PDA

View Full Version : Rodenstock's iconic lenses



genotypewriter
20-Mar-2013, 03:19
Rodenstock has been around since 1877 and they still make some of the best lenses but I'm trying to figure out which of their designs are truly unique or iconic.

For example Zeiss has their Tessar, Biogon, Topogon, etc. to talk about. Schneider has their aspherical Super Symmar XLs, fast Xenotars, APO Tele-Xenars and modern incarnations of very desirable older designs like Fine Art XXLs. Voigtlander made Universal Heliar, Ultragon, etc.

Even when looking at sold ebay items, Rodenstock lenses that pick up high prices are mostly their modern digital lenses. I'm sure a 1000mm+ Apo-Ronar will sell for a lot of money but so will an Apo-Planar or a long Apo-Nikkor. I'm also not saying that every lens manufacturer must have some really special lens... but this is about Rodenstock in particular. What unique lenses did they make? Or did their popularity come from making a wide range of high quality lenses instead?

Thanks!

IanG
20-Mar-2013, 03:54
Eurynar.

Ian

dap
20-Mar-2013, 04:25
Imagon

genotypewriter
20-Mar-2013, 04:38
Eurynar.

Ian

Seems like a budget lens and they were literally giving them away:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4956185889/

They sell for any where between $25-$170 on the bay as well.

IanG
20-Mar-2013, 05:01
Seems like a budget lens and they were literally giving them away:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4956185889/

They sell for any where between $25-$170 on the bay as well.

Rodenstok's budget lens was the Trinar, the Eurynar is a dialyte and has significantly better resolution than a Tessar across the full aperture scale, and focus range, it's similar to a Goerz Celor and later 203mm f7.7 Kodak Anasigmat/Ektar (also Dialytes).

The downside to all Dialytes is the 8 air/glass surfaces compared to a Tessar's 4 which makes them more prone to flare. There were a few Eurynars made post WWII which were coated and they'd be a good as the 203mm Ektars.

In comparing historic prices it's worth noting that certain brands commanded premium prices, people would pay more for a lens with the Zeiss name.

Ian

genotypewriter
20-Mar-2013, 05:12
Imagon

A doublet with fancy stops... but fair enough :)



Rodenstok's budget lens was the Trinar,

Interesting to hear. The particular advertisement I linked to also suggests that the Eurynar was aimed at value buyers.


In comparing historic prices it's worth noting that certain brands commanded premium prices, people would pay more for a lens with the Zeiss name.

Where did Rodenstock rank, historically? Right now they seem to be making lenses that are just as good and if not better than comparable Schneider lenses.

IanG
20-Mar-2013, 06:24
Where did Rodenstock rank, historically? Right now they seem to be making lenses that are just as good and if not better than comparable Schneider lenses.

From a UK viewpoint of the German manufcaturers Rodenstock were behing Zeiss, Meyer, Voigtlander, Shneider but better than Steinheil, then there were a few other smaller companies. But then that's in terms of the sheer range of lenses they made not necessarily quality. By the early 1930's Zeiss and Meyer had large ranges of lenses, Schneider seem to become better known when Nagel split from Zeiss Ikon and initially his cameras where fitted with Schneider lenses, when Kodak bought Nagel they began using Zeiss lenses as well. It's at this point though (mid 30's that Schneider seemed to become better known, selling LF lenses in the UK.

Zeiss subcontracted some of their cheaper lenses and Rodenstock made many of the Novars, after WWII Zeiss Ikon used Scheider lenses on some of their cameras (Ikontas for instance) because they couldn't make enough lenses due to war damage.

Rodenstock seem to have remained quite small in comparison to their competitors and only really became better known after Zeiss (West germany) and Voigtlander had left the LF market.

I have a 1920's Rodenstock camera with a 135mm Eurynmar lens, and I've seen the lens alone sell for £130 ($165). The advert you listed is from a US distributor and advertising hype isn't always too accurate.


Ian

Steven Tribe
20-Mar-2013, 06:28
Rodenstock ranks quite low compared with it's competitors. Not much innovation, apart from the "non-main stream" bistigmat. Eurynar, perhaps - but the name was used on less good lenses which are not dialytes. Quite a lot of the no-name lenses around 1900 were made by Rodenstock - including the Meteor casket sets.

Bob Salomon
20-Mar-2013, 06:29
Sironar-N, covered 72° compared to the Symmar's 69°, Grandagon 4.5 and 6.8 compared to SA 5.6 and 8.0. Apo Sironar-S, Apo-Sironar-W, the Apo Ronar owned more then 90% of the horizontal process camera lens market, 95mm 2.8 Heligon, Heligon 50mm 2.0, Heligon 50mm 1.9Apo-Rodagon-N, Longer Apo Rodagon process lenses, Apo Gerogon, Rotelar, Yronar, Yasrex, Geronar, Geronar-WA, Rogonar-s. Some private label lenses for Linhof like the Tecnikar from the Linhof 220 or the Linhof Portrait lens. And some 35mm interchangeable lens cameras from the 50's and 60's like the Kodak Retina Reflex offered some Rodenstock lenses.

IanG
20-Mar-2013, 06:36
Sironar-N, covered 72° compared to the Symmar's 69°, Grandagon 4.5 and 6.8 compared to SA 5.6 and 8.0. Apo Sironar-S, Apo-Sironar-W, the Apo Ronar owned more then 90% of the horizontal process camera lens market, 95mm 2.8 Heligon, Heligon 50mm 2.0, Heligon 50mm 1.9Apo-Rodagon-N, Longer Apo Rodagon process lenses, Apo Gerogon, Rotelar, Yronar, Yasrex, Geronar, Geronar-WA, Rogonar-s. Some private label lenses for Linhof like the Tecnikar from the Linhof 220 or the Linhof Portrait lens.

Bob, I think that matches my comments tht Rodenstock only really became pre-eminent around the time Voigtlander and Zeiss were leaving the market. It seems the company was reinvigourated.

Ian

Bob Salomon
20-Mar-2013, 06:55
Bob, I think that matches my comments tht Rodenstock only really became pre-eminent around the time Voigtlander and Zeiss were leaving the market. It seems the company was reinvigourated.

Ian

Since we were the last distributor of Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses as Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander USA (up to 1979) I can tell you that both Rodenstock and Schneider were very strong in the US market well before we stopped offering the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses. Zeiss lost their headway it seems when they lost major market share VS Leica and Nikon in the 35mm market. Voigtlander bounced around after their name was sold in the 70's Rollei and currently to the Ring Photo camera store group.

dap
20-Mar-2013, 06:56
A doublet with fancy stops... but fair enough :)


Yeah - nothing all that special about a doublet, but the fancy stops have been copied by at least two other lens manufacturers - so at least it can be considered innovative in that respect. In any case I think it can be considered one of their "signature" lenses ( for better or worse depending on your opinion of soft focus lenses).

Bob Salomon
20-Mar-2013, 08:18
Yeah - nothing all that special about a doublet, but the fancy stops have been copied by at least two other lens manufacturers - so at least it can be considered innovative in that respect. In any case I think it can be considered one of their "signature" lenses ( for better or worse depending on your opinion of soft focus lenses).

Which two use the disks in front of the lens rather then inside the lens?

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
20-Mar-2013, 08:24
I think the Sironar-S is iconic in that it is an exemplar. It is, I believe, the finest plasmat made in terms of overall sharpness, contrast, coverage, and rendering.

C. D. Keth
20-Mar-2013, 09:49
I think the Sironar-S is iconic in that it is an exemplar. It is, I believe, the finest plasmat made in terms of overall sharpness, contrast, coverage, and rendering.

Does that really make it all that special? It's a bit like calling sherwin williams white better than any other white because it's whiter than all other whites.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
20-Mar-2013, 09:53
No, it is more like calling Sherwin Williams better because it is whiter, covers better, dries faster, has lower VOCs, and doesn't require a primer on all sorts of different materials. Of course the same could be said about any product. Why is a 1966 Mustang 289 iconic compared to another product of Ford? There was nothing unique about its mechanics.

But yes, you are correct, in a way my point echoing others above, was that Rodenstock hasn't really created any unique lenses, but rather tweaked the designs which are out there, just like Ford did in 1966.

dap
20-Mar-2013, 09:55
Which two use the disks in front of the lens rather then inside the lens?

Your right - Mamiya and Fuji both place the strainer inside the lens rather than on the outside rim. Knock the Imagon off the influential lens list - I'm sure both companies came up with the idea for using a strainer disc aperture in their soft focus lenses independently without any consideration to what Rodenstock was doing at the time. :)

Leigh
20-Mar-2013, 10:17
It's a bit like calling sherwin williams white better than any other white because it's whiter than all other whites.
If it is in fact whiter, then it's a better white. Why not call it such?

- Leigh

Jody_S
20-Mar-2013, 10:39
If it is in fact whiter, then it's a better white. Why not call it such?

- Leigh

As a matter off fact, their industrial whites are whiter, as they're titanium-based instead of zinc. Toxic as all h*, especially with the solvents they use, but they are a better white. I've gotten pretty high spraying metal parts with that stuff, even in a shelter with an open wall.

Bob Salomon
20-Mar-2013, 11:00
How about a lens that performs as well at 1:1 as it does at infinity? That has no discernable fall off from edge to edge and corner to corner. That has exceptionally high resolution with excellent color curves and no distortion?

Take a look at the newest Rodenstock lens, the 90mm 5.6 HR Digaron-S/W (NOT the older 90mm 5.6 HR Digaron-W). Or check out the specs on the 23mm 5.6 HR Digaron-S or the new 32mm 4.0 HR Digaron-W.
While these are lenses that cover 2x3 rather then 4x5 there are some in the series that do cover 45, the 135, 150 and 180mm 5.6 Apo Sironar Digital lenses.

IanG
20-Mar-2013, 11:20
Since we were the last distributor of Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses as Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander USA (up to 1979) I can tell you that both Rodenstock and Schneider were very strong in the US market well before we stopped offering the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses. Zeiss lost their headway it seems when they lost major market share VS Leica and Nikon in the 35mm market. Voigtlander bounced around after their name was sold in the 70's Rollei and currently to the Ring Photo camera store group.

I think you're right and I guess I was also thinking of the broader scenario, by the time I became seriously interested and involved in photography in the late 1960's both Zeiss and Voigtlander were spent forces in terms of camera production and when I bought my first LF camera in 1976 Schneider was predominant in the UK, but Rodenstock had a good reputation.

LF is on a limb, it's always been a small niche market and look how long it took Schneider to sell off (and assemble) their last production run of Xenar lenses, a few years.

Ian

C. D. Keth
20-Mar-2013, 13:12
If it is in fact whiter, then it's a better white. Why not call it such?

- Leigh

Because iconic and being a good lens are different things.

paulr
20-Mar-2013, 14:50
All these companies have evolved ... their historical relationships don't necessarily reflect their current ones. In the early years, Schneider was known mostly for cheaper Zeiss knockoffs. In more recent decades, they generally outperformed and out-innovated zeiss in the medium format market where they competed.

Schneider seems to have innovated the most in the large format space in the last decades. Rodenstock has arguably been the most innovative in the medium format digital space (they're the only ones with top performing retrofocus wide angle lenses).

Now Schneider and Zeiss are going head to head again in the high-end small format market. I wish Rodenstock would join that party. It seems their wide angle designs would be perfect to convert into tilt/shift optics for 35mm.

Bob Salomon
20-Mar-2013, 15:53
All these companies have evolved ... their historical relationships don't necessarily reflect their current ones. In the early years, Schneider was known mostly for cheaper Zeiss knockoffs. In more recent decades, they generally outperformed and out-innovated zeiss in the medium format market where they competed.

Schneider seems to have innovated the most in the large format space in the last decades. Rodenstock has arguably been the most innovative in the medium format digital space (they're the only ones with top performing retrofocus wide angle lenses).

Now Schneider and Zeiss are going head to head again in the high-end small format market. I wish Rodenstock would join that party. It seems their wide angle designs would be perfect to convert into tilt/shift optics for 35mm.

A few years ago at Photokina and at PMA Rodenstock showed three lenses for SLR cameras including tilt shift. However they would have been too expensive and were shelved. We did show them to a few dealers in the USA after the PMA show but that was the extent of it.

IanG
20-Mar-2013, 16:06
All these companies have evolved ... their historical relationships don't necessarily reflect their current ones. In the early years, Schneider was known mostly for cheaper Zeiss knockoffs.

It's unfair to tar Schneider with that brush.

Aside from the Xenar they designed their own lenses. Almost all companies made Cooke Triplet and Tessar clones, that's what camera manufacturers/customers wanted to buy, look how many companies made Tessar & other Zeiss lenses under licence before WWI.

WWI seemed to mean they stopped paying Zeiss royalties, so a Bausch & Lomb Teesar became a Kodak Anastigmat (when sold by Kodak) :D

Ian

Mark Sampson
20-Mar-2013, 18:32
No one's ever asked me if any of my photographs were made with an 'iconic' lens. Wait, that's not true, a Leica nut once asked me if a certain (35mm) shot was made with a German or Canadian Summicron. The few Rodenstock lenses I have used always performed impeccably. Mostly enlarging lenses, but a Sinaron-branded 210 did stand out.

Peter Yeti
20-Mar-2013, 19:24
Could it be that the main question here is how to define an "iconic lens"? Do you go by how popular it is now or in it's day, by unique design or innovative (breakthrough) new construction, by special characteristics or unsurpassed quality? Does this lens need to have a fan club?

genotypewriter
20-Mar-2013, 19:30
No one's ever asked me if any of my photographs were made with an 'iconic' lens. Wait, that's not true, a Leica nut once asked me if a certain (35mm) shot was made with a German or Canadian Summicron. The few Rodenstock lenses I have used always performed impeccably. Mostly enlarging lenses, but a Sinaron-branded 210 did stand out.

Just to preempt this thread from going the wrong way, allow me to re-remind everyone something I said in my original post:


I'm also not saying that every lens manufacturer must have some really special lens... but this is about Rodenstock in particular.

I'm just trying to understand the company. Not whether people can make good photos with Rodenstock lenses or not, etc. I mean, people make great photos even without using lenses too don't they :cool:

patrickjames
21-Mar-2013, 01:45
To get back to the OP's original question, like Ian I have an old 150mm Eurynar f/3.5 that is quite a good lens. It is uncoated, but I hesitate to think how good it would be if it was coated. The only problem with it now is that it is a little low in contrast due to all of the air/glass surfaces. I would love to get it coated, although I think that boat has sailed since I can't find anyone who will coat it for a non exorbitant price since the Russian coater doesn't do it anymore. Olé has one that is coated I believe and has said it is pretty amazing in that state.

IanG
21-Mar-2013, 02:19
To get back to the OP's original question, like Ian I have an old 150mm Eurynar f/3.5 that is quite a good lens. It is uncoated, but I hesitate to think how good it would be if it was coated. The only problem with it now is that it is a little low in contrast due to all of the air/glass surfaces. I would love to get it coated, although I think that boat has sailed since I can't find anyone who will coat it for a non exorbitant price since the Russian coater doesn't do it anymore. Olé has one that is coated I believe and has said it is pretty amazing in that state.

I had planned to get my Eurynar coated and had a quote from an Australian company, the cost wasn't bad but the coatings aren't as hard as multi-coating so you'd need to use a filter to protect the front element. Mick Fagan posted the name of the company I think on APUG.

There was a company in the UK Balham Optical who were re-polishing & coating lenses but went bust about 2 years ago. I use a company to re-silver front surface mirrors, Vacuum Coatings Ltd (http://www.scientificmirrors.co.uk/Services.html), I know they do all sorts of coating so it's worth asking them. Their mirrors are superband they do anti-reflective coatings. You'd need to send the lens elements as they aren't optical specialists. I only found this company last year after I'd decided against having my Eurynar coated - I found a MC lens for the prohect.

Ian

neil poulsen
21-Mar-2013, 08:26
A related question that might provide some insight into the original question is, where has Rodenstock established a new direction or standard in their lenses?

Bernice Loui
21-Mar-2013, 09:14
Rodenstock..

Imagon.

200mm Grandagon.

APO Ronar.


Bernice

Bernice Loui
21-Mar-2013, 09:22
Zeiss pretty much gave up on the general photography market years ago and focused on other industries that are far more profitable. Have a look at Zeiss optical microscope offerings for medicine, industry and.. This is just one of the many other markets Zeiss has focused on in place of general photography..

Zeiss has a highly regarded reputation and brand identity among many photographers, yet based on my experience with Zeiss photographic lenses, they are good, but no better than many of the other competitors who offerer similar products in the same price range. This brand identity stereotype has driven market values for Zeiss photographic optics to IMO, silly numbers.

While Zeiss made their name, brand identity and reputation very early on in the photographic optics game, times and technologies have moved on and they are faced with the same issues, problems as any other optics manufacture today.


Bernice

Oren Grad
21-Mar-2013, 09:23
A related question that might provide some insight into the original question is, where has Rodenstock established a new direction or standard in their lenses?

Apo-Sironar-S established 75-degree coverage as a benchmark for standard plasmats. Schneider didn't get there until the Apo-Symmar L series, and when they did they left out key focal lengths (135, 240) where the extra coverage actually matters.

patrickjames
21-Mar-2013, 11:18
Thanks for the link Ian.

paulr
22-Mar-2013, 15:37
A few years ago at Photokina and at PMA Rodenstock showed three lenses for SLR cameras including tilt shift. However they would have been too expensive and were shelved. We did show them to a few dealers in the USA after the PMA show but that was the extent of it.

I wonder if the market has changed enough since then to reconsider these lenses. Now that top end 35mm cameras are becoming alternatives to medium format digital, $3K and $4K lenses don't seem as absurd as they once did.

Any sense of what one of the Rodenstock t/s lenses might have cost if produced?

I realize this is still a very small market, and the margins are probably quite low as well. But Rodenstock does seem to be the company that has the right optical designs just waiting to be put in a new enclosure.

Bob Salomon
22-Mar-2013, 15:53
I wonder if the market has changed enough since then to reconsider these lenses. Now that top end 35mm cameras are becoming alternatives to medium format digital, $3K and $4K lenses don't seem as absurd as they once did.

Any sense of what one of the Rodenstock t/s lenses might have cost if produced?

I realize this is still a very small market, and the margins are probably quite low as well. But Rodenstock does seem to be the company that has the right optical designs just waiting to be put in a new enclosure.

We asked them during our meetings at Photokina last year. No they are not interested. As for cost at retail? Mid to high 4 figures when they were shown. Would be approaching or passing 5 figures now.

EdSawyer
22-Mar-2013, 20:53
apo symmar (non L) and apo sironar s have basically the same coverage, despite whatever one might claim. This was born out in various discussions here comparing the MTF and hence the falloff/angle of coverage.

-Ed




Apo-Sironar-S established 75-degree coverage as a benchmark for standard plasmats. Schneider didn't get there until the Apo-Symmar L series, and when they did they left out key focal lengths (135, 240) where the extra coverage actually matters.

Jody_S
22-Mar-2013, 21:15
I don't have any real comment on this thread except that I own a quite early RR from Rodenstock that is apparently worthless compared to Voigtlander and Dallmeyer period offerings, and I have never had a bad Rodenstock lens. Every single one I have used has been a superb performer. I think they get a bad rap from collectors.

Oren Grad
22-Mar-2013, 22:41
apo symmar (non L) and apo sironar s have basically the same coverage, despite whatever one might claim. This was born out in various discussions here comparing the MTF and hence the falloff/angle of coverage.

So I went rummaging through my literature collection, dug up MTFs for the Apo-Symmar and Apo-Sironar-S series, and picked a couple of focal lengths - 135 and 210 - for close comparison. Taking care to match working apertures and magnifications, they are indeed difficult to tell apart.

paulr
23-Mar-2013, 09:23
So I went rummaging through my literature collection, dug up MTFs for the Apo-Symmar and Apo-Sironar-S series, and picked a couple of focal lengths - 135 and 210 - for close comparison. Taking care to match working apertures and magnifications, they are indeed difficult to tell apart.

Back when I was shopping/geeking out, I made those same comparisons. The only difference I found was the the Schneider looked slightly better and infinity, the Rodie at 1:10. But these were the kinds of differences that you'd probably never see in real life. They could also be accounted for by differences in test methodology, or overshadowed by sample variation.

paulr
23-Mar-2013, 09:35
So I went rummaging through my literature collection, dug up MTFs for the Apo-Symmar and Apo-Sironar-S series, and picked a couple of focal lengths - 135 and 210 - for close comparison. Taking care to match working apertures and magnifications, they are indeed difficult to tell apart.

I took another look at Rodenstock's published info and see that I was wrong about their widest angle designs being ready to drop into a tilt/shift enclosure. The 23mm and 28mm HR-S lenses, which I assume would be most in demand, have too short a lens–focal plane distance to work with a dslr. Rodenstock has eeked out enough distance to give full movements on a tech camera, but not enough to make room for a reflex mirror. So it makes sense this would be a big investment for them, just like it is for anyone else.

Oren Grad
23-Mar-2013, 11:38
Back when I was shopping/geeking out, I made those same comparisons. The only difference I found was the the Schneider looked slightly better and infinity, the Rodie at 1:10. But these were the kinds of differences that you'd probably never see in real life. They could also be accounted for by differences in test methodology, or overshadowed by sample variation.

I own both Apo-Symmars and Apo-Sironar-S's and have a pretty good feel for how they actually look on B&W film. For my uses - mostly contact prints, occasionally modest enlargements from smaller formats (up to 4x5) - any residual differences in MTF are irrelevant. They do render OOF areas differently, and I happen to like the Rodenstock look. But in general, as far as I'm concerned, both series are very fine lenses.

Jim Galli
23-Mar-2013, 12:33
In the real golden age of Iconic lenses (we could argue about what that is forever) Rodenstock was nobody from nowhere...

paulr
23-Mar-2013, 15:49
I took another look at Rodenstock's published info and see that I was wrong about their widest angle designs being ready to drop into a tilt/shift enclosure. The 23mm and 28mm HR-S lenses, which I assume would be most in demand, have too short a lens–focal plane distance to work with a dslr. Rodenstock has eeked out enough distance to give full movements on a tech camera, but not enough to make room for a reflex mirror. So it makes sense this would be a big investment for them, just like it is for anyone else.

I meant this in repsponse to Bob, not Oren ... sorry for the confusion ...

Oren Grad
23-Mar-2013, 15:57
I meant this in repsponse to Bob, not Oren ... sorry for the confusion ...

No problem here, it's a good observation. I guess it's not going to happen, but I too would have liked to see Rodenstock playing in the market for premium SLR lenses.