Schneider Vs Rodenstock, in a nutshell...

Curious to know if these brands have a 'look' or charcter which runs

right through all of their lenses or if they are so close in

performance that they are virtually interchangeable. I am

specifically being ambiguous in that I'm not talking about digital

or '5x4' or '10x8' lenses. I'm just curious to know if each brand has

a specific 'look', and if so, how would you differentiate them. Feel

free to add Nikon, Fuji, Cooke, etc, etc.

 

JJ

No, they don't. There are two principal differences between the two: (1) Schneider has a web page that contains every conceivable bit of information about its products that anyone could care to know. Rodenstock and its U.S distributor are stuck in the 1950s from a web page information standpoint. If you want information about Rodenstock lenses you write a letter to the U.S. distributor and then later on they'll send you a brochure in the mail. (2) Schneider has shown a commitment to large format photography by frequently updating and (hopefully) improving its lenses, bringing out new lenses peridoically, etc. etc. Rodenstock hasn't done anything that I know of with or to its line of LF lenses for at a least a decade. Ditto Nikon except in Nikon's case it's been more like 30 years and they may now be out of the LF lens business entirely. And Fuji isn't sufficiently interested in the U.S. market to have a U.S. distributor.

Mr Paul Butzi has some scanned data on Rodenstock lenses on his excellent website. It's mostly about 10 years old but it's a good one to bookmark-- see http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/rodenstock.htm

 

I'm no optics expert, but I would agree that the variation between any of the good manufacturers is far less than the variance introduced by other factors (but don't try to tell 'em this on the Leica forum!)

"Rodenstock and its U.S distributor are stuck in the 1950s from a web page (POV)"

 

Man, that's the truth. Let's make sure that the search bots get that right: "RODENSTOCK AND ITS U.S. DISTRIBUTOR HAVE AN INADQUATE WEB PAGES DESCRIBING THEIR LENSES COMPARED TO SCHNEIDER!"

 

Pass it on. When are they going to wake up?

Actually, Rodenstock has dramaticallyimproved their web presence over the past year but

it is, I'll admit, difficult to find. Here is a Russian site that reformats the information on

the home site and is easier, IMO, to use: http://www.prograf.ru/rodenstock/largeformat_en.html

 

Toget to their home page you need to remember that the 'Rodenstock' brand name and

lens manufacturing facilities are now part of the German Linos group. The mainpage for

all things photographic is: http://www.linos-photonics.com/en/prod/index.php

 

The page that deals specifically with large format lenses is: http://www.linos-photonics.com/en/prod/index.php

 

Lots and lots of information ... still none of the historical info you get from Schneider but

all you want to know on current lenses.

Rodenstock's webpage has every number that a photographer is likely to need for their lenses that are currently available. Probably their biggest failing is using the the parent corporation's name rather than the Rodenstock name for the URL. I think it has been there for a couple of years now. The PDF file available from http://www.linos-photonics.com/en/prod/obj_analoge_fotogr.php has image circle diameter and angle, filter thread, flange focal length, dimensions, weight, shifts possible for various formats, etc. The main additional information in the brochures that is not present in the PDF file is graphs for every focal length, rather than graphs for a single focal length per lens type. (But probably few photographers really understand these graphs anyway.)

Ted & Michael, thanks so very much for the addresses. I will definitely peruse and print them tonight.

 

Must admit I just didn't find them, and I thought I was a pretty good web surver. Guess I got tubed on that one.

Getting back to performance....some thoughts:

 

Most of the LF lenses from the current manufacturers you've mentioned are all excellent products. Any real differences would be difficult to describe, though certain lenses from the big four manufacturers are considered to be better than their counterparts for specific reasons. Do you have any specific focal lengths and format in mind?

 

The Schneiders and Rodenstocks I have are all pretty much the same as far as performance goes. They're also pretty much indistinguishable as far as the overall "look" is concerned. These German lenses tend to be a little less contrasty than the Nikkors I have. I can clearly see this Nikkor characteristic when developing B&W negtatives; the Nikkor negs seem to require less development to achieve my preferred density range. Color rendition is too subjective a thing for me to comment upon, though others may claim to see differences. If you're extremely color sensitive (I'm not), you may want all your lenses from the same manufacturer.

 

Most people tend to choose a particular focal length for a certain format and then try to find the best (for them) and most reasonably priced example available, either new or used. They often take into consideration other factors like the size and weight of the lens, the filter sizes it uses, the maximum aperture or brightness, and so on. It's not always the sharpest lens with the largest image circle that's "best".

 

The Nikkors (and the Fuji) I have/had seem to provide larger image circles than the German lenses, from the reported data and other users' reviews I've seen. I can say that the Nikkor 75mm SW I have now seems to cover and illuminate more evenly than the 75mm Super Angulon I had before. The Sironars and Symmars of recent years are all very good lenses, and the Sironar-S lens I have is particularly sharp. The Super Angulons I have/had and the current Grandagon I have are also about equal in performance. I'd be hard pressed to see any differences.

 

Since I have not been buying every latest lens design coming from Schneider or Rodenstock in the last few years, I can't really say whether there have been any real gains in image quality over the older lenses. A lot of folks here seem to think so. Schneider does seem to have been much more heavily involved in developing newer designs/lenses than Rodenstock in recent years. The latest lenses from Schneider to cover the ultra large formats are great if you're into ULF. And the the latest super wide angles from Rodenstock and Schneider are really tempting. But...damn...they're expensive!

 

The only real way to know is to try (or ask about) the specific lens you may want and see how it works for you.

"Rodenstock hasn't done anything that I know of with or to its line of LF lenses for at a least a decade"

 

I get the impression the majority of Rodenstock (and Schneider) innovation is concentrated on new lenses for use with digital backs on LF cameras. They're both fairly prolific, and Rodenstock certainly isn't falling behind, just look at their Apo-Sironar Digital and Apo-Sironar Digital HR ranges.

I used to pride myself on being able to distinguish Leica lenses from Nikkors from Zeiss lenses... etc. in the small format. With LF, I can't even tell the difference between a Geronar and an APO Sironar S, much less between equivalent Rodenstocks and Schneiders. For all practical purposes, the large LF film area, mandatory better technique and smaller apertures ensure that the differences in practical performance are miniscule.

<p>Just to update on the Rodenstock lens website, it appears Linos is now rebranded as Qioptiq with Photography info here:<br>

http://www.qioptiq.com/photography-cinematography.html<br>

Which now links to a dedicated Rodenstock website here:<br>

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/<br>

Under the menu Products > Archive, here is Professional Analog Lenses & Filters and more in PDF docs:<br>

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/index.php/en/service-support#download</p>