Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Rodenstok 32 mm or Shneider 35 mm for new Alpa 12 STC  (Read 9276 times)
zas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« on: March 09, 2011, 11:57:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I apologize for my English, I'm Italian and I live in Spain.
I'll buy a 12 STC Alpa and I have serious doubts with the lens.
There are two options the Rodenstock HR-W 4.0/32 mm Digaron very expensive and heavy, or the Schneider Apo-Digitar 5.6/35 mm XL cheaper and lighter.
The seller tells me that Schneider has a spherical focus, low quality at the edges and openings below f8, also need the center filter, the Rodenstok not have these problems.
I have a Leaf Aptus 10 and I do panorama, interior design and architecture.
Someone can clear my doubts.
Thanks.
Zas.



www.andreasavini.com
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 12:34:35 PM by zas » Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2011, 03:53:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I think if you want to shift a lot at f8 you will need a Centerfilter with both lenses. If you want to use it f11-f16 the Rodenstock might work quite well without any centerfilter. I have the 32 and love it. However, there is one important point! You have to handle it with extrem care. So it certainly is not a lens for handholding or walking around.

In the End I would say that if you only want one lens, I would go with the Schneider 35 or even look at the Schneider 43 (Or Rodenstock HR40W)
Logged

gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2011, 04:27:37 PM »
ReplyReply

In the End I would say that if you only want one lens, I would go with the Schneider 35 or even look at the Schneider 43 (Or Rodenstock HR40W)

I'm about to purchase either the Rodenstock 40HR-W or Schneider 43XL and this applies to wider lenses but has anyone come across the issue below detailed in the Phase KB article with Schneider lenses?



A link to the full article below.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/search/article.aspx?articleid=1221&languageid=1

The Schneider would be a great choice because of the very low distortion and very large image circle but if it suffers from the above problems with movements then the Rodenstock is the only option. Has anyone with the 43XL or wider experienced the above with full frame chips and non retrofocus lenses?


Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2011, 05:01:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I just purchased an Alpa STC and the 43XL.  I chose this over the 40HR because of size & weight.  Should arrive next week, so I guess I will find out...

Dave

Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2011, 05:53:18 PM »
ReplyReply

The Schneider would be a great choice because of the very low distortion and very large image circle but if it suffers from the above problems with movements then the Rodenstock is the only option. Has anyone with the 43XL or wider experienced the above with full frame chips and non retrofocus lenses?
I use the 43XL in conjunction with a P45 - no problems at all (quite the contrary). P45 is not full frame, though.
Logged
gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2011, 06:17:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I use the 43XL in conjunction with a P45 - no problems at all (quite the contrary). P45 is not full frame, though.

Sorry I miss quoted the article as its a microlens issue and not just full frame chips. Apparently the P45 has no microlenses so does not have his issue but the P40, P65 and all the new IQ backs do use microlenses. I'm sure there are a few p40/65 shooters in here who use wide Schneiders without problems but would love to hear from the horses mouth, especially when using movements. 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 06:20:48 PM by gazwas » Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2011, 06:20:32 PM »
ReplyReply

the P40, P65 and all the new IQ backs do use microlenses.
no. Said backs are all tech camera friendly ...
Logged
gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2011, 06:24:43 PM »
ReplyReply

no. Said backs are all tech camera friendly ...

Yep, I understand they are tech camera friendly but its something to do with how the light hits the microlenses in the chip at a very acute angle with none retrofocus lenses on the Dalsa chipped Phase/Leaf cameras.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 02:37:45 AM by gazwas » Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
zas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2011, 03:56:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you very much everyone for your comments. Very interesting article that suggests Gazwas, especially for Phase One. Thanks also to Christopher, I will investigate the 43 Schneider, Rodenstock HR40W, my question is if the angle is valid for interior closed. Is curios, see the website of Alpa, most photographers use Shneider ...
Thank you very much to everyone again.
Zas
Logged
gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2011, 04:15:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you very much everyone for your comments. Very interesting article that suggests Gazwas, especially for Phase One. Thanks also to Christopher, I will investigate the 43 Schneider, Rodenstock HR40W, my question is if the angle is valid for interior closed. Is curios, see the website of Alpa, most photographers use Shneider ...
Thank you very much to everyone again.
Zas

Zas, not sure about your Aptus 10 but as most manufacturers share the same chips the issue is not just a Phase problem. It might be worth some more investigation to see if your Aptus 10 has microlenses that might be effected by wide Schneiders. Hopefully someone with a newer Dalsa camera and 43XL will read this and comment.
Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
zas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2011, 05:04:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Gazwas.
I think Leaf does not use microlenses. Only a very old model rode Kodak sensors. The use of microlenses is directly related to the CCD sensor that mounts the backup.

Leaf bet from the beginning by Dalsa sensors (like my Aptus II 10) that do not use microlenses. Currently, all manufacturers of backups, except for Hasselblad and some FHASA-One, using Dalsa sensors.
It has been shown to give more image quality and are better. You can use technical camera without problem.
Hopefully someone has experience with these wide lenses
Logged
gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2011, 05:10:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Gazwas.
I think Leaf does not use microlenses. Only a very old model rode Kodak sensors. The use of microlenses is directly related to the CCD sensor that mounts the backup.

Leaf bet from the beginning by Dalsa sensors (like my Aptus II 10) that do not use microlenses. Currently, all manufacturers of backups, except for Hasselblad and some FHASA-One, using Dalsa sensors.
It has been shown to give more image quality and are better. You can use technical camera without problem.
Hopefully someone has experience with these wide lenses

That was what I thought untill i read the article linked above which states the latest Dalsa sensors used in the P40,65 and so others that share this chip (Hassleblad and Leaf?) have microlenses hence my query about the above issue.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 05:12:17 AM by gazwas » Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
dkaufman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2011, 10:08:24 AM »
ReplyReply

For what it's worth, I use a 32mm Rodenstock HR with a P40+ back on an Arca Swiss M-Line Two view camera and am quite happy with the results. I use the lens often to make a two-stitch larger file and often shift 15mm or more with good results. The 32mm lens has two issues: Complex and relatively high distortion, which is a problem for architecture, but it can be corrected using Alpa's lens correction software. The second issue is that quality falloff towards the edge of the image circle is a little bit higher and more rapid than other HR lenses. The Rodenstock 40HR is a somewhat better lens and holds the highest quality of image over more of the image circle. But if you need 32mm wide angle, as I did, there is little choice. Phase One does not recommend the Schneider 35mm for its Dalsa backs (although I believe the Leaf representative on this forum uses the 35mm with Leaf backs and is happy with the results). Of course, 32mm is also ten percent wider than 35mm. But the 32mm lens is heavy and large and has a large front curved element which is vulnerable, so it has to be used with a lot of care.
Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2011, 10:38:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I have seen those lines on Schneiders AND Rodenstocks when shifting too far. 

If you compose with that sort of shift, take the back off the camera and look at how close the back of the lens is to the sensor and how "bent" the light has to be... it's miraculous to me that I even get an image.  I don't typically apply that much movement in a composition so it hasn't been much of an issue... still disconcerting, tho.
Logged
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2011, 10:54:44 AM »
ReplyReply

For what it's worth, I use a 32mm Rodenstock HR with a P40+ back on an Arca Swiss M-Line Two view camera and am quite happy with the results. I use the lens often to make a two-stitch larger file and often shift 15mm or more with good results. The 32mm lens has two issues: Complex and relatively high distortion, which is a problem for architecture, but it can be corrected using Alpa's lens correction software. The second issue is that quality falloff towards the edge of the image circle is a little bit higher and more rapid than other HR lenses. The Rodenstock 40HR is a somewhat better lens and holds the highest quality of image over more of the image circle. But if you need 32mm wide angle, as I did, there is little choice. Phase One does not recommend the Schneider 35mm for its Dalsa backs (although I believe the Leaf representative on this forum uses the 35mm with Leaf backs and is happy with the results). Of course, 32mm is also ten percent wider than 35mm. But the 32mm lens is heavy and large and has a large front curved element which is vulnerable, so it has to be used with a lot of care.

I'm close to pulling the trigger on the same camera/lens and will be comparing the M2 and the Rmd3i soon.  Dave Gallagher recommends the 32mm highly but has not mentioned the distortion problem and I do shoot a fair amount of architecture.  How have you found the M2 in terms of using the ground glass for composition and focus?  Thanks, Jim
Logged

gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2011, 12:51:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I have seen those lines on Schneiders AND Rodenstocks when shifting too far. 

If you compose with that sort of shift, take the back off the camera and look at how close the back of the lens is to the sensor and how "bent" the light has to be... it's miraculous to me that I even get an image.  I don't typically apply that much movement in a composition so it hasn't been much of an issue... still disconcerting, tho.


Seems like a pattern developing here as I'm waiting delivery of my M-Line 2 but Arca are having problems with bellows production as their manufacturer has gone bump. It takes a full day to make one set of leather bellows and ironing out the problems with a new supplier I suppose is adding to the delay.

Well, back on topic. Interesting replies. I think I'll go ahead with the Schneider 43XL as I tested both briefly last week and while the Rodenstocks have a bigger flange to focal plane distance the fact the rear lens element protrudes further into the camera makes the rear lens to sensor distance pretty similar. Like you said Chris, looking how close the lens element gets to the sensor its amazing any light gets to the edge of the chip.

Chris, do you use your Schneider on a recessed lens panel with your M-Line?
Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2011, 01:01:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I have seen those lines on Schneiders AND Rodenstocks when shifting too far. 

If you compose with that sort of shift, take the back off the camera and look at how close the back of the lens is to the sensor and how "bent" the light has to be... it's miraculous to me that I even get an image.  I don't typically apply that much movement in a composition so it hasn't been much of an issue... still disconcerting, tho.


CB, how much is shifting too far?? and on what focal length??
I'm on the fence of ordering an iQ180 to replace my trusted Aptus 75, but this do vories me a lot, I like the Schneiders for their low distortion, and I shift a lot....! So your input here will be much appreciated - there are a some devigeating opinions/information on this topic, and so far to my knowledge, no one have tested the iQ180 on a tech camera - and I'm living in the hometown of Phase One ;-)

Thanks in advance,
Adam
Logged

ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2011, 02:09:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Adam,

The 35's I wouldn't shift more than 10mm on my P65+.  The 43 can do about 15mm.  My Rodenstock 55mm can cover the full range of movements on the M2 with only a little softness at the edges... awesome lens.  Longer than that and it's not an issue at all.

I don't own a 28mm and given how good the Canon 17mm is, I may never.
Logged
zas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2011, 03:39:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all for your help, I now think that 43 of Schneider may be a good option compared to the most extreme objects such as R 32, or 35 S. If I need stronger angles I can do stitching.
Logged
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2011, 04:10:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Adam,

The 35's I wouldn't shift more than 10mm on my P65+.  The 43 can do about 15mm.  My Rodenstock 55mm can cover the full range of movements on the M2 with only a little softness at the edges... awesome lens.  Longer than that and it's not an issue at all.

I don't own a 28mm and given how good the Canon 17mm is, I may never.

Thanks! this is really not good news - I have read about an other AP that never go beyond 8mm of shift with the 35mm due to the risk of banding in the files from the P65+

I really do hope that his is not the case for the iQ180 but I'm afraid there is a risk, due to the microlenses, I hope that I'm wrong.... if not, then Phase have designed a wonderful back for us architectural photographers, with most of the features that we have wanted/hoped for years, But with one major drawback, or deal-breaker imo, you can only shift a small amount with the really wide lenses  Sad

so is the old P45+ and Aptus 75 still the best censors for AP in regards of long exposure and ability to use the full image circle on wides - please Phase/Leaf put those old sensors in the new form factor - I know this would never happen, and I would like to have a large sensor with enough mpx to minimize moire - but I would also like to use the full image circle on my Schneiders.

...and given how good the canon 17mm AND 24mm is - the iQ180 needs to give me full shift on wides one way or an other, imo

/adam
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad