The other thing to remember is the 70mm image circle of both the 23 and 28HR Rodenstocks. Thus with any back close to 645 dimensions, you will be limited to around 4 to 5mm max shift and 6mm rise. This is not due to the lens optics, but Rodenstock choses to place a hard cut off to indicate to the photographer where the edge of the IC is. This creates a hard vignette un-correctable in post, it will also at times give you a lighter band before the hard vignette which can case problems with solid's like a blue sky, Will not be an issue with trees, or other foliage. The 32 HR-W and 40 HR-2 are 90mm IC and thus can allow for a lot more shift if that is what you are interested in.
Also remember that older 23 HR lenses were known for a terrible flare issue, but Rodenstock seems to have fixed a lot of that with a newer coating. Several photographers I know of have returned older 23 HR lenses to Rodenstock to have this coating added with good results. For my work the 23mm is too expensive and to limited on shifts but optically amazing for sure.
Edit: the 23 and 28 greatly benefit when used with the Rodentstock CF (same filter for both lenses), even on center shot. The 32mm also works better with the CF but more so on shifts of 10mm or more.
Acra will allow up to 5mm of tilt with all lenses, however you can't have tilt and swing together at the same time. You are limited to 15mm of shift with the rm3di unless you rotate the camera 90 degrees to allow your rise/fall to become shift.
For me tilt in MF very important, one thing I miss with the XF system. I prefer as much of the image in focus as possible and most times with the the 28HR (no longer have) or 32 HR-W only .5 to 1 degree of tilt is needed for the look I prefer. With the XF you have back to focus stacking which can be problematic depending on the scene and conditions (wind). But the LCC process of the tech camera wears on me just as much or more.
Paul C
