Schneider's analogue lens production

[Jody_S]

Both yes and no. At first look, the older lenses are quite fine with a digital back. I got a stitching back and put it on a 4x5 camera with a couple nice analog lenses, and the images were just fine. Ahah, (I thought) they were messing with us, these older lenses (58, 90) are just fine. And on center, they were.

The problem was at the edges - and especially with stitching and moving the smaller digital back around. With modest shifts, say 5mm, they were fine, but at about 15mm shift, or say (if you do the math) at the edge of a 60-80mm lens circle, they began to not look so nice. A bit of distortion, a bit of smearing, and when looked at critically, they just weren't there. Some of the later "analog" lenses, like the 47XL, still work well with digital, but one generation older and there are real limits to working with them. Its not just marketing.

As I mention earlier in the thread, I'm not trying to talk people out of buying the new lenses. They're fine lenses, unless they're lying about the specs. And the people who buy them seem to love them. I just wish they wouldn't call them 'digital' lenses, because they're not. They do not out-resolve a similarly-spec'd 'analog' lens (unless, again, they're lying about specs) or have any other difference that would make them somehow essential for digital LF photography. That's not to say that there haven't been small improvements in lens design since the advent of computer-assisted design and fabrication. Obviously there are now computer programs that can design lenses with better edge performance, and there are automated lens-grinding machines and automated lathes for the barrels that can execute those designs, not to mention computerized testing and adjusting to pull it all together. And naturally, we have to pay for that level of perfection. So yes, I would expect better performance from a new lens than my 1970s S-Angulon 90/8. And anyone who wants to buy a new lens to get that improved performance has my 100% support. I wish I could go out and buy a whole mess of new lenses myself, but I can't afford it (mainly the resulting divorce).

[StoneNYC]

As I mention earlier in the thread, I'm not trying to talk people out of buying the new lenses. They're fine lenses, unless they're lying about the specs. And the people who buy them seem to love them. I just wish they wouldn't call them 'digital' lenses, because they're not. They do not out-resolve a similarly-spec'd 'analog' lens (unless, again, they're lying about specs) or have any other difference that would make them somehow essential for digital LF photography. That's not to say that there haven't been small improvements in lens design since the advent of computer-assisted design and fabrication. Obviously there are now computer programs that can design lenses with better edge performance, and there are automated lens-grinding machines and automated lathes for the barrels that can execute those designs, not to mention computerized testing and adjusting to pull it all together. And naturally, we have to pay for that level of perfection. So yes, I would expect better performance from a new lens than my 1970s S-Angulon 90/8. And anyone who wants to buy a new lens to get that improved performance has my 100% support. I wish I could go out and buy a whole mess of new lenses myself, but I can't afford it (mainly the resulting divorce).

I think the coatings may be different per my other comment (I think here) about how digital sensors absorb wavelengths of light differently than film and some need to be filtered out and new digital lenses have coatings to prevent certain light from messing up the image on a digital sensor. That's my understanding.

[Corran]

The UV/IR blocking glass (if it has it - see Leica M8) is on the sensor, it has nothing to do with the lens.

[Bob Salomon]

I think the coatings may be different per my other comment (I think here) about how digital sensors absorb wavelengths of light differently than film and some need to be filtered out and new digital lenses have coatings to prevent certain light from messing up the image on a digital sensor. That's my understanding.

I think what you are referring to is the effectiveness of the coatings on the digital lens series to prevent the ghosting that can occur when light rays bounce back off the cover glass and then are reflected back to the sensor off the rear elements. The coatings used by Rodenstock eliminates this from happening. But they also use this same coating on their last and latest analog lenses as well.

[StoneNYC]

I think what you are referring to is the effectiveness of the coatings on the digital lens series to prevent the ghosting that can occur when light rays bounce back off the cover glass and then are reflected back to the sensor off the rear elements. The coatings used by Rodenstock eliminates this from happening. But they also use this same coating on their last and latest analog lenses as well.

Ahh thanks, yes that sounds like what I was thinking of.