The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
ultimate MF landscape lens - digital or film
- Thread starter trioderob
- Start date
danlindberg
Well-known member
Most consider the Rodenstock the best choice for optical excellence, however, if stopping down is an important factor for you then you must know that compared to a symmetrical designed lens (Schneider) the Rodenstock should not really be stopped down further than f8 for ultimate resolution. The Schneider is brilliant at f11 and absolutely workable at f16.
Obviously if you have the possibility for forward tilt then 1 or 2 degrees of tilt makes wonders in many landscape scenes with a HR lens and f8....
Obviously if you have the possibility for forward tilt then 1 or 2 degrees of tilt makes wonders in many landscape scenes with a HR lens and f8....
I prefer Schneider lenses too due to a number of reasons, but the "general concensus" at least here on GetDPI is that Rodenstock Digarons are on top, and indeed corner sharpness is better. If shifting you don't need to be at f/8 to see differences. Personally I think shooting at f/8 is a bad idea, as you get moire and/or color aliasing artifacts if the picture is too sharp for the pixel size, it's better to "soften" a little with diffraction and then sharpen in post-processing. A very sligthly less sharp image without aliasing artifacts is better image quality to me than a sharper image with aliasing.
There's also the sensor compatibility to take into account, the Digaron wides are a little retrofocus and thus work better when shifted for the newer sensors. The disadvantage of retrofocus (except from weight and cost) is however distortion, but it's quite low and most wouldn't care for landscape (in architecture it can matter though, but can be corrected).
There's also the sensor compatibility to take into account, the Digaron wides are a little retrofocus and thus work better when shifted for the newer sensors. The disadvantage of retrofocus (except from weight and cost) is however distortion, but it's quite low and most wouldn't care for landscape (in architecture it can matter though, but can be corrected).
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Maybe the big reason for Roadies is they can handle certain backs better as far as lens falloff. But to be honest I like the look of the SK's. The Sk60 XL is one of the nicest lens I ever shot. Just outstanding and you can shift it quite a lot. Has 120mm image circle.
Kevin Sink
New member
I concur with Guy on this one. I have the Rody 32mm & the Schneider 60. Both are incredible lenses but the 32mm performance starts to dip along the edges & corners if you shift 10mm from center. The Schneider 60 is a lens from the Gods. As my friend John Smith says, "be careful with the images, they're so sharp they'll cut you! 
I routinely move the back 15mm with no performance fall off.
I routinely move the back 15mm with no performance fall off.dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Any tech cam lens is at least "very good", especially if your point of comparison is a wide angle on a dSLR. There are a few however that stand out. At some point it's like arguing which million dollar super car is 3mph faster, but the very best...
Roddy 32HR
Schneider 60XL
Roddy 90HR-SW
Schneider 120ASPH
Tech Camera Overview
A good dealer can provide sample files and hands on experience as you make up your mind. If you're in the US we (DT) would be glad to do so.
Roddy 32HR
Schneider 60XL
Roddy 90HR-SW
Schneider 120ASPH
Tech Camera Overview
A good dealer can provide sample files and hands on experience as you make up your mind. If you're in the US we (DT) would be glad to do so.
darr
Well-known member
It is about economics; why the moderator edit?
I have to say the Rodenstock 40mm HR-W.
It is a very easy lens to filter. It is not to heavy or large. (unlike the larger and heavier 32HR which tests the limits of the copal 0 mounting!). It resists flare very well. VERY sharp corner to corner and almost all the way to the end of the image circle even with the 60/80 MP backs. It is my go to lens for landscapes.
Like all HR-W lenses makes ANY SLR wide angle lens look like a toy once you look at the files. The HR-W lenses really show what is possible in lens performance. Do not look at high quality files at 100% made using those lenses if you are not going to buy them, you will cry.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I'm with Ken_R on the 40 HR-W. It's a very easy lens to live with and even in the short time I've had mine I've found it extremely versatile and easy to use with shifts and tilts. Heck, I can dial in 1 degree or so and pretty much hyper focal the thing and get super sharp and high acuity across the frame, even with movements up to 15mm with the IQ260. It replaced all of my other wides without the bulk or expense of the 32mm.
Crazy sharp right into the corners.
I know that in theory the 32mm is the superior lens technically but the 40HR-W is so easy to work with.
Crazy sharp right into the corners.
I know that in theory the 32mm is the superior lens technically but the 40HR-W is so easy to work with.
kdphotography
Well-known member
Rodenstock 40mm HR-W is definitely my favorite lens. Plays well with others... LCC barely needed though I take an LCC capture regularly.
ken
ken
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Lars
Active member
My experience is mostly with 8x10 film.
Ridiculously sharp: SSXL 150 - basically resolves like a good FF lens in LP/mm but with a 400 mm image circle - this translates to gigapixel resolving power. The angle of field equates to about 25 mm FF focal length on 8x10. Downside is a string of futile attempts to try to filter it in front of the lens before I found a practical solution for ND grads.
Also ridiculously sharp: The Apo-Ronar 480 that I sold to Jack. I miss it. I want it back.
Contrast and bokeh: Cooke XVa Triple Convertible 311/473/646 mm. Fantastic wide open (which is f/16 at 646 mm), neutral rear bokeh, amazing coating. Very sharp on 8x10 but no match for the Apo-Ronar.
Ridiculously sharp: SSXL 150 - basically resolves like a good FF lens in LP/mm but with a 400 mm image circle - this translates to gigapixel resolving power. The angle of field equates to about 25 mm FF focal length on 8x10. Downside is a string of futile attempts to try to filter it in front of the lens before I found a practical solution for ND grads.
Also ridiculously sharp: The Apo-Ronar 480 that I sold to Jack. I miss it. I want it back.
Contrast and bokeh: Cooke XVa Triple Convertible 311/473/646 mm. Fantastic wide open (which is f/16 at 646 mm), neutral rear bokeh, amazing coating. Very sharp on 8x10 but no match for the Apo-Ronar.
during my film age, Apo sironar S 150, 240, 300 and my super symmar XL 110 were all really really good !
For digital back, the 60xl seems the best (i don't have it)… but i've found that the api sironar digital 55 was really good for architecture… F11, minimal distortion… and really sharp with Aptus II 7, P45+… i've heard that it was really good with P65+ also… i will test it with an credo 60 soon !
For digital back, the 60xl seems the best (i don't have it)… but i've found that the api sironar digital 55 was really good for architecture… F11, minimal distortion… and really sharp with Aptus II 7, P45+… i've heard that it was really good with P65+ also… i will test it with an credo 60 soon !
I use the widest lenses quite seldom. When you can shift I think one can often get away with a little bit less wide angle. My shooting style has more of intimiate "crops" than grand landscapes and then I use 90-120 and even 180mm more often than the wides.
I have a principle to never allow quality take precedence over composition. This means that I don't care that my SK120 is a little bit sharper than the SK90, if the 90 provides the suitable field of view for the image I want to make, I use that. Of course the lowest level of quality is still very high with these lens ranges so it's not much of a compromise.
Likewise I'm less worried about sharpness loss after shift these days than I was when I first started shooting MFD. When I need to shift a lot and the subject allows I do angle up the camera a bit so I can shift a bit less, but again I don't like the strive for sharpest possible pixels take precedence over composition.
Having lenses with extra large image circles does provide a freedom, and I think this is the largest advantage of the new lenses SK120ASPH, SK60XL etc, moreso than providing some extra sharpness in the center.
For my shooting style I also think it's important to match sensor with lenses, so you don't get a limitation of image circle use just because the sensor can't handle the lens fully.
In short, when I shoot I want to think about the image not about limiting my lens choices or movements too keep within some quality measure.
I have a principle to never allow quality take precedence over composition. This means that I don't care that my SK120 is a little bit sharper than the SK90, if the 90 provides the suitable field of view for the image I want to make, I use that. Of course the lowest level of quality is still very high with these lens ranges so it's not much of a compromise.
Likewise I'm less worried about sharpness loss after shift these days than I was when I first started shooting MFD. When I need to shift a lot and the subject allows I do angle up the camera a bit so I can shift a bit less, but again I don't like the strive for sharpest possible pixels take precedence over composition.
Having lenses with extra large image circles does provide a freedom, and I think this is the largest advantage of the new lenses SK120ASPH, SK60XL etc, moreso than providing some extra sharpness in the center.
For my shooting style I also think it's important to match sensor with lenses, so you don't get a limitation of image circle use just because the sensor can't handle the lens fully.
In short, when I shoot I want to think about the image not about limiting my lens choices or movements too keep within some quality measure.
dchew
Well-known member
Another vote for the 60xl. No no, the 40 hr. Oops no I mean the 60...
If I had to take only one lens it would be the 60xl. But that is just because for me it is such a versatile lens. The 40 is more of the classic focal length though. As Doug and others have said, there is a kind of short list: 32hr, 40hr/43xl, 60xl, 90hrsw, 120asph. From there just pick your favorite focal length that goes with your format and vision. I add the Sk150 because I like that length on a 54x40 format.
Film opens up a world of additional options. I would lean toward the Schneiders with film for the reasons Dan states.
Dave
If I had to take only one lens it would be the 60xl. But that is just because for me it is such a versatile lens. The 40 is more of the classic focal length though. As Doug and others have said, there is a kind of short list: 32hr, 40hr/43xl, 60xl, 90hrsw, 120asph. From there just pick your favorite focal length that goes with your format and vision. I add the Sk150 because I like that length on a 54x40 format.
Film opens up a world of additional options. I would lean toward the Schneiders with film for the reasons Dan states.
Dave