Schneider Kreuznach 150mm LS f/3.5

[alifatemi]

hi.  I need your opinion on Schneider Kreuznach
150mm LS f/3.5 please. I need it for photograpy of paintings for sake of reproduction.. for reproduction.  I tought it might be even better tnan Scnieder 120mm. Thanks
Ali

[E.J. Peiker]

Not sure why that would be better, in general macro lenses are much more optimized for flat field reproduction when relatively close to the subject.  My choice for that type of work would definitely be the 120mm LS Macro.

[Doug Peterson]

The 120LS is the best lens in the Phase One lineup for art reproduction.

The only lens better for this would be the 72 digitar or 120ASPH used in the Phase One iXG or DT RCam cameras built specifically for art reproduction.

The 150LS/3.5 would be a step backwards from the 120LS for art repro.

[alifatemi]

The 120LS is the best lens in the Phase One lineup for art reproduction.

The only lens better for this would be the 72 digitar or 120ASPH used in the Phase One iXG or DT RCam cameras built specifically for art reproduction.

The 150LS/3.5 would be a step backwards from the 120LS for art repro.

Thanks and how do you compare 120LS to Phase One 120mm MF Macro f/4.0 for the same purpose with almost half the price?

[E.J. Peiker]

For copy work, if you are using an XF, you could use the fully electronic shutter and have no movement at all in the camera or lens so the Leaf Shutter wouldn't buy you much.  In that case I think the focal plane shutter lens should be just fine - as far as I can tell from the specs, the optical design of the two lenses is the same or at least extremely similar.

[Doug Peterson]

Optically the 120mm MF and 120LS are effectively identical. That leaves several considerations:
- Price (obvious)
- Vibration: If using continuous light the ES on the 100mp makes this point moot. When shooting larger objects (e.g. 16x20" painting) with strobe this point is moot. When shooting smaller material (e.g. 8x10 etching, 4x5 film, 35mm slides) with strobe there may still be slight blurring from the focal plane shutter vibration; most consumers wouldn't notice, but you'd risk not passing compliance standards like FADGI.
- Vertical hold: The XF (like all SLRs) is not designed with straight-down shooting as a primary use case. When shooting paintings on an easel at parallel-to-the-ground or lean-back-at-30 degrees this won't matter much. When shooting on a copy stand an iXG or LS is a better option than the MF. If only shooting low volumes this is probably not of much consequence. You can use a rubber band to hold the lens in position but this has several drawbacks (elasticity settling, inconvenience, looks etc).

So in summary if you're shooting mostly paintings, only a moderate quantity, and in a horizontal position, then the MF is just as good as the LS. If you're shooting really high volumes, or on a copy stand, or intend on doing film scanning the LS or iXG are worth considering.