SK 43mm vs. Rodie 40mm

[JoeKitchen]

I know that a few years ago, it was accepted that the 40mm was the better lens on the 60+ MP backs. 

Any thoughts on this with the new version of C1? 

If I am using an IQ260, would it still be recommended to avoid the 43mm?  Realistically, how much shift would I be able to get out of the 43mm before I encounter negative effects from the lens cast?

I have noticed a pretty negative effect of my SK 35mm at ~18mm of shift.  The Sky looses it vibrancy and develops faint pin lines across the image that can not be removed, mainly on verticals though. 

(Personally, I enjoy the near zero distortion of the Schneiders and would prefer not to have to keep track of how much I shift to correct the distortion in post.  Plus, at most, the Rodie would only offer 18mm of shift before reaching the edge of the IC; if the SK 43mm is decent up 18mm, it may be better to get for the extra shift when needed.

I also have to wonder with the market moving towards mirrorless, sensors with acute angle performance may no longer be a thing of the past.) 

[voidshatter]

Can't be helpful with the 43XL here, but you might find more information regarding corner sharpness and field curvature in another thread. This is because the MTFs and designs between the 35XL and the 43XL seem to be very similar.

It also seems that Schneider is no longer making more lenses, so the stock of Schneider lenses will not last long. Every so often I check Alpa's website, I just find some Schneider lenses moved to the discontinued section. One day you might switch from CCD towards CMOS, and the Rodenstock wide angles would be more future-proof.

[Paul2660]

Hi Joe:

The 43mm vs 40mm is a hard call on the 260, I ended up staying with the 40mm, but here are some things to consider. 

I was amazed to see you are getting 18mm of shift from a 35XL, as I could only get to 10mm maybe 12mm and at F16 with mine before the smearing became to severe on the shifted edges.  The faint vertical lines you are seeing is from micro lens ripple.  The LCC should remove most of these, and if it is not you might consider having your dealer look at both the LCC and original file as the back might need a slight calibration.  Micro lens ripple on the 35 and 43 should be totally removed by the LCC where are tiling may not be removed 100%. 

43mm, benefits from a CF especially on shifts, if you can still locate one.  The more you shift, the more the light fall off will have negative effects on noise that the LCC and C1 may not be able to totally remove.  The 43mm is a light weight lens, physically smaller than the 40mm HR-W.  I could take mine to 20mm of shift max on a solid subject, blue sky, before the color cast became really not recoverable.  I have not looked at the C1 10 corrections however so it may be better now.  The lens being symmetrical has very low distortion on shifts just like the 35XL. 

40mm HR-W being a retrofocus lens, it will tend to create distortion towards the edge of the shifted images so that items will be either elongated or flattened or both.  For landscape work, I found it not an issue, but for your line of work where objects have a known size, it may be worth looking at a few images to see if that distortion will be an issue.  The 40mm has the traditional Rodenstock IC indicator inside so you will start to see a hard vignette on the 260 images much past 18mm of shift.  By 20mm the vignette is starting to ruin the image and it will not be correctable in C1, it also has some strange optical problems in the area of the right before the hard vignette.  Shifts will not however have any sharpness fall off or smearing.  A CF can help in lower light shoots, I was able to locate one for the 40mm not sure if they are still made.  40mm HR-W is a heavier lens and much larger overall but can produce excellent images.  It's a bit flare prone unlike the 43mm and the flare is very destructive when it appears.  Microlens ripple if it appears is much less than with the 43mm and 100% removable via LCC process in C1. 

I preferred the 40 and sold my 43mm but the retrofocus distortion on shifts would be something you will need to check on to see if it has a negative effect on your work. 

Paul Caldwell

[JoeKitchen]

Thanks Paul, I must have lucked out and got a really good version of that lens.  Actually I can shift to about 20mm, right to the edge, and still not have too much smearing.  I attached the full non-cropped image from the 100% of above, but will probably crop right to the point of the building in the final version. 

When I was processing it, I noticed a slight magenta hue in the top sky even after the lens cast was applied.  I solved this by adding a gradient to the top half of the image, isolated that magenta hue with the advanced color selector and pushed the hue to blue, then increased the saturation.  The first version is with this correction, the second is without. 

I consider this be an acceptable solution for such an extreme shift, especially with personal work. 

The issue with the 40 is the distortion.  Keeping tracking of it while working outside and not tethered will be a big pain the ass. 

However, one thing that I do not like about the SK35 is the need for a CF always.  For exteriors, it is not a big deal, however with interiors, that CF eats up a lot of my strobe power.  I would prefer to have a go to interior lens that does not need a CF. 

This is why I am wondering with minimal shift (interiors often do not require a great deal of shift, especially wide) if the 43mm will work. 

The cross talk is mostly removed.  I do notice it when I shift the image position at the edge at 100%, but it is removed as the preview updates.  This was a case were it was not removed.