Medium Format Lenses for the DSLR

[Jack Hogan]

I'd be interested in quantitative data on how some of these excellent LF/MF lenses perform on a 35mm sensor vs native lenses.  The question in my mind is whether, at a given display size, their excellent performance on an LF/MF system is tied mainly to the lesser magnification required by the larger sensor or because the lenses themselves are actually better made/corrected.  For instance, how about some MTF data in lp/mm (or even lp/ph if on the same FF sensor) comparing them to one or two equivalent FF lenses?

This is where my curiosity stems from.

Jack

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Jack,

Zeiss publishes MTF data for all their lenses at the usual 10/20/40 lp/mm.

http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php

So you can compare say a Sonnar 150/4 for the Blad and the Milvus or the Otus 85/1.4.

I normally don't measure MTF on my lenses across the field, as I would need a very large test target. Also focusing off axis is not easy the way I work.  So I often compare MTF a bit off axis and not in the edges corners.

Here is a direct comparison Planar 100/3.5 (one of the sharpest lenses on the 'Blad') compared to the Sony 90/2.8 G Macro at around 5m shooting distance.



Here I normalised the scales so that the magnification difference has been taken into account (in a messy way)


Both lenses have flat MTF over he field (or should have at least), so these curves would be similar across the field.

The figure below shows the MTF for sharpened images (using FocusMagic)


What you see is that the left part of the MTF is a dead ringer for both.

Hasselblad has MTF data for all their lenses. The H-series seem to be very good.

The older Zeiss lenses have sort of old type MTF-data. Sonnars are very good and so is the Planar 100/3.5. Most older Distagons not so good.

I would say that my Canon 16-35/4L outperforms my Distagons (40/4 CF, FLE), 60/3.5CF and 50/4 CF when shooting the Distagons on the P45+ back and the Canon on my Sony A7rII. This is clearly visible on screen or say on large prints, say 80x120 cm. That is clearly visible if looking close (say at 50 cm viewing distance), stepping back to say 100 cm they are very similar.

To that comes that the older lenses have quite a lot of axial chroma, this often better corrected on modern lenses.

Something I note that I can get inconsistent results with modern lenses, like the 90/2.8 sample I have may have a tilted focal plane, at least in some cases. The old Hasselblad lenses are very consistent.

I would also say that 135 mm lens design has been jacked up a bit recently… For instance, Zeiss has redesigned the old Planar 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4, both have MTF at Otus levels, but I don't think axial chroma is fully corrected.

Best regards
Erik

I'd be interested in quantitative data on how some of these excellent LF/MF lenses perform on a 35mm sensor vs native lenses.  The question in my mind is whether, at a given display size, their excellent performance on an LF/MF system is tied mainly to the lesser magnification required by the larger sensor or because the lenses themselves are actually better made/corrected.  For instance, how about some MTF data in lp/mm (or even lp/ph if on the same FF sensor) comparing them to one or two equivalent FF lenses?

This is where my curiosity stems from.

Jack

[Jack Hogan]

I see, so a bit of both, as suspected.   Thank you very much Erik, a very good answer.

Jack

[Alan Klein]

Clyde Butcher who went digital from large format film uses a Cambo Artus bellows with a digital 36 megapixel Sony a 7R camera and RZ Mamiya lenses (medium format).  I saw his five foot wide digital prints in Venice, Florida in his gallery and they are outstanding.  Check also with Cambo Artus.  They have a bellows that pulls this all together.

You might check with Clyde and ask him what lenses he uses. 

[Jack Hogan]

Thanks for the suggestion Alan.

Jack

[Theodoros]

The situation of using MF lenses with FF sensors is pretty similar in analogy to one using FF lenses with APS-c sensor where it all depends on the quality of the lenses used and more so with their center frame performance. I use all my Contax 645 lenses on my Nikons of 16mp & 36mp sensors via the JAS adapter so that they work with full dedication... I have to say, the results are awesome... Perhaps not so much on resolution as such, but the rendering, the luck of distortion, the colour saturation, the microcontrast, the resistance to flare, are all in a different level... Therefore I ended up selling all my Nikon glass, but the 17-35mm f2.8 to have for WAs and then the 24mm f3.5 PCE and the 85mm f2.8 PC micro which I need for specific tasks, all other from 35mm up to 210mm are the seven Contax 645 lenses I share with my C645 MF system and the mutar 1.4X TC of the Contax.

[Alan Klein]

Oh.  . The Cambo bellows of course allows tilts and Pruett similar actions that large format can do.   That's why Butcher apparantlt went to it.  The dof on landscapes go up by a large margin over just smaller apertures.

[Theodoros]

Oh.  . The Cambo bellows of course allows tilts and Pruett similar actions that large format can do.   That's why Butcher apparantlt went to it.  The dof on landscapes go up by a large margin over just smaller apertures.

Actually Alan, pros know very well what they are doing which is most of the times exactly the opposite to what many posters suggest... The RZ lenses (and the Fuji GX-680 lenses even more so) have much longer mounting distances than typical MF lenses and considerably larger image circles too... This enables one to create distortionless UW angles by swinging the camera by the lens entrance pupil as to stitch (instead of stitching within the projected image circle) and achieve extremely high resolution at the same time while avoiding artifacts and keeping DOF under control at the same time...

[Alan Klein]

Theo:  Thanks for mentioning stitching.  I was told in Butcher's gallery that he does in fact stitch his shots.   I don't know what quantity he uses.

[Steve Hendrix]

Clyde Butcher who went digital from large format film uses a Cambo Artus bellows with a digital 36 megapixel Sony a 7R camera and RZ Mamiya lenses (medium format).  I saw his five foot wide digital prints in Venice, Florida in his gallery and they are outstanding.  Check also with Cambo Artus.  They have a bellows that pulls this all together.

You might check with Clyde and ask him what lenses he uses.

A variety of lenses, including Pentax 67 (via Pentax 67 to Pentax 645 Adapter to Cambo Pentax 645 Lensboard) and RZ Lenses, particularly the 75mm TS Lens, which adds to the existing movements of the Actus by possessing an image circle large enough to also take advantage of the movements of the lens itself on top of the camera movements.

Below is an article that refers to this lens and explores other wide angle possibilities with the Cambo Actus:

https://captureintegration.com/seeing-sideways-with-the-cambo-actus/


Steve Hendrix/CI

[sgilbert]

Clyde's lenses are listed here:  http://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Steve,

Good article, as usual…

I would add some points of mine.

1) The Canon 16-35/4L zoom has ample movements  at 20-35 mm, I  wuld say 12 mm is possible

2) I have both the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE and the Pentax 67 45/4 mm. The Pentax is the best lens at the edges

3) The Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF is great across the field

4) I bought a couple of Contax (RTS) Zeiss zooms for tilt (Scheimpflug) work. The 35-135/3.3-4.5 is great at the long end and quite OK at the short end. The 28-85/3.3-4 is aslo very good and somewhat more practical.

Just to say, I use my lenses on a HCam Master TSII, but what works on the HCam would also work on the Cambo. The Cambo offers wider movements and it has geared movements, so I am quet interested. On the other hand the HCam fits in a pocket.

Best regards
Erik

A variety of lenses, including Pentax 67 (via Pentax 67 to Pentax 645 Adapter to Cambo Pentax 645 Lensboard) and RZ Lenses, particularly the 75mm TS Lens, which adds to the existing movements of the Actus by possessing an image circle large enough to also take advantage of the movements of the lens itself on top of the camera movements.

Below is an article that refers to this lens and explores other wide angle possibilities with the Cambo Actus:

https://captureintegration.com/seeing-sideways-with-the-cambo-actus/


Steve Hendrix/CI

[Theodoros]

Just to say, I use my lenses on a HCam Master TSII, but what works on the HCam would also work on the Cambo. The Cambo offers wider movements and it has geared movements, so I am quet interested. On the other hand the HCam fits in a pocket.

Best regards
Erik

I wonder... do you use a Canon to Sony adapter on the HCam and then add more adapters for MF lenses as to use them on the Eos mount?

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi Steve,

Good article, as usual…

I would add some points of mine.

1) The Canon 16-35/4L zoom has ample movements  at 20-35 mm, I  wuld say 12 mm is possible

2) I have both the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE and the Pentax 67 45/4 mm. The Pentax is the best lens at the edges

3) The Hasselblad 100/3.5 CF is great across the field

4) I bought a couple of Contax (RTS) Zeiss zooms for tilt (Scheimpflug) work. The 35-135/3.3-4.5 is great at the long end and quite OK at the short end. The 28-85/3.3-4 is aslo very good and somewhat more practical.

Just to say, I use my lenses on a HCam Master TSII, but what works on the HCam would also work on the Cambo. The Cambo offers wider movements and it has geared movements, so I am quet interested. On the other hand the HCam fits in a pocket.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Erik.

The article is not intended necessarily as a lens by lens analysis, but more of an overview on the lens options for capturing wide angle views on the Cambo Actus. As such, there is something there for most everyone, but what I found is that many photographers without view camera experience were contacting us without an understanding of all the benefits the solution offered, but also not understanding the limits/possibilities for using wide angle lenses with the system.

By the way, we had some discussions with some outlets about publishing the article and were told by one that it was too "salesy". But that is really a mis-read. When I started writing the Cambo Actus articles (there are now 4 in this series), I wanted to present a dedicated voice, so wrote them in my head with the concept in mind of "Top Gear for Cameras". So, there is a certain level of cheeky enthusiasm, as in "this sexy little number performs both swing and tilt", for example. So as I was writing it, I imagined the voice of Jeremy Clarkson or Richard Hammond speaking the lines as I wrote them. I wanted to add a level of enthusiasm and entertainment instead of a stodgy, technical review (though it still is a technical review).

I would add the 120mm CF Lens to your list as well, that we've tested, though it's not a wide lens. We can test and provide lens data for any lens in our inventory (we have a lot), or, for those pre-evaluating the Actus who own an existing lens, they can send the lens to us to shoot on the Actus, and we'll send back raw files. Or, alternatively, they can eval rent the whole system.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The HCam has a Sony mount as standard (*) and has a mechanical Canon EOS mount in front.

It offers +/- 15 mm of horisontal shift and 0-10 degrees of tilt. It can use Canon lenses directly, but the lenses need to be stopped down 'by other means'. It can take Contax Y/C mount lenses using an adapter or by adding a Leitax Contax to EF mount. The backside opening on the Contax lenses is small, so it leaves very little shift, because of mechanical vignetting.

According to my sources the Canon 11-24/4 works great. My own experience is limited to the 16-35/4, a couple of Hasselblad lenses.

For 'shift panos' the HCam has a nice advantage taht all movements are on the back. So lens doesn't move during til and shift. None of the movements is geared, though.

Best regards
Erik

(*) The rear munt is user changeable and there are several options, all mirror less.

I wonder... do you use a Canon to Sony adapter on the HCam and then add more adapters for MF lenses as to use them on the Eos mount?

[Theodoros]

Hi,

The HCam has a Sony mount as standard (*) and has a mechanical Canon EOS mount in front.

It offers +/- 15 mm of horisontal shift and 0-10 degrees of tilt. It can use Canon lenses directly, but the lenses need to be stopped down 'by other means'. It can take Contax Y/C mount lenses using an adapter or by adding a Leitax Contax to EF mount. The backside opening on the Contax lenses is small, so it leaves very little shift, because of mechanical vignetting.

According to my sources the Canon 11-24/4 works great. My own experience is limited to the 16-35/4, a couple of Hasselblad lenses.

For 'shift panos' the HCam has a nice advantage taht all movements are on the back. So lens doesn't move during til and shift. None of the movements is geared, though.

Best regards
Erik

(*) The rear munt is user changeable and there are several options, all mirror less.

I know how the HCam works... In reality it a camera T/S adapter for mirrorless bodies which is then mounted on a Novoflex tripod head which has some leveling mechanisms included... My question was if you use the MF lenses by combining in series a second adapter to the T/S one that already serves as lens and camera mount on the H-Cam...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I didn't understand your question as the HCam has Canon EF mount as only option on the lens side.

I use a Novoflex adapter for the Hasselblad and a Kipon for the Pentax. Both are two part, a Canon flange and a lens adapter. The Canon mount flange is much better matted on the Novoflex, so I use it on both. Both are plain adapters.

It is possible to use a Mirex T&S adapter for Hasselblad in connection with the HCam, that gives bidirectional shifts, but I don't feel I need that. Still a beginner in the T&S area.

Best regards
Erik

I know how the HCam works... In reality it a camera T/S adapter for mirrorless bodies which is then mounted on a Novoflex tripod head which has some leveling mechanisms included... My question was if you use the MF lenses by combining in series a second adapter to the T/S one that already serves as lens and camera mount on the H-Cam...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Steve,

I really liked your article, it covers a lot of ground. I would accentuate some points:

1) A major issue with MF lenses on 24x36 mm is the crop factor. If you take the Hasselblad V-system, the widest lens the Distagon 40/4 (in FLE and IF versions). On the P45+ they essentially act as a 24 mm lens. On 24x36 they are just a 40 mm lens. With a T&S adapter you can make a +/-12 mm shift, giving you a "24mm like coverage" at 80 MP, but it is not as convenient as shooting a regular 24 mm lens.

2) I considered recommending the Planat 120/4 CF, but I feel it is somewhat limited. Native focusing gives something like 1:5 scale, god for flowers but not for 'real macro'. It is optmized for close up work. I use it for that kind of work.

3) It may be that shifts are more interesting for wide angle work and tilts more interesting for telephoto. That said, today I needed ample shift at 50 mm, a perfect job for the Distagon 50 I used to have. The Distagon 40 would be to wide and the 60 to long. It didn't matter, though as I only travelled with 24x36 lenses today.

Getting back to your article, I didn't feel you were overselling stuff.

Recently, I use a HCam but the Cambo offers more flexible movements and those movements are gerared.

My take is really that anyone looking at movements needs to analyse their needs and make an educated choice on equipment that will fulfil those needs.

Just take macro. Modern macro lenses from Zeiss (Contax Apo Macro Planar 120/4), Mamiya, Hasselblad and Phase One have all floating elements (variable air space) to compensate field curvature at different distances. Air space varies with focusing. If focusing is done by extension the floating elements will be used incorrectly.

Best regards
Erik

 

Thanks Erik.

The article is not intended necessarily as a lens by lens analysis, but more of an overview on the lens options for capturing wide angle views on the Cambo Actus. As such, there is something there for most everyone, but what I found is that many photographers without view camera experience were contacting us without an understanding of all the benefits the solution offered, but also not understanding the limits/possibilities for using wide angle lenses with the system.

By the way, we had some discussions with some outlets about publishing the article and were told by one that it was too "salesy". But that is really a mis-read. When I started writing the Cambo Actus articles (there are now 4 in this series), I wanted to present a dedicated voice, so wrote them in my head with the concept in mind of "Top Gear for Cameras". So, there is a certain level of cheeky enthusiasm, as in "this sexy little number performs both swing and tilt", for example. So as I was writing it, I imagined the voice of Jeremy Clarkson or Richard Hammond speaking the lines as I wrote them. I wanted to add a level of enthusiasm and entertainment instead of a stodgy, technical review (though it still is a technical review).

I would add the 120mm CF Lens to your list as well, that we've tested, though it's not a wide lens. We can test and provide lens data for any lens in our inventory (we have a lot), or, for those pre-evaluating the Actus who own an existing lens, they can send the lens to us to shoot on the Actus, and we'll send back raw files. Or, alternatively, they can eval rent the whole system.

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi Steve,

I really liked your article, it covers a lot of ground. I would accentuate some points:

1) A major issue with MF lenses on 24x36 mm is the crop factor. If you take the Hasselblad V-system, the widest lens the Distagon 40/4 (in FLE and IF versions). On the P45+ they essentially act as a 24 mm lens. On 24x36 they are just a 40 mm lens. With a T&S adapter you can make a +/-12 mm shift, giving you a "24mm like coverage" at 80 MP, but it is not as convenient as shooting a regular 24 mm lens.

True, although with a regular 24mm you don't have the same palette of available movements (unless you're using something like the Canon 24mm TSE II with EF Aperture Controller).

2) I considered recommending the Planat 120/4 CF, but I feel it is somewhat limited. Native focusing gives something like 1:5 scale, god for flowers but not for 'real macro'. It is optmized for close up work. I use it for that kind of work.

If it fits the application, then optically I have found it to perform extremely well with the Sony A7R-II. Haven't tried it with extended bellows to get closer to 1:1.

Getting back to your article, I didn't feel you were overselling stuff.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to - I was just being enthusiastic. "What a great development for photographers"! Well isn't a product that can allow photographers to use their DSLR or mirrorless cameras on a tiny little view camera with all sorts of lenses - especially so many that never would have even thought of doing such a thing - not a great development for photographers? I think that it is a very strong plus if more photographers can use view cameras. It's a vote for YES! View Cameras! A Good Thing!



 
Steve Hendrix/CI

[Theodoros]

I think that it is a very strong plus if more photographers can use view cameras. It's a vote for YES! View Cameras! A Good Thing!



 
Steve Hendrix/CI

Amen