Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Schneider/ALPA Apo-Switar 5.6/36 mm XL Vs Schneider APO Digitar 5.6/35 mm XL  (Read 2117 times)
MNG
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« on: October 30, 2012, 08:00:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I am wondering what the main differences besides the 1mm in focal length of these two lenses? Alpa says the Schneider/ALPA Apo-Switar 5.6/36 mm XL is suitable for film and digital and I know of one landscape photographer who uses this lens and the IQ180 back.

I am using a Schneider APO Digitar 5.6/35 mm XL lens with a CF and a Leaf Aptus II-12 80MPx back for architecture and interiors.

My files form this lens look very sharp but I have been reading not to use the Schneider 35mm XL with 80Mpx backs.

I have to do a LCC for every shot and sometime the LCC does not work that well with still a slight magenta cast visible, processed out TIF's in C1Pro.

What do the experts recommend the HR32mm or HR40mm?

Thank you
Michael

Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2012, 08:24:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I have that Schneider and have tried it with the IQ 180.  It's really not very workable.  The LCC correction just can't handle the adjustment needed.  You're asking the software to push the image by 2-3 stops in the corners.  That's beyond the capabilities of even the very robust IQ Raw files.  I'm actually considering the Rodenstock 32 HR now.  It's pricey, but much more suited to the hi-res backs due to the retrofocus design.  And I'm pretty sure both the lenses in your title are the same.  Perhaps Alpa has decided that the actual focal length is closer to 36mm.

CB
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 08:26:38 PM by CBarrett » Logged
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2012, 09:41:54 PM »
ReplyReply

And I'm pretty sure both the lenses in your title are the same.  Perhaps Alpa has decided that the actual focal length is closer to 36mm.

CB

That is my understanding as well. These are the same lenses.
Logged

pindman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2012, 09:57:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I tried several samples of the 35mm and one of the 36mm with an IQ 180 back.  The 36mm Apo-Switer was clearly superior.  But it's only one sample.

Paul
Logged
MNG
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2012, 11:23:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to everyone for the information.

Does anyone know the difference between the two types of Alpa 32mm LB and the SB17. The LB has a note on the Alpa site saying "Please note that the lens/lens type is optimized for infinity rather than close focus below 3 m."

Does this mean the SB17 version is better suited for interiors?

Logged
sgilbert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2012, 09:50:14 AM »
ReplyReply

MNG,

The two lenses are the same, one with a standard mount, the other with the SB (short barrel) mount.  The SB versions is designed to be used with the new FPS shutter or a 17mm spacer.  I imagine the SB version would work with the titl/swing adapter as well.

SG
Logged
Jeffreytotaro
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2012, 07:33:57 AM »
ReplyReply

The 35XL and the 36 Switar are the same lenses, however my speculation is that Alpa has first dibs on the most top spec lenses coming off the line and those are made into Switars. Just my guess since Alpa is the largest lens buyer of both Schneider and Rodenstock. CB is right about the 35/36 on the IQ backs, even on the 160 you do not get full shift potential before LCC correction becomes an issue. I looked at the 32HR in New York last week, and its a beast! Bigger than the 23HR. Same image circle as the 35/36 though so I'm sure it will perform well, and they say no distortion. I find that hard to believe in a retro focal design. Makes the upgrade to an IQ about $9k more expensive.
Logged

Jeffrey Totaro
http://www.jeffreytotaro.com
IQ260 Alpa MAX & SWA
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2012, 03:55:09 PM »
ReplyReply

and they say no distortion. I find that hard to believe in a retro focal design. Makes the upgrade to an IQ about $9k more expensive.

32 HR, No distortion?.... Don' belive that! I have the 23, 32, 40 and 50HR and they show all distortion, the Alpa Lens Correcter handle this nice, but I have to use it all the time on the 23-40HR shifted or not, and on the 50HR when I shift more than 10-15mm depending on subject.

And yes, my upgrade from Aptus 75 to iQ160 was a bit more expensive than first planned, when I realized that I had to change from Schneider to Rodenstock to avoid uncorecteble colorcast, banding and centre fold when shifting to the max.

That said, the iQ160 is a joy to use in the field, and the Rodenstock are stunning performers, apart from distortion, size, weight and price.

/adam
Logged

gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333



« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2012, 05:51:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The 35XL and the 36 Switar are the same lenses, however my speculation is that Alpa has first dibs on the most top spec lenses coming off the line and those are made into Switars.

I love comments like this from Alpa owners...... BRILLIANT, makes me chuckle!  Cheesy
Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1394


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2012, 06:54:27 PM »
ReplyReply

On the 35 Schneider, it's been reported many times not to be a good lens for the IQ180, mainly due to shifting.  Most users complain about shifts past 5mm and the harsh magenta bar.  You will get this also with a IQ160 past 10mm.  With a LCC you can recover most of it but the detail smearing and loss of saturation can't be.    The 35mm Schneider also needs the physical CF or the resulting shots will just be not worth it in the corners, as you are asking the LCC to recover just too much and the noise will be very harsh even a iso50 or 35.  I have the 35mm and more than likely will sell it in 2013.  You just can't shift it enough to make a decent pano for my liking.  The 35mm's advantages are it's size and weight both being nominal even with a Arca, Cambo or Alpa mount.

32mm Rodenstock as reported is a beast, larger than the 28mm or 23mm and still requires a physical CF to totally remove vignetting.  I realize some out there shoot without the physical CF, but I still feel it's needed.  The 32mm has a larger image circle of 90mm and you will be able to shift it to at  least 12mm before you hit the disc Rodenstock places inside each lens.  This disc is there to let you know when you have reached the "limits of the image circle" however it's most annoying in that it will most definitely ruin the upper and lower corners since it applies a hard vignette to your shot and the LCC won't get it out.  On the 28mm this same disc cuts you off at around 7mm of shift.  This is too bad since the 28mm on a IQ160 would most definitely make 10mm maybe 12 before you get into the smearing of details.  As far as know all the HR HW Rod's have the disc.  No doubt the lens itself is best in class but still at 10K U.S. (this includes your mount of choice) just a bit too expensive.  The 32mm also has a bad habit of putting too much pressure on the copal shutter.  Rodenstock has made notes that they don't recommend carrying a 32mm mounted to a tech camera on a tripod due to the fact that over time you may dislodge the copal shutter and thus the lens needs to be sent in for repair.  I have shot the 32mm but was able to get a 28mm used and went that way due to price.  I also didn't want to be at an outer filter diameter of 105mm which is where you are after you mount the physical CF on the 32mm.  The 28mm still amazes me as far as overall color/clarity and details.

40mm Rodenstock, has been reported over an over to be an excellent lens on both the 60mp and 80mp backs.  No physical CF is needed (also none is made by Rodenstock).  Lighter in weight and should be able to shift to 10mm without loss of details or saturation.  Seems to be a better player with the IQ180 than the Schneider 43mm.  I looked at the 40mm, but decided on the 43mm as it has a larger image circle of 110mm and can be shifted on a IQ160 easily to 15mm before you start to see image degradation. (Note with Capture 7 you might now get to 18mm)  I have the physical CF on my 43 and find it does help especially on shifting to 15mm.  The 43mm seems to be not as good on the 80mp backs again due to magenta color cast that can't be corrected in post with an LCC, especially if shift. 

Another sleeper is the Rodenstock 55mm in the older series (older than the HR's).  Has a larger image circle and is very reasonably priced (as tech camera glass goes).   

I would also be surprised if Cambo wasn't selling a few more of these lenses than Arca and Alpa.  Cambo most definitely has come on very strong and always seems to dominate any tech camera discussion.

Paul
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Prakash Patel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2012, 11:42:21 PM »
ReplyReply

" I realize some out there shoot without the physical CF, but I still feel it's needed.  The 32mm has a larger image circle of 90mm and you will be able to shift it to at  least 12mm before you hit the disc Rodenstock places inside each lens.  This disc is there to let you know when you have reached the "limits of the image circle" however it's most annoying in that it will most definitely ruin the upper and lower corners since it applies a hard vignette to your shot and the LCC won't get it out.  On the 28mm this same disc cuts you off at around 7mm of shift.  This is too bad since the 28mm on a IQ160 would most definitely make 10mm maybe 12 before you get into the smearing of details.  As far as know all the HR HW Rod's have the disc.  No doubt the lens itself is best in class but still at 10K U.S. (this includes your mount of choice) just a bit too expensive."  

I have both of these lenses and neither one of them have these disks you are referring. I have shifted a few millimeter
beyond Rodenstocks recommendations...17 to 20mm of movement on a 36x56 sensor ( note you will get complete vignetting indicating the edge of the image circle @ 20mm). I have had these lenses for a few years now......are these these "disks"  a new modification to the lens? Have a look at the attached specs from  Rodenstock.

Can any one else that owns a 32 or a 28 HR confirm this?

I have also tested a center filter for the the 32HR and decided against it because I did not want to loose "any" of the image circle due to the threads and thickness of the center filter mount as well as creating new internal  reflection issues when shooting interiors. I have not done an extensive tests with the center filter + running LCC files through various raw developers as I have been happy with the results from Leaf Capture 2.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 11:49:31 PM by Prakash Patel » Logged

Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1394


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2012, 07:42:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe If you are seeing a hard corner vignette when you shift the lens, only in the top and lower corners first, you are seeing "the disc"  without the disc you would see a more even edge and it would not be as hard, much more blurred as it's the edge of the sensor box you see.

I have used the 23, own the 28 (and know the disc is there), borrowed a 32 and it showed the hard edge at around 14mm, and demo'd the 35mm HR, which also has the hard edge.  The disc I refer to creates a hard creates a hard rigid edge on the 28mm, 23 and 35mm.  If you shift a Schneider 35mm or 28mm you won't get the hard corner vignetting.  The 23, 28 and 35 HR's all show the disc sooner than than the 32mm since they have a smaller 70mm image circle instead of the 32mm's 90mm.  It might be that Rodenstock read some users reviews complaining about the disc and removed it from later versions of the HR or HW series of lenses.  I would personally love to have it taken out of my 28mm.

You can also read through this post from a review on the 28 Rodenstock and Schneider.  
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/lens-accessory-reviews/34991-rodenstock-28mm-hr-vs-schneider-super-digitar-28xl.html

Guy discusses the issue of the disc very well and includes examples.  Take a look at response number 5 where Guy shows the LCC's of the two lenses.  On the Rodie 28mm you can see the disc cutting into the shot at 8mm of rise.  You can also see the even worse issue of the penumbra of the image circle on the 28mm Rodie. The penumbra is is the white banding you see before the actual black of the disc.  The penumbra will ruin a blue sky on a shift as you can't correct for it with a LCC and since it creates a lighter band before the dark of the disk, the correction of it can be very time consuming.

The physical CF is a user discretion issue.  I tried the 28mm without it and found the center of the image too bright (due to the vignetting of the corners)  The physical CF does even out the exposure very well, however I agree you pay for it with the 2.5 exposure stop difference.  For me the noise in the corners was pretty harsh even at iso50.

The actual design of the physical CF's by Rodenstock will not cause any additional vignetting and or loss of image circle.  You can shift to the "spec" of Rodenstock without seeing any vignetting.  In fact you can add one additional 95mm filter to the 28mm's CF and still not see any vignetting.  It's a considerable expense but does help out quite a bit in post.   The 32mm goes from 86mm to 105mm with the physical CF installed.

Paul
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 07:46:45 AM by Paul2660 » Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Prakash Patel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2012, 10:38:47 PM »
ReplyReply

FYI...
There is no "the disk" in the lens. That is the threaded lens flange of the lens barrel.
Test for your self  > apply maximum movement till "the disk" is fully visible > put on a filter or a filter adapter ring
on the lens and you should see a smaller image circle due to the vignette from applying an additional item on the filter
thread of the lens.

This is what makes the Rodenstock lenses interesting....they are sharp close to the edge of the image circle
and the light fall off is not as severe.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad