I'm wondering if anyone has done a side by side comparison of these two lenses, and if so, which is sharper and has the better micro-contrast, rendition, etc. From reading this forum, I've formed the opinion that the HR is probably optically a bit better, but that's just an impression from what I've read.

The Schneider is about $100 less than the Rodenstock here in the USA, so not a big difference in price (considering they're both over $5K USD). The Schneider has the edge in image circle, but the HR is an f/4 lens, vs the f/5.6 Schneider, so it should be better for ground glass viewing.

I'm probably not interested in using such a lens with rise or fall, so the image circle probably isn't a big deal. Sharpness is a big deal for me, however.

Mort.

hi Mort,

what I can tell you, is that you can use the Rodenstock HR lenses wide open, and they will still be sharp in the edge. This can be an advantage in some situations.

If I remember right, Rainer has done some tests between the 2 lenses, and others as well.

Best regards,
Thierry

in general it can be said that the HR lenses are full usable at widest aperture, the schneiders and the rodenstock digital serials should be stopped down at least 1 better 2 stops.
i would take the HR ....

Hi Thierry and Rainer. Thanks for the quick reply. I have two follow-up questions.

First, my interest is landscape photography, in which I would typically want to stop down to f/8 or f/11 for depth of field reasons (tilt would be better, I know, but I'm interested in the Alpa 12TC as the platform for this, so tilt isn't really an option). I've read some of the literature on the Rodenstock HR lenses, and they recommend not stopping down beyond f/8, as I recall. Does that agree with your experiences, or is performance still good at f/11?

Second, I believe you've mentioned in the past regarding the HR lenses that they can be shifted as much as 10mm either up or down. With a 70mm image circle, I had calculated I could shift up or down about 5mm with my P45+. Is the 70mm image circle spec just overly conservative, or have I remembered incorrectly about your past comments about the amount of shift that was possible? I know I mentioned that shifting wasn't important to me, but still, it would be nice to know that the HR lens has at least some moderate shift capabilities should my needs change in the future.

Regards,
Mort.

their claim that the image circle is 70mm is a lit bit funny for me,- funny because they just claim what is the image circle which is in the HR specifictions of 60 lines.
funny bcause if you use the lens till its maximum image circle you can shift 12 - 13mm and the lens still is at f4 much sharper than their digital rodenstock pendant of the 35mm or the 45mm lens @f8.
i think they would help themselve in selling much if describing this lens circles less teoretical and more practical, because the 28 and 35HR work absolut fine shiftet till its vignetation limit.
with the kodak sensor you have 1mm less than with the dalsa, so you can use 11-12mm shift.

with the 60HR you even have 20mm of shift!!!! and they still describe the lens as if it only has 70mm image circle. sometimes (?) the engineers see things a lot different than photographers, i would say.

Thanks again, Rainer.

I have the 35mm HR and I can shift it about 10mm before things get too fuzzy. The lens is very sharp and I regularly stop down to f11 without visible degradation. The 70mm IC for 35mm HR is about right; the longer HR lenses have much more leeway with shifting.

Larry

I've found the 35mm HR sharpest WIDE OPEN which was shocking.
but so sharp that there was CA
once I stopped down to 5.6 the CA disappeared.

I was also worried about depth of field but honestly, the way depth of field is rendered with those lenses made it less of an issue than I expected (f5.6 for a landscape turned out to be pretty sharp throughout the image foreground to background)

Your mileage may vary as they say. Best to rent those two lenses and try them out.