Schneider TS lenses

[JeffKohn]

Well if you compare Lloyd's comments on the 40 Hartblei and the 45 pc-e (and Hartbleis vs pc-es in general) (no direct comparison, just read the individual articles and compare) the Hartblei is, even in his view,  more than just "somewhat" better ... ). Sorry guys, but my 1st hand experience with the aforementioned lenses, still makes the Hartblei soooo much better ) (for me at least, for all the reasons already mentioned)

Lloyd's criticism of the PC-E is primarily mechanical, not optical. Optically he found the lens to be quite excellent: "Optical performance is very high, superior to any 50mm or wider shift lens this author has used..."

The mechanical aspects and "lens slop" of the PC-E 45 are worth consideration for a prospective buyer; but I already own the lens, and if I were going to replace it at considerable cost I would want substantially better optics, not just better mechanics/build-quality.

It is too bad Lloyd didn't bother with direct comparison of those two lenses when he did the Hartblei review, as I'm sure a lot of folks would have found it useful. I don't doubt the Hartblei is better unshifted, but Lloyd's comments about needing to stop down to f/16 in some cases when using large shifts, along with the greater distortion led me to believe that it wasn't what I was looking for in a $3K+ lens.

But this thread was started about the Schneider lenses, which I'm hoping will be better suited to my type of work than the Hartblei's. The Schneiders have particularly large image circles (79mm for the 50, even larger for the other two) which should mean particularly good performance when shifted.  For those interested I found the user's manual for the PC-TS lenses at http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/PC-TS%20Anleitung%201-12%20en.PDF

[nazdravanul]

Lloyd's criticism of the PC-E is primarily mechanical, not optical. Optically he found the lens to be quite excellent: "Optical performance is very high, superior to any 50mm or wider shift lens this author has used..."

The mechanical aspects and "lens slop" of the PC-E 45 are worth consideration for a prospective buyer; but I already own the lens, and if I were going to replace it at considerable cost I would want substantially better optics, not just better mechanics/build-quality.

It is too bad Lloyd didn't bother with direct comparison of those two lenses when he did the Hartblei review, as I'm sure a lot of folks would have found it useful. I don't doubt the Hartblei is better unshifted, but Lloyd's comments about needing to stop down to f/16 in some cases when using large shifts, along with the greater distortion led me to believe that it wasn't what I was looking for in a $3K+ lens.

But this thread was started about the Schneider lenses, which I'm hoping will be better suited to my type of work than the Hartblei's. The Schneiders have particularly large image circles (79mm for the 50, even larger for the other two) which should mean particularly good performance when shifted.  For those interested I found the user's manual for the PC-TS lenses at http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/PC-TS%20Anleitung%201-12%20en.PDF

Lloyds tested the pc-e lenses before the Hartbleis so "the superior  to any other 50 or wider shift lens ..." does not take into consideration the Hartbleis (or Schneiders for that matter  )
As far as image circle in comparison to the Schneider 50, (aside the serious FOV difference and design differences between a 40 and a 50mm ) the Hartblei 40 mm has an 80 mm image circle as it is based on an improved Zeiss design of the legendary  Zeiss 40 CFE IF Distagon for Hasselblad so I don't see the problems there. And judging on the mosaic crops from Lloyds,  performance both in central unshifted areas and lateral shifted areas was excellent, except extreme shifted corners where you would need to stop down to f11 for optimal performance ... pretty much what you would expect for a large circle shift lens , nothing unusual here.
Lloyds complains also about optical aberrations in shifted areas when it comes to the 45 pc-e,  not only about mechanical build and shift / plane of focus allignments. And he mentions the overall uninsipiring / flat look and poor rendition of shadows/highlight details also of pc-e lenses when compared to Zeiss. Not to mention bokeh wide open or stopped down and colors / tonal gradations  ... )
But enough of the Hartbleis, back on topic to the Schneiders, you are correct .

[jgbowerman]

All good food for thought. Thanks guys!

[asf]

Interesting Schneider states the 50 "is therefore recommended mainly for architectural photography as well as for town and landscape imagery."

I ordered one when it was announced, but when they sent me the MTF's from Germany I couldn't quite believe the distortion graphs (over 2%). When I asked why they would design a modern lens with this much distortion they replied it was not intended for architecture but for table-top, and they recommended using a plate camera such as the Alpa for architecture.

That along with it not being a new optical design (basically the old mf SA in a new house), the cost of over $4k, and the shipping date being pushed back over and over led me to cancel my order.
I checked with my dealer, they have received a 90 but still no 50.

[joneil]

That along with it not being a new optical design (basically the old mf SA in a new house), the cost of over $4k, and the shipping date being pushed back over and over led me to cancel my order.
I checked with my dealer, they have received a 90 but still no 50.

-snip-

     The cost of these lenses really turned me off.  Don't get me wrong, I love Schneider lenses, along with my Rodenstock lenses too on my 4x5 and my 8x10.  I looked real careful at these lenses because as much as I love my LF gear and still use it, there are times it's very hard to go hauling all that gear into some locations or situations.   But for the price - like you said - over $4K - you can get lone heck of a good 4x5 system with lens.  Depending on the job at hand, I personally think there are time plain old 4x5 film and  a good scan of the negative is still the best way to go.

joe

[Ellis Vener]

What I'd like is a second party to make tripod mount collars that can support any of the current Nikon or Canon Tilt/Shift lenses and up to a D3 / 1Ds size body. I understand that the moving parts of the PC-E and TS-E lenses are not designed to support the weight of a camera which is why such a mount collar  would need to have some sort of secondary support for the mass of the body.

[asf]

I think Hartblei is selling such a thing.

[JeffKohn]

Interesting Schneider states the 50 "is therefore recommended mainly for architectural photography as well as for town and landscape imagery."

I ordered one when it was announced, but when they sent me the MTF's from Germany I couldn't quite believe the distortion graphs (over 2%). When I asked why they would design a modern lens with this much distortion they replied it was not intended for architecture but for table-top, and they recommended using a plate camera such as the Alpa for architecture.

That along with it not being a new optical design (basically the old mf SA in a new house), the cost of over $4k, and the shipping date being pushed back over and over led me to cancel my order.

That's disappointing to read, I had hoped the 50 would be something special. I didn't realize it was an older, recycled lens design. Given that the price seems kinda ridiculous.

[Kirk Gittings]

That's (as someone mentioned above) why one can't assume that because its a Schneider it is inherently a superior lens (though I own many superior LF lenses by Schneider). It is always an inherently a more expensive lens and usually a superior lens, but sometimes it seems that they get lazy and just trade on their name.

[graeme]

Difficult to be selective about the former but there are definitely ladies who don't care about cars.

Cheers,
Bernard

Absolutely

[David Watson]

Interesting Schneider states the 50 "is therefore recommended mainly for architectural photography as well as for town and landscape imagery."

I ordered one when it was announced, but when they sent me the MTF's from Germany I couldn't quite believe the distortion graphs (over 2%). When I asked why they would design a modern lens with this much distortion they replied it was not intended for architecture but for table-top, and they recommended using a plate camera such as the Alpa for architecture.

That along with it not being a new optical design (basically the old mf SA in a new house), the cost of over $4k, and the shipping date being pushed back over and over led me to cancel my order.
I checked with my dealer, they have received a 90 but still no 50.

I have a 50mm on order and raised these points with Robert White - the UK distributor - this is their response:

The truth is that a Distagon  design is required in order to make space for a mirror box as well as for the complex movements that are required for a PC lens
 this type of lens design is also used by Zeiss for the Hasselblad system and is known from Schneider as the premium medium format Rollei lens 50/2.8. both these lenses have very high optical performance and have an image circle that it big enough to cover medium format, as well as being large enough to allow perspective control on full
If you look at the Canon and Nikon PC lenses they also use a Distagon design for the 24 and 45mm lenses... they do this because there is no other way .
 
We have also to remember that all lenses distort and for this reason Nikon Canon Zeiss and indeed Schnieder list MTF charts to document the lens performance. the selling point is that the Zeiss and Schneider 50 MF lenses have an even greater image circle that the Nikon and canon equivalent, this means a large sweet spot to the lens.
 
 In terms of price the Schneider 50/2.8 lens in a Rollei mount used to cost around £2800 + VAT new. The Zeiss 50/4 CFE lens sells for £2700 new.  so given that this optical design has been mounted into such and expensive tilt shift mount and costing a little over £2000 shows great value for money.
 
Having said all this if you look at the 90/4.5 PC TS HM lens you will notice that it has the image circle optical layout and performance of the 90/4.5 Apo macro Digitar lens.
Due to the focal length  this lens does NOT need to be a Distagon ( retrofocus )  design and so is one of the finest lenses in the World .
 

I have not cancelled my order as I think that the points made are valid.

[JeffKohn]

Keep us posted once you get the lens, I'd love to hear some first-hand reports on the 50mm.

[Stefan.Steib]

Yes we do - the infos for that are here:

http://hartblei.de/en/canon-tse-collar.htm

and also the pricelist for the Hartblei /HCam Products is online again:

http://www.hcam.de/de/Pricelist_7_2011.pdf

all products available - just send me a mail  s.steib@hartblei.de

Greetings from Munich
Stefan Steib  Hartblei.de / Hcam.de

[Tony Beach]

Schneider does make a 28mm Super-Angulon PC, but it's shift-only and optically a dud (not to mention massively over-priced given its performance). Frankly, the quality of the 28mm SA-PC doesn't inspire much confidence that these new lenses will be worth their price tag. They may be newer designs but that doesn't necessarily mean they're any better optically than the Nikkor PC-E's.

I suspect sample variation may have been an issue for you.  My Schneider 28/2.8 PC Super Angulon is excellent in the corners shifted 5-8mm (along the short axis) when stopped down between f/8 and f/11, and it is even decent slightly beyond that at f/16.  My Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E started to look dreadful at the edges on my D300 when shifted along the long axis.  If the Schneider 28 PC is a "dud" then I have had many "duds" that I consider excellent lenses, including the Sony 50/1.4, Sigma 105/2.8 macro, Minolta 200/2.8 all being currently used on my A850; and on my D300 I have used the Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E, 45/2.8 PC-E, 90/2.8 PC-micro, 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8 VR (first version), and Tokina 90/2.5 macro.  The Schneider has been a great lens for me on my A850 and has brought out the full potential of my A850 when I use them together.

[asf]

I have a 50mm on order and raised these points with Robert White - the UK distributor - this is their response:

The truth is that a Distagon  design is required in order to make space for a mirror box as well as for the complex movements that are required for a PC lens
 this type of lens design is also used by Zeiss for the Hasselblad system and is known from Schneider as the premium medium format Rollei lens 50/2.8. both these lenses have very high optical performance and have an image circle that it big enough to cover medium format, as well as being large enough to allow perspective control on full
If you look at the Canon and Nikon PC lenses they also use a Distagon design for the 24 and 45mm lenses... they do this because there is no other way .
 
We have also to remember that all lenses distort and for this reason Nikon Canon Zeiss and indeed Schnieder list MTF charts to document the lens performance. the selling point is that the Zeiss and Schneider 50 MF lenses have an even greater image circle that the Nikon and canon equivalent, this means a large sweet spot to the lens.
 
 In terms of price the Schneider 50/2.8 lens in a Rollei mount used to cost around £2800 + VAT new. The Zeiss 50/4 CFE lens sells for £2700 new.  so given that this optical design has been mounted into such and expensive tilt shift mount and costing a little over £2000 shows great value for money.
 
Having said all this if you look at the 90/4.5 PC TS HM lens you will notice that it has the image circle optical layout and performance of the 90/4.5 Apo macro Digitar lens.
Due to the focal length  this lens does NOT need to be a Distagon ( retrofocus )  design and so is one of the finest lenses in the World .
 

I have not cancelled my order as I think that the points made are valid.

Your response came from a dealer, I asked Schneider Germany directly.

This lens will most likely have very good performance in many aspects, but it is not a new design of an old lens, it is the old lens in a new house. The mirror box on a Canon is not the same as the mirror box on a Rollie.

Canon redid the 24 tse when updating it to the version 2, and distortion-wise it is a better performer than this new Schneider 50 shift. It's also half the price.
Schneider gave me the retrofocus causes distortion line too initially, but when I pointed out that Canon seems to be able to solve it for the 24 and 17 they had no response except to say "Our target group of professional photographer are the pack shot and studio photographers to do the “bread and butter” business."

A US rep told me Schneider looked into making new wide shift lenses but they would have to be priced too high to get a return on their investment. To me this explains the warming over of existing lenses and putting them in a new housing.

[David Watson]

Well the 50 lens turned up yesterday and I got a chance to play with it a little around 7pm this evening (Saturday) i.e. about half an hour before sunset in my garden so it is not an ideal test but then I am not a lens tester.

My first impressions are that it is a big very solid very well engineered piece of kit.  In fact almost too well engineered in terms of tolerances as I found the tilt ring would not budge initially until a fair amount of pressure was applied.  It is of course all manual so that on my Sony 850 bodies there is no autofocus assist and without live view it is extremely difficult to get the focus right whilst using the tilt.

The shift is more straightforward but unlike the Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad units I have used in the past the shift only works in one direction - why?  I have no idea but it seems like a strange and undocumented omission.  You can of course fiddle about to rotate the lens and/or the camera to shift the other way but as this involves a 180 degree movement of both camera body and lens barrel it is hardly ideal.  IMO therefore it is not particularly useful for panoramic images.

I managed to take one image which I think was in focus all over (please judge for yourself) of a part of the garden with a lot of light and shade   The lens has good contrast, appears to have good edge to edge sharpness. The leaves in the foreground are immediately in front of the camera.

This image was taken at f8 with 3 degrees of tilt downwards.  Processed in LR with 200% sharpening applied in PS CS5 Smart Sharpen before printing.

My opinion?  It really needs Live view so the A850 and A900 are not the best bodies to use.  On a D3X or 5DmkII it should be fine but not for panos.

[Kirk Gittings]

The shift is more straightforward but unlike the Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad units I have used in the past the shift only works in one direction - why?  I have no idea but it seems like a strange and undocumented omission.  You can of course fiddle about to rotate the lens and/or the camera to shift the other way but as this involves a 180 degree movement of both camera body and lens barrel it is hardly ideal.  IMO therefore it is not particularly useful for panoramic images.

That is very odd and disappointing.

[Tony Beach]

David, is the mount replaceable; i.e., can I adapt the lens to fit another system?

[David Watson]

David, is the mount replaceable; i.e., can I adapt the lens to fit another system?

I believe it can as it is simply an adapter with a few screws and I have seen other Schneider shift lenses advertised with interchangeable mounts.  I will check that out.

[David Watson]

This morning I had another attempt to use the lens.  This time in bright sunlight which made focussing easier but not easy!  I took two shots (well actually about 20 but only 2 or 3 which were acceptable).  One is without any movements and is of a flat surface (my barn door).  You can judge distortion and edge to edge sharpness from the attached image.  The other was of the back of one of our cars and I was focussing and tilting to keep both the number plate and the decal at the top of the rear window in sharp focus.  In the end I settled on f11 with 3 degrees of tilt.

I also attempted a simple panorama but not with any great degree of success.  In order to make a pano the first shot is taken with the shift to the right (or left) and then the tripod collar is loosened, the whole assembly turned through 180 degrees, the tripod collar retightened, and finally the camera itself (which is now upside down) rotated through 180 degrees the other way.  Having tried it once the whole process is such a pain I won't be repeating the exercise.

It seems to me that I will only be using this lens for a bit of landscape and some architecture but it will mostly sit in my bag unused until I can buy a FF Sony A camera with Live View sometime next year.