so uniformity is important.
My current lenses are all "modern", generally mid-1980's vintage or newer. No leading-edge aspherics, but several ED glass, and all multi-coated.
In the retro category I do have one very nice Swiss-made Gold Dot Dagor, but I'm keeping it in the studio.
Thanks.
- Leigh
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
If you're looking at current generation lenses, Schneider is the only the only company with technology to make aspheric elements for large format optics, so they're able to make lenses with the design advantages of their XL series ... lenses as sharp as the previous generation but in much more compact sizes and with bigger maximum apertures.
If you're looking at medium format technical lenses for digital, most of what I've read suggests that the current generation of Rodenstocks has leapfrogged Schneider.
Otherwise, tossup.
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
If you're looking at medium format technical lenses for digital, most of what I've read suggests that the current generation of Rodenstocks has leapfrogged Schneider.
Hi Paul.
I do digital in 35 (Nikon) and MF (Hasselblad), but my LF work is strictly film.
Don't know how long that will continue, but I have a large stock of film (frozen) and chemistry.
Thanks much.
- Leigh
Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?
It used to be that catalog shooters -- the grey background types -- would use the same lenses, as well as paying attention to minute details like flash tubes, emulsion batches, etc. all in the hopes of maintaining a nice consistent neutral grey....
But now if you have a digital workflow -- and especially if you shoot outdoors, where it's widely varying color temperatures -- it seems a bit pointless to worry about whether the Schott Glass was running a tiny tad yellower the day they made your lens ;-)
In fact, keep the catalog background neutral was a bit pointless too, since it was scanned and it would have been easy for the operator to set the background to grey even back in the 90s... but it was expected that a good photographer would deliver near perfect chromes regardless.