Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Schneider TS lenses  (Read 34597 times)
nazdravanul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


« Reply #60 on: August 28, 2011, 05:42:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow, that looks totally disappointing. My Zeiss Hartbleis will wipe the floor with that Schneider !
Logged
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 28, 2011, 11:37:17 AM »
ReplyReply

That distortion looks worse than I'd expected - is that unshifted?

From what I've seen the 40 Hartblei has even more distortion (and it's complex distortion too). Aside from the distortion it is supposed to be a special lens.

Was the 50 Super Angulon (for MF) regarded as one of the better performers?

Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 802



WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 28, 2011, 12:36:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The shift is more straightforward but unlike the Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad units I have used in the past the shift only works in one direction - why?  I have no idea but it seems like a strange and undocumented omission.  You can of course fiddle about to rotate the lens and/or the camera to shift the other way but as this involves a 180 degree movement of both camera body and lens barrel it is hardly ideal.

Although this feature of the lens is disappointing, you have a splendid back yard!
Logged

~ CB
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #63 on: August 28, 2011, 05:15:10 PM »
ReplyReply

That distortion looks worse than I'd expected - is that unshifted?

From what I've seen the 40 Hartblei has even more distortion (and it's complex distortion too). Aside from the distortion it is supposed to be a special lens.

Was the 50 Super Angulon (for MF) regarded as one of the better performers?



None of the shots were shifted.  What distortion specifically are you referring to?
Logged

David Watson ARPS
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #64 on: August 28, 2011, 10:05:25 PM »
ReplyReply

If there's no distortion in that shot of your fence then you have a rather warped fence.

As a test subject a wooden fence like that, especially a single image of it, can't really indicate much, but it looks quite distorted to me. But perhaps that's what that fence really looks like.

If you don't see it, or it doesn't bother you, or isn't relative to the work you do, you have nothing to worry about.

Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 29, 2011, 01:31:44 AM »
ReplyReply

If there's no distortion in that shot of your fence then you have a rather warped fence.

As a test subject a wooden fence like that, especially a single image of it, can't really indicate much, but it looks quite distorted to me. But perhaps that's what that fence really looks like.

If you don't see it, or it doesn't bother you, or isn't relative to the work you do, you have nothing to worry about.



The "fence" is actually a barn door made 3 years ago out of new oak.  That is exactly what the door looks like and there is no distortion.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #66 on: August 29, 2011, 10:15:45 AM »
ReplyReply

If I use ACR and add around +1.5 to +2.5 to the distortion correction tool it looks more natural to me.

The image of the fence shows exactly the kind of barrel distortion one would expect from Schneider's published MTF charts for this lens. (see attachment)

The good thing is this distortion is not complex and can be easily corrected. Unless of course one uses the shift function, then a bit more work is needed.

For those not needing straight lines remaining straight in their work there is no problem.
Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 29, 2011, 10:32:53 AM »
ReplyReply

If I use ACR and add around +1.5 to +2.5 to the distortion correction tool it looks more natural to me.

The image of the fence shows exactly the kind of barrel distortion one would expect from Schneider's published MTF charts for this lens. (see attachment)

The good thing is this distortion is not complex and can be easily corrected. Unless of course one uses the shift function, then a bit more work is needed.

For those not needing straight lines remaining straight in their work there is no problem.

There is no distortion.  The piece of wood at the top of the picture is actually bent in reality and is used to secure the doors.  The bigger problem with this lens for me is that it only shifts in one direction at a time.  What I wanted was a lens that would shift right and left and tilt at right angles to the shift and occasionally one that would shift up and tilt down.  I have sent it back to the supplier.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2011, 05:24:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Got hold of a new 50 PC TS today and did some quick testing on some interiors with a lot of straight lines - as expected it showed barrel distortion in line with the published data, especially noticeable when shifted.

It is a great big lens, very well constructed, really felt like something special compared to Canon lenses. Too bad it's not really useable for my purposes. Still thinking about the 90 though.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #69 on: October 04, 2011, 09:17:07 PM »
ReplyReply

LensRentals.com has the 50mm available in Nikon mount, so I'm going to try it out. Simple barrel distortion is not a big concern for me (mostly shooting landscapes), I even have a PS action for correcting shifted images with PTLens (I have to do this with my 24mm PC-E sometimes). The one-way shift mechanics will be annoying, but the if optics are substantially better than the PC-E I may be willing to live with that. Guess I'll see once I get a chance to work with it a bit.
Logged

jgbowerman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


Where it all started


WWW
« Reply #70 on: October 05, 2011, 09:03:57 AM »
ReplyReply

LensRentals.com has the 50mm available in Nikon mount, so I'm going to try it out. Simple barrel distortion is not a big concern for me (mostly shooting landscapes), I even have a PS action for correcting shifted images with PTLens (I have to do this with my 24mm PC-E sometimes). The one-way shift mechanics will be annoying, but the if optics are substantially better than the PC-E I may be willing to live with that. Guess I'll see once I get a chance to work with it a bit.

I hear the thing weights a ton! Might be too much for my backpacking-weight limitations. Look forward to hearing more.
Logged

nazdravanul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81


« Reply #71 on: October 11, 2011, 05:35:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Llyod Chambers is testing the 90 Schneider and is expecting the 50 in a few weeks. Based on his findings and currently available samples / data I suspect a Hartblei - Schneider showdown will look like this (also based on the fact that we are discussing basically Zeiss Hasselblad - Rolllei Schneider rebadged designs - with different approaches) :
The 40 Hartblei (based on an improved formula for digital of the legendary Zeiss Hasselblad 40 IF CFE) , though with somewhat similar distortion and one stop slower than the Schneider, is still significantly wider and kicks serious resolution / rendition / bokeh Schneider butt (a lens based on the Rollei Schneider 50 2.8 ) . With the 80-90 duel, it's somewhat a different story - we are comparing a 90mm Makro originating from the legendary Apo-Macro Rollei Schneider lens with an 80mm portrait lens (significantly better than any CaNikon offerings, also according to Lloyd), originating from the (best) Zeiss Hasselblad "normal" lens. The 90 will probably be better for most  purely technical applications (no distortion whatsoever, clinical sharpness across the frame etc) except for portraits / people shooting, where the 80mm Zeiss Hartblei is still the better lens (1.5 stop faster, better bokeh, better drawing style and even significantly lighter - 795g  vs 1100 g)  
For videographers, the Zeiss Hartbleis should be a better choice than the Schneiders for a few simple / important reasons : instant integration within the CP.2 Zeiss line of lenses in terms both of color / overall rendtion matching  and focus rings, and signifcantly better bokeh stopped down due to 12 aperture blades vs 7 blades on the Schneider.
Incredible build quality is definitely the same on all lenses (in a different league even from Zeiss ZF, ZE lenses ).

« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 05:38:55 AM by nazdravanul » Logged
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 22, 2011, 07:18:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Lloyd Chambers review of the Schneider TS lenses is now available on his website. He had some problems which I will not describe here in deference to Lloyd's site being a pay for view but anyone considering these lenses should have a look. There may be some sample variation also with these lenses, which would be frightening considering the high price.
 
Jeff, I would love to hear your experiences with the 50 and see if they parallel Lloyd's. I'm sitting on the fence on trying one of them out depending on at least one other report.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2011, 06:51:26 PM »
ReplyReply

So I took a rented Schneider 50mm TS on a trip to the Eastern Sierra Nevada. Overall I'd say I'm not impressed. The build quality is very robust and the lens movements are secure, but that's about all it has going for it over the Nikon PC-E. While I didn't find the weight too objectionable, the size/bulk of this lens was surprising even though I knew it was going to be big.  And when I rented it I hadn't considered that I wouldn't have a polarizer to use with it, so that cut down the lens' usefulness also.

Optically, the un-shifted/un-tilted image is good but not spectacular. As LLoyd noted you need to stop down a bit and even then there's some CA (it seemed worse in Lloyd's samples, but I'm not sure if that lens sample variation of just a matter of shooting conditions). Sharpness falls off a bit at the edge, and once you start shifting that becomes even more of an issue. Given that some CA is really the only optical weakness of the Nikon PC-E, I just don't see the Schneider lens as an upgrade from a purely optical standpoint (the Schneider definitely has better build quality though).

On the ergonomics side, I was also disappointed. The unidirectional shift is just a PITA, no way around it. I supposed I could get used to it if everything else about the lens was wonderful, but it's not. Oh, and don't get me started about the tripod collar - it's worthless IMHO. The problem is this: when using the tripod collar, you can't use either rotation axis of the lens to change the shift direction; you have to rotate the lens in the tripod collar, and the collar has no index markings so this quickly becomes far more trouble than it's worth. To add injury to insult, the tripod foot is too small to use with RRS lever-style QR clamps. So I quickly discarded the tripod collar after the first time trying to use it.

While I understand the theory of parallax-free stitching, the reality is that parallax is rarely an issue at 50mm; and even if you do have a close foreground you can avoid parallax by simply sliding the camera a bit left/right in the QR clamp to get the same effect. So to me this is not at all a selling feature of the lens, especially given the poor ergonomics required to actually use the tripod collar.

Logged

JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #74 on: October 29, 2011, 06:11:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, thanks so much for your report. You said everything I need to know in a short post. And you've saved me the price of a rental!! But I'm tempted to try the 90.
Logged

grayooooowl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2011, 04:55:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear JeffKohn,
thank you for so usefull for me information about 50/2.8 TS. Only five days ago I was near buying it on B@H.
Lloyd Chambers review of this lense gave rise to doubts about the correctness of my choice. There was problem that Lloyd didn't made any test shots of 50/2.8 TS without tilt/shift, simply as a prime lens - exactly what you did for my biggest pleasure.
Only one I would like to ask from you if it possible - some RAW files with different apertures and without (or minimal) tilt/shift for my clear understanding of 50 TS's IQ and usefulness its for my needs. I have full range of Canon TS-E (17mm, 24mm II, 90mm) and there is only one issue - it is gap from 24mm to 90mm.  Huh
[/color]
Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 395


WWW
« Reply #76 on: November 12, 2011, 01:51:38 AM »
ReplyReply

So I took a rented Schneider 50mm TS on a trip to the Eastern Sierra Nevada. Overall I'd say I'm not impressed. The build quality is very robust and the lens movements are secure, but that's about all it has going for it over the Nikon PC-E. While I didn't find the weight too objectionable, the size/bulk of this lens was surprising even though I knew it was going to be big.  And when I rented it I hadn't considered that I wouldn't have a polarizer to use with it, so that cut down the lens' usefulness also.

Optically, the un-shifted/un-tilted image is good but not spectacular. As LLoyd noted you need to stop down a bit and even then there's some CA (it seemed worse in Lloyd's samples, but I'm not sure if that lens sample variation of just a matter of shooting conditions). Sharpness falls off a bit at the edge, and once you start shifting that becomes even more of an issue. Given that some CA is really the only optical weakness of the Nikon PC-E, I just don't see the Schneider lens as an upgrade from a purely optical standpoint (the Schneider definitely has better build quality though).

On the ergonomics side, I was also disappointed. The unidirectional shift is just a PITA, no way around it. I supposed I could get used to it if everything else about the lens was wonderful, but it's not. Oh, and don't get me started about the tripod collar - it's worthless IMHO. The problem is this: when using the tripod collar, you can't use either rotation axis of the lens to change the shift direction; you have to rotate the lens in the tripod collar, and the collar has no index markings so this quickly becomes far more trouble than it's worth. To add injury to insult, the tripod foot is too small to use with RRS lever-style QR clamps. So I quickly discarded the tripod collar after the first time trying to use it.

While I understand the theory of parallax-free stitching, the reality is that parallax is rarely an issue at 50mm; and even if you do have a close foreground you can avoid parallax by simply sliding the camera a bit left/right in the QR clamp to get the same effect. So to me this is not at all a selling feature of the lens, especially given the poor ergonomics required to actually use the tripod collar.



This was exactly my experience Jeff which is why I sent the lens back for a full refund.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #77 on: November 14, 2011, 06:27:01 PM »
ReplyReply

grayooooowl - sorry, I don't have any test shots suitable for sharing RAWs from.

Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #78 on: November 14, 2011, 06:29:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But I'm tempted to try the 90.
Yeah it does sound like a nice lens. I'm just not sure I could justify the price for a focal length I don't use  as much, especially when my 85 PC is no slouch and I also have the Zeiss 100 f/2 for stitching which is stellar.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad