Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

  1. #31

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr View Post
    Does Rodenstock make large format optics with aspheric elements?
    They don't specify. Only state the type of glass (if ED), number of elements, number of groups, MTF, ditortion curves, color curves, etc. You know, the info that tells one how it will perform and what it will cover and how much movement is available in formats to 8x10. They do not specify glues, rings, centering techniques, paints, etc.

  2. #32
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,442

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    Rodenstock doesn't specify. My friend at Schneider told me two years ago that they were the only company making aspherical elements for LF lenses. Unless Rodenstock has come up with new technology since then, I'll stand by my statement.

    He said the reason is simple: the R&D to create the manufacturing process for aspheric elements in those sizes was enormous. The company also faced very high failure rates for the first two years, which meant it took them a long time to recoup their investment. No one else in the optical industry was willing to take on such a high financial risk for such a relatively small market.

    It was all about the $$$. He's the first to admit that none of the lens companies are able to keep conceptual secrets from each other. It's all about manufacturing technology, not design.

  3. #33

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr View Post
    Rodenstock doesn't specify. My friend at Schneider told me two years ago that they were the only company making aspherical elements for LF lenses. Unless Rodenstock has come up with new technology since then, I'll stand by my statement.

    He said the reason is simple: the R&D to create the manufacturing process for aspheric elements in those sizes was enormous. The company also faced very high failure rates for the first two years, which meant it took them a long time to recoup their investment. No one else in the optical industry was willing to take on such a high financial risk for such a relatively small market.

    It was all about the $$$. He's the first to admit that none of the lens companies are able to keep conceptual secrets from each other. It's all about manufacturing technology, not design.
    Paul,

    All the lens manufacturers are capable of making aspherics today. In 1993 the Rodenstock catalog shows aspherical diamond turned lens elements with the following specifications:

    focal length 5%, Back focal length 5%, outside diameter maximum 400mm min. 1mm, center thickness 0.02mm. For precision pressed max. dia. 60mm min. dia. 7mm.

    Remember, these were their manufacturing capabilities in their June 1993 catalog, almost 18 years ago.

    So your friend at Schneider may have been taking some license with other company's technologies.

    Oh yes, in that same catalog Rodenstock also shows that these aspherics could be single sided with the other side of the element spherical or both sides aspherical. In addition it also lists Rodenstock's diamond turned aspherical mirrors.

    But again, the shape of the elements isn't the question. The results on film or onto a digital sensor or array is the answer. And that you see in the MTF curves, fall off curves, distortion curves and the longtitudinal chromatic aberration curves. That is what will tell you how well the image will be catured at the image plane.

  4. #34
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,442

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    I don't know Bob. I don't see Rodenstock making the kinds of LF designs that are made possible by aspherics. Nothing like the XL lenses, which perform like the last generation wide angle lenses but weigh half as much and have wider maximum apertures.

    Rodenstock may have the technology to make aspherics of a certain type, but they don't seem able (or willing?) to make these same advanced designs that Schneider is implementing with their aspherics.

    You're right that the shape of the elements isn't the question. It's the characteristics of the end design (and it goes beyond optical quality ... Schneider's designs don't seem to substantially improve optical performance, but they improve everything else).

    I dont have any of these lenses. I'm happy with the optical performance of my older design wide angle, and don't mind carrying around its cinder block form factor. I have a Super Angulon and am sure I'd be equally happy with a Grandagon. But if I were backpacking with the thing, or needed a brighter focusing image, I'd be turning to the XLs, as a lot of other people on the forum have.

  5. #35

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr View Post
    I don't know Bob. I don't see Rodenstock making the kinds of LF designs that are made possible by aspherics. Nothing like the XL lenses, which perform like the last generation wide angle lenses but weigh half as much and have wider maximum apertures.

    Rodenstock may have the technology to make aspherics of a certain type, but they don't seem able (or willing?) to make these same advanced designs that Schneider is implementing with their aspherics.

    You're right that the shape of the elements isn't the question. It's the characteristics of the end design (and it goes beyond optical quality ... Schneider's designs don't seem to substantially improve optical performance, but they improve everything else).

    I dont have any of these lenses. I'm happy with the optical performance of my older design wide angle, and don't mind carrying around its cinder block form factor. I have a Super Angulon and am sure I'd be equally happy with a Grandagon. But if I were backpacking with the thing, or needed a brighter focusing image, I'd be turning to the XLs, as a lot of other people on the forum have.
    Of course you saw some. Remember the W series. The 150 and the 210 were rather small, but heavy. The 300covered a 490mm circle without the need for a center filter. Neither did the shorter ones need a center filter. Even though the 210 covered a 352mm circle and the 150 covered a 252mm circle.

    Have you checked out the 23mm and 32mm? Although these are for digital but they are the latest technology.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Valley of the Sun, AZ
    Posts
    658

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    If a lens (or any other technology) gives you the result you want, what does it matter how it does it? This is beginning to sound like digisnap mavens comparing megapixel count to the exclusion of everything else.

    And Germany has been making aspheric elements since about 1943 (Zeiss binocular oculars), so it's been doable in some fashion for many decades.
    They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea.
    -Francis Bacon

  7. #37
    Octogenarian
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Frisco, Texas
    Posts
    3,520

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    Good point, John.

    Many of us were standing by to see who eventually wins this pissing contest.

    "Just because you are able to argue the other guy down, doesn't necessarily mean that
    you won the argument."

  8. #38
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,442

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    I apologize for the pissing contest. I was trying to provide some even-handed pros and cons that represented minor exceptions to general rule that both brands make equally great lenses.

    It's degraded to tit-for-tat over minutiae because of what strikes me as deliberate obfuscation by one of the lens companies' sales reps.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing View Post
    Of course you saw some. Remember the W series.
    Yes. These are old lens designs that are not equivalent to the ones in question. You could likewise point out that the old Angulons were very compact and light.

    Have you checked out the 23mm and 32mm? Although these are for digital but they are the latest technology.
    Yes. And as I said in my original post, I think Rodenstock has leapfrogged Schneider in digital lenses. If I had the money to buy a digital technical camera system today, I'd almost certainly go with these.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    1,185

    Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    I think the weak factor will not be the lens anyway it will be:
    1. the man behind the camera
    2. the registration of the groundglass and film
    3. are the standards of the camera 100% exatly as they should be
    4. the wind!

    Cheers Armin

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    4,222

    Lightbulb Re: Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

    Quote Originally Posted by Armin Seeholzer View Post
    I think the weak factor will not be the lens anyway it will be:
    Hi Armin,

    Of course that's true. There are myriad factors which can enhance or degrade any particular image.

    I've always subscribed to the philosophy that I use the best products available.

    That way when something goes wrong, I need only look in the mirror to place blame.

    'Tis a poor craftsman indeed who blames his tools.

    Thanks.

    - Leigh

Similar Threads

  1. Rodenstock Sinar Schneider Linhof
    By swmcl in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20-Jun-2010, 02:39
  2. Schneider versus Rodenstock
    By Giorgio in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 31-Mar-2004, 22:00
  3. Schneider vs Rodenstock - Is it relevant ?
    By Mike Foster in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 30-Nov-2000, 23:44
  4. Rodenstock or Schneider Considerations
    By Roger Haynes in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 23-Aug-2000, 19:58

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •