Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Schneider-Kreuznach LS AF 240 mm f/4.5 vs Rollei Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar 300 mm  (Read 3443 times)
KevinGSaunders
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« on: May 23, 2013, 08:04:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I am doing a lens quality comparison that could determine the direction I go regarding platforms. Here is the criteria:

1) I have a Leaf Aptus II 12R back.
2) I am looking for the longest lens that will support 80 megapixels.
3) What I come up with is Schneider-Kreuznach LS AF 240 mm f/4.5 vs Rollei Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar 300 mm f/4 HFT PQ.
4) I am not so good at MTF charts, but have attached all the info I can glean from CI's blog on the 240 and from Schneider's kind support on the 300.
5) I have a Hy6 so if the 300 is in the ballpark with the 240, then I will snag one. If not, I will likely move to the Phase One platform.
6) I have the Zeiss 350 for the Hy6 and it is not a contender.

Thank you so much for your kind assistance.
Logged
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2013, 08:32:29 AM »
ReplyReply

You should check with Brian Hirschfeld. He's recently been testing the Mamiya 500/4.5 with a 2x converter on the Phase DDF/IQ180.

There's a recent thread here.

/edit
here you go - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78167.0
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 08:36:19 AM by gerald.d » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2013, 10:00:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no experience with the LS 240 so can't comment on that lens, but do own a AFi-ii 12 and a 300mm.  This is a fantastic lens and it also works well with the rollei 1.4x extender which was designed for the 180/2.8 and 300/4.  You get 420/5.6 with the extender and almost no loss that I could see.    I've done some tests and you can actually stack two 1.4x together with the lens as well if more reach is needed.  Rollei makes a 2x which I've also tested against the 2 stack of the 1.4x's.    I recommend having two 1.4x's over one 2x.  - the 1.4x's are quite good.  The 300mm/4 renders beautifully too.   
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
KevinGSaunders
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2013, 10:04:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Eric. That would be a perfect solution and much less expensive than going with the Mamiya Phase body. You saw my test with the view camera lens compared to the 180 and 350 Hy6 shots and the MTF data shows the 300 to be a little better than the 180, I think. I just wish I were better at analyzing these charts. Thanks again.

Best,

Kevin
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2013, 10:24:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, its a lot easier to compare the MTF's when you know whether they were tested or computer generated and also how many line pairs the curves represent.  If I have seen your view camera lens compared to the 180 and 350, then I've forgotten sorry.  I'm a bit fuzzy this am... need more coffee.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2013, 11:37:51 AM »
ReplyReply

+1 on the Schneider 300. Amazing lens - I'm seeing spider webs at 100'. No fooling.

For use with tele-extenders, shake can become more of an issue -  blowing  up is easier.
Logged

Geoff
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2013, 12:18:17 PM »
ReplyReply

shake can become more of an issue -  blowing  up is easier.

This is absolutely true in the field, especially if there is wind which since the lens is pretty long and makes a pretty good sail. The 300mm has a tripod foot mount which is handy.  With 80mp to work with it might be possible to 'get by' with a crop.   In my experience aerial interference such as heat rising and stirring the air can affect the images too when you are shooting from far away.      In general I don't feel that the AFi has any real problems with mirror shake and the lens has a leaf shutter which does not shake when firing. Still I use the mirror up.

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
KevinGSaunders
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2013, 07:11:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric and colleagues,

Remember this thread? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77405.0 It has some lens testing in it. Eric, you should find the images enlightening.

Best,

Kevin
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2013, 12:34:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah, I do remember that thread now Kevin.   I think you have axial chromatic aberration visible on the 350mm.  
btw - the 1.4x works a treat on the 180.  Here's a shot with the 180/2.8 with the 1.4x fitted taken handheld on a 6008AF and p20 back.  Whole frame then crop.  I wish I had some files to pull from that were taken with this lens combo on the Hy6/AFi-ii 12.   Anyhow its a great combo as is the 300mm + 1.4x.     
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 12:39:35 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2013, 06:09:12 AM »
ReplyReply

from the 300 - at 100 ISO, f16. Full shot, then crop. The webs are sharp. Mirror up helps a lot. But its a demanding lens - for this length, sharpness, and resolution, your technique has to be spot on. I tried getting an owl on a wintry day with wind blowing and had no luck whatsoever. The owl didn't move, but everything else did!
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 06:11:58 AM by Geoffreyg » Logged

Geoff
KevinGSaunders
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2013, 09:35:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi All,

Great shots guys. I am creating big composite images, so these will be on the biggest tripod Gitzo makes, with mirror lock up. Eric, if you look back at my test images, note that the view camera, APO Digitar 180 was significantly more accurate than the 180 on the Hy6. I shot them on different days, so the heat may have had a factor too, but I can't remember. I do know that the 350 was useless as both the other lenses were much better.

According to the MTF charts, the 300 appears to be a little better than the 180. Eric, would you be in a position to shoot something with both lenses and then do a crop that would be adjusted to the  focal length, so the size of the object was about the same? I would love to see what the combinations of things were and if I had both lenses plus the 1.4 doubler I would do four shots just to see.

I really like the Hy6 platform and I would prefer to stay here, as opposed to dumping it all and going with the 240 on the Phase body. I am working on a project where the state of the art is needing to be defined, so it is really important I find out objectively what that state is. It also should be good info for other forum members, so I don't mind asking for help!

Best,

Kevin
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2013, 10:40:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Kevin,
I'm not sure I could really make a decision on your crops in the other thread except to say that either the 350 was focused past the building (because of the axial chromatic aberration I felt it wasn't focused on the building) or that it was not of the same quality as the others.    I would expect the view camera lens to possibly be a bit better since it would not have a retrofocal element and a larger image circle.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
KevinGSaunders
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2013, 10:54:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric,

Thanks. That hotel was a mile away from my vantage point, so I doubt that the 350 was focused past it. It just had awful CA. The retrofocal 180 is likely a little better than the view camera lens, and  the PQ lens still is designed for film. I don't know if Schneider changed anything to create the AFD 180 or not. Regardless, the PQ 180 is usable and I am keeping my eyes peeled for a 300 and a 1.4 doubler. The 350 is going out to a new home via ebay shortly!

Best,

Kevin
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2013, 08:33:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I had a copy of the AF 180 and its definitely different than the manual focus version. Also nice but different as it had a bit shorter focal length.  I can't say about the AFD since I've not been able to make a comparison though I have shot with my friends and its also a nice lens. Definitely not the norm, but you can absolutely focus past infinity if your lens has been serviced or adjusted for one reason or another.   I've seen several which either didn't focus to infinity or alternatively went way past infinity.  I actually asked the technician at Rollei Hensel about this and he said, well can't you see it when it is in focus and not?   Any way purple fringe in areas without adjacent hot areas next to them often are axial chromatic aberration and that you get in regions near focus but not in so that's why I guessed that could be what was up with the 350.  Could be something else but I don't know the Zeiss 350 lens at all, though I have heard mostly positive things about it from those that use it.  I've mostly stuck to the schneider lenses for the Rollei.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 04:30:02 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
KevinGSaunders
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2013, 08:11:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Eric,

I will have to get my Aptus II 12R back from Israel before I can do any further testing.

Best,

Kevin
Logged
MarkoRepse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2013, 10:50:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Heres a thought: what about getting an RZ (and an AFi adapter plate) and some of the APO telephotos? Those are simply amazing good, diffraction limited (or very very close to it) and cheap. That way you can keep the Hy6 and have top notch telephoto options when you need them. To actually answer your question: based on the MTF curves the LS lens will be sharper and I expect the difference to be visible on 80MP. What the PQ lens does at 40lp/mm the LS does at 60lp/mm. An RZ67 350mm APO will be at least as good.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2013, 12:59:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Marko,
That's a good idea.   I have the AFi to RZ adapter plate and have used it. It takes less than 30 minutes to fit the RZ adapter, maybe even just 10 minutes if you have done it before (but who want's to rush around with a job that has the sensor in the open?).   Which long tele's do you recommend?  I'm completely happy with the Rollei 300, so what's good longer than that?   

Regarding comparing MTF curves from one lens to another... personally I think this can be difficult since some are computer generated and some measured.  Some using 30lp/mm some 40.  You can get a general idea, but to make a decision about which is better base on MTF curves may be difficult.

I'm in the midst of doing my own extensive testing on the Rollei lenses that I own, and plan to add in the RZ lenses and some of the LF lenses too.     Right now I can tell you many of the Schneider Rollei lenses are reaching over 170 lp/mm at 50% contrast (MTF 50p) - some are actually reaching nyquist limits.     I am interested to see how the RZ lenses perform. 

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
MarkoRepse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2013, 02:03:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes indeed MTFs are tricky business, however in this case since both are from Schneider I'd dare say its rather safe to say they were both obtained in the same way. They also fit my experience with LS and PQ/S glass with the LS being sharper. That said, there is more to a lens than sharpness and its not like the PQ/S are not sharp, they certainly are. Obviously testing a lens is by far the best option.
My longest lens was the RZ 210mm APO. Best lens I've ever used! Perfectly sharp corner to corner at all apertures. A real APO lens too, no fringing, nice smooth bokeh. And plenty of choice: 250f4.5, 350f5.6 and 500f6.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2013, 08:36:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, maybe, but maybe not.  Schneider only consulted in the design of the LS lenses but Mamiya is making them.  Since the Rollei Schneiders are hitting nyquist in my test its hard to imaging that the LS lenses could be any better.  Probably the sensor may be the limiting factor for both.  Have you had a chance to shoot either set with the 80mp backs?      But I do agree with you that the look or character the lens draws with is more important than the ultimate sharpness.   

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Lacunapratum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2013, 10:57:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I also wonder about Schneider's role in those new Mamiya lenses, even though they seem good.  I suspect they might have had a role in the shutter design. 

Those Mamiya RZ APO telephoto lenses are excellent.  I am using the 250mm APO occasionally on my Pentax 645D. 

I really haven't done a comparison test, but the 300mm APO for the Hy6 is among the best glass I have ever used, also in tandem with the 1.4x converter.  Those Mamiya RZ lenses appear to be corrected for contrast, while I'd guess that the Schneider 300mm will win in terms of overall sharpness.  This is actually the case already at F4, even with the converter.  One of the few situations when a teleconverter does not appear to diminish image quality at all. 

The 180mm Tele-Xenars are different types of lenses, which only reach their peak at F8 and F11.  They are portrait designs with great bokeh at F2.8.  Both 180mm lenses are similar in that respect.  The front lens of the AFD is more curved and more susceptible to specular flares, while the MF has a less protruding front element.  Both are simply wonderful for portraits, no parallel. 

The Zeiss 350mm and the old 500mm are classic Tele-Tessar designs with a main front element and a simple Barlow design in the back.  They were good for film days but don't hold up on digital backs.  Not recommended.   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad