Fuji/Zeiss lenses corrected by Phocus vs Schnieder APO lenses.

[healeystudio]

In switching from film to MF digital I find myself wondering if I am clinging to the old ways out of nostalgia or if there is reason for me to have faith in the equipment that has worked so well for me for so long.

I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to test an Schnieder APO lens (especially an 150 mm Makro APO Symmar) side by side with any of the Hasselblad lenses corrected through software. (on camera or off)

I have always thought that software correction is sort of a lame substitute for making great lenses, but really have no experience or evidence to back up that opinion.  So does anyone out there have experience or can you provide sources of information that may help indulge my curiosity?

I do fully understand the cost benefits.  That is one of the reasons I am asking this question.

Thanks ahead of time for any input, observations, and or advice.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

First I think you should read this article:

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

Regarding correcting optically or electrically I have no real experience. Still I see some points.

The areas that are easily corrected in software are:

1) Vignetting
2) Distortion
3) Chromatic aberration
4) Color cast

If you are using a shifted or tilted lens none of the above would work.

High order correction of distortion may results in "wave" distortion which is ugly. Correction of distortion may be done best in software.

Vignetting is probably best solved in software.

Color fringing can be corrected in software. I don't know if this also increases resolution. Doing it optically is probably advantageous.

Color cast is more of a sensor issue.

I'd suggest that correcting some errors in software is definitively a smart thing, but the lens should be pretty ideal to start with. I see vignetting and distortion as the prime candidates for correcting in software.

Best regards
Erik

In switching from film to MF digital I find myself wondering if I am clinging to the old ways out of nostalgia or if there is reason for me to have faith in the equipment that has worked so well for me for so long.

I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to test an Schnieder APO lens (especially an 150 mm Makro APO Symmar) side by side with any of the Hasselblad lenses corrected through software. (on camera or off)

I have always thought that software correction is sort of a lame substitute for making great lenses, but really have no experience or evidence to back up that opinion.  So does anyone out there have experience or can you provide sources of information that may help indulge my curiosity?

I do fully understand the cost benefits.  That is one of the reasons I am asking this question.

Thanks ahead of time for any input, observations, and or advice.

[Dustbak]

I use all HC lenses but also Schneider Digitar 120macro and Schneider Digitar 90 both on a Rollei X-act. The HC lenses are excellent. The software takes extremely good care of things like CA but the digitars don't need that (or maybe really rarely). I have no issues with CA on the Digitars. Distortion is kind of a non-issue with this focal length but the Hasselblad software takes really good care of that when needed. The HC lenses are very good to begin with, the software correction just adds to this. It would be foolish not to take advantage of the possibilities that software can provide.

There definitely is a difference between de HC's and the Digitars. The Digitars deliver better overall IQ. They seem sharper, have more detail, more 'alive & vibrant'.

For overall use the HC lenses are more than adequate when I need movements I fall back on the X-act2.

[healeystudio]

I use all HC lenses but also Schneider Digitar 120macro and Schneider Digitar 90 both on a Rollei X-act. The HC lenses are excellent. The software takes extremely good care of things like CA but the digitars don't need that (or maybe really rarely). I have no issues with CA on the Digitars. Distortion is kind of a non-issue with this focal length but the Hasselblad software takes really good care of that when needed. The HC lenses are very good to begin with, the software correction just adds to this. It would be foolish not to take advantage of the possibilities that software can provide.

There definitely is a difference between de HC's and the Digitars. The Digitars deliver better overall IQ. They seem sharper, have more detail, more 'alive & vibrant'.

For overall use the HC lenses are more than adequate when I need movements I fall back on the X-act2.

Thanks for your observations.  I believe the Digitars and the APOs are similar lenses, at least in comparison to the older film lenses.  As far as I understand it, digital requires a "tighter" focal plane than film, so the Digitars are created more like APO lenses.  Or as it was stated to me "you should have a digital lens if you are going to use a digital back, but APO lenses work great too."  Not very tech, but it made sense to me.

And yes, I Think I understand what you mean when you say "more alive and vibrant".   You cannot see the obvious difference, but you can feel the difference right away.  Think this statement swayed me the most.

We shoot very difficult subject matter where detail and color accuracy is a must.  Really appreciate any information we can get.  Oh, I just bought another APO lens, the 90.  I've always wanted one. Still have to run it through its paces.  But now I can say, it is not ALL nostalgia that motivated the purchase. Thanks!

[EinstStein]

People should not see the software corrected optics to be the lazyman's approach.
If you can access to the recent issues of IEEE's "Spectrum" magazine, you should read the article about the wavefront correction in optical system. I believe the title is "The End of Blurring".
One of the message in that article is, software assisted or corrected optics is a key technology of breaking-through for the optic system.

Soon people will realize that the non-software assisted optics should be called the lazyman's optics. None average and smart guy would take that anymore.

In switching from film to MF digital I find myself wondering if I am clinging to the old ways out of nostalgia or if there is reason for me to have faith in the equipment that has worked so well for me for so long.

I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to test an Schnieder APO lens (especially an 150 mm Makro APO Symmar) side by side with any of the Hasselblad lenses corrected through software. (on camera or off)

I have always thought that software correction is sort of a lame substitute for making great lenses, but really have no experience or evidence to back up that opinion.  So does anyone out there have experience or can you provide sources of information that may help indulge my curiosity?

I do fully understand the cost benefits.  That is one of the reasons I am asking this question.

Thanks ahead of time for any input, observations, and or advice.

[Dick Roadnight]

I use all HC lenses but also Schneider Digitar 120macro and Schneider Digitar 90 both on a Rollei X-act. The HC lenses are excellent. The software takes extremely good care of things like CA but the digitars don't need that

Thanks...

Can you tell my how the Hasselblad 50-110 zoom compare with the other Hasselblad lenses?

By Schneider Digitar do you mean the Apo-digitars, or do they do any other Digitars?

They tell me that some of the Apo-digitars are re-named versions of older lenses ...do you know if this is the case, or how well the Apo-digitars compare with the preceding Schneider lenses?

[Dustbak]

The Digitars I use are the APO-Digitars. I cannot tell how they compare to older schneider lenses. I don't have those.

The zoom lens is heavy. I use it hand held but it is tiresome. IQ-wise it is excellent. I find it slightly better than the 50prime, better than my 80, slightly less so than the 100 and less than the 120. After the 100 it is my most used lens. It is very versatile. I find it the lens you cannot do without. I do think it is a bit of a vulnerable lens, my copy needs to be repaired but I will wait until the busiest part of my season is over (mid April or so).

I have not yet tried the 35-90 or the HTS, I am haggling on the steep price on both items. It is not that I cannot afford them, I am simply wondering whether I find them worth that price. I guess I will get them when Hasselblad has another discount round or promotional campaign. Especially the HTS has my interest for all those times I want some movements and feel it is not worthwile to pull the X-act2 out of the closet.

[Dick Roadnight]

The zoom lens is heavy. I use it hand held but it is tiresome. IQ-wise it is excellent.

Thanks

The 50-110 zoom is the only Hasselblad digital lens I have.

I bought it thinking that it was "only a zoom" would use it for "point and shoot" and use the apo-digitars for "serious" photography, but it seems adequate for landscapes. Being large and strong helps when you use a camera/lens combo >4Kg.

I bought the apo-digitars (and hopefully equivalent Schneider lenses) for movements but also in the expectation that they would be better than the Hasselblad lenses, and have enough image circle for stitching.

[KevinA]

I don't see software as a real solution for Vignetting. Vignetting is under-exposure and making it lighter you can run into  problems, especialy if the corners have a  shadow in them already. I have zero experiance of Hasselblads solution, I have often shot my Canons in difficult lighting in a way that emphasizes Vignetting, trying to correct it in post induces noise and at the extreme banding. I would rather have a lens with minimal vignetting to start with.
I can see software has a needed and important part to play in lens performance, but I can't help but think it is adding another round-a-bout and swing permutation to photography.

Kevin.

[Dick Roadnight]

I don't see software as a real solution for Vignetting. Vignetting is under-exposure and making it lighter you can run into  problems, especialy if the corners have a  shadow in them already. I have zero experiance of Hasselblads solution,
I have often shot my Canons in difficult lighting in a way that emphasizes Vignetting, trying to correct it in post induces noise and at the extreme banding. I would rather have a lens with minimal vignetting to start with.
I can see software has a needed and important part to play in lens performance, but I can't help but think it is adding another round-a-bout and swing permutation to photography.

Kevin.

If there are (locally, as a result of vignetting) areas that are under exposed I can appreciate that you would have problems with Canon files... can you do the vignetting correction on raw files?

Hasselblad's Solution works very well for the minor problems with Hasselblad lenses.

With any wide Apo-Digitar lenses that vignetted, I would always try to "get it right in camera" by using a center filter, rather than try to fix in post...
and you could not manually correct vignetting of Schneider lenses in Phocus,
but, to use the extension of DR which Phocus raw processing gives, you could process two or more versions of a picture in Phocus (for highlights and shadows) and mask-merge them in Photoshop.