Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: henrikfoto on January 02, 2011, 01:21:17 pm
-
I am looking for one or two wide lenses for a tecnical camera.
I wonder what lenses are the best? Rodenstock 23,28 or Schneider 24?
-
How large do you need the image circle to be?
-
I am not really sure..
I like to use moderate tilting + a little shifting.
I use a P45 back.
What do you think?
-
I have never used either but have heard from a few sources that the Rod 23 is sharp from edge to edge and you get some shift with it. I heard the 24 has a small image circle that just covers the P45+
-
From the mtf-curves it looks like the 28 Rodenstock is the sharpest of them all.
Has anybody used it?
-
This is an open ended question. Is money an issue? I use the 24xl all the time and it works for me with an aptus 75. Would I upgrade to the 23mm lens? If money was not the issue I would like to try it. The 24xl I believe is much cheaper. I sometime have to retouch a little lens cutoff if I over correct, but it takes less then 1-2 min.
The question is what is best, I would think the 23 with the bigger image circle would be best.
-
I have used and tested all three lenses.
24mm
The 24mm will just cover the 39mpx sensor. It will allow about a 2mm movement and that movement depends on a removal of corner drop off with the LCC feature in C1. I use it with a centre filter also as without a centre filter the LCC will do such a harsh job to the 2stop fall off on the corners that it will degrade the corners with noise. With the centre filter it is a beautiful lens with edge to edge sharpness.
23mm
I tested this lens. It has loads of movement on the 39mpx sensor but is priced way above all other lenses. It also has a bit more distortion that has to be removed using the Alpa software.
28mm
Great lens, a bit more movement than the 24mm and no centre filter required. I use the 35mm XL so I find that the focal length of this lens is a bit 'close' to the 35mm (which has heaps of movements) so I don't use it much.
I have a 24mm with Centre filter for sale at a good price that I no longer use as it won't cover my current 60mpx sensor. If you are interested please send a message.
Murray
-
The Rodenstock flyer on their ditigal lenses specifies that the Apo-Sironar lenses are designed for digital backs with pixels down to 9 microns whereas the digarons are for backs with pixels down to 5 microns. Is anybody noticing the difference with the 40 or 60 mp backs? --- or is this more theoretical than real?
-
I have owned the 24 on 2 different camera systems and when it came out it was the best option for shooting that wide without stitching. The issue with it, as others have mentioned, is that it needs a 2 stop center filter to make it useful, so a 1 second exposure become 4 seconds, and 30 seconds becomes 2 minutes. It has very limited movement for sure and does suffer from less sharpness at the edges, but is super sharp in the middle. It also is a symmetrical design and has very little distortion.
The 23HR weighs a ton more and is much bigger due to its retro-focal design (which means distortion, but is correctable with the Alpa Lens Corrector software). This lens gives much more movement, does not need a center filter, and is very sharp edge to edge. There's no comparison really if you have the funds. I rarely even adjust the focus since its so wide, one setting works for 95% of the work I do with it, so that just contributes to the speed of working with it.
All of my other lenses are Schneider which I like very much, so this is my first Rodenstock. I'll trade the distortion for the speed and sharpness.
Hope that helps.
-
I have owned the 24 on 2 different camera systems and when it came out it was the best option for shooting that wide without stitching. The issue with it, as others have mentioned, is that it needs a 2 stop center filter to make it useful, so a 1 second exposure become 4 seconds, and 30 seconds becomes 2 minutes. It has very limited movement for sure and does suffer from less sharpness at the edges, but is super sharp in the middle. It also is a symmetrical design and has very little distortion.
The 23HR weighs a ton more and is much bigger due to its retro-focal design (which means distortion, but is correctable with the Alpa Lens Corrector software). This lens gives much more movement, does not need a center filter, and is very sharp edge to edge. There's no comparison really if you have the funds. I rarely even adjust the focus since its so wide, one setting works for 95% of the work I do with it, so that just contributes to the speed of working with it.
All of my other lenses are Schneider which I like very much, so this is my first Rodenstock. I'll trade the distortion for the speed and sharpness.
Hope that helps.
I can agree completely to all this - from first hands experience.
/adam
-
Beautiful work you do Adam!
-
Before you drop $7.5k (how much?) on the 23mm, I'd have a listen to the excellent 'Circle of Confusion' podcast (episode 6 (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/?p=354)), where Irish landscape photographer Peter Cox recounts his experience of the Rodenshock[ing] 23mm. The fun (sorry Peter) starts at about 54'20".
-
Before you drop $7.5k (how much?) on the 23mm, I'd have a listen to the excellent 'Circle of Confusion' podcast (episode 6 (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/?p=354)), where Irish landscape photographer Peter Cox recounts his experience of the Rodenshock[ing] 23mm. The fun (sorry Peter) starts at about 54'20".
Wow, that was really something to think about!
Seems like the Schneider 24 might be the safer choice.
Terrible for a lense that highly priced.
-
Before you drop $7.5k (how much?) on the 23mm, I'd have a listen to the excellent 'Circle of Confusion' podcast (episode 6 (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/?p=354)), where Irish landscape photographer Peter Cox recounts his experience of the Rodenshock[ing] 23mm. The fun (sorry Peter) starts at about 54'20".
Thanks Jeffrey! you are doing well to :)
I do not have the flare problem with the 23HR in my daily use, inside or outside - but I can generate the problem if photographing a dark building in shadow with a bright sky over, you can reduce the flare if you are using a lens shade like the Alpa Pro Lens Shade, even that you just shade the lens a few millimeters it does help.
Just for the record I have seen the same flare on other lenses when shooting under those circumstances, but as a blue version instead of the orange from the 23HR, so it was not so obvious.
I use this lens a lot, and you can count on one hand how many times that we have to remove flare in photoshop. but if you shoot a lot in open shade this could be a problem - and maybe I have a good sample, who knows?
/adam
-
I can't get the episode 6 to play for some reason, but it seems there was some issue with flare. Which camera was it on? I saw an Arca there on the page. I have never had any flare issue with this lens. Some camera bodies are more prone to veiling flare than others. Alpas use a very flat-black material on the back adapter which reduces this potential greatly.
-
Hi Jeffrey
I know Peter well so I'm fully aware of his nightmare story. Basically it was pretty irrelevant in what lighting situation he was in - cloudy, sunny whatever. He always got flare with the 23mm lens. He sent it back. They told him it was a common issue with the lens and had sorted it out on a new version of the lens. (It had actually nothing to do with a particular camera.) Well whey the hell did they sell him an older version which had the problem and why was it not full tested. At €5000 that's ridiculous. Here's the best bit. They sent him a new lens. It had the same problem. They than said it might also be an older version of the lens. They asked him to send it back because they couldn't confirm which version it was from the serial number.
I find the attitude with Schneider and Rodenstock is unreal. I myself purchased the new 28mm Schneider from Cambo. When I got the lens, I discovered mercifully while testing it prior to a big shoot that the focus seemed way off. I rang Cambo and they told be they had to put the focus ring of a 24mm lens on it because they were not happy with the focus mount from Schneider. They knew there was an issue and that the focus ring was basically pointless as the distance points were false and sold me the lens without saying anything. That's the reason by the way that the off the shelf 28's are delayed until the spring. It is a fantastic lens but to me it's absolute deceit when these lens manufactures announce these amazing new lenses with release dates which can't be adhered to and still release the lens knowing that there are faults. And if they didn't know there were faults than what sort of testing was carried out on the lens. I knew within 5 minutes of tethered shooting that there was an issue.
I wonder what would happen if professional Canon or Nikon users had to endure this sh*t.
-
Enda,
I didn't know that 28mm was available yet...it sounds like it shouldn't be :(
What is the image circle of it?
M
-
Sounds like Cambo jumped the gun on that one. Schneider had been working on a new "wide angle" (short lens barrel) helical for the new 28. I guess Cambo wanted to sell lenses sooner. Schneider had been always great in any dealings I've had with them. Very responsive and eager to help. The 23H is the first Rodenstock lens I have had and its been fine so I haven't had any experience with them.
-
Quality control of medium format / large format lenses is a phenomenon, really. It opposes any business logic, contradicts all the 'the more you pay the more you demand/receive' and similr rules . I find it hard to think of any analogous situations in different domain.. MF/ LF world really is special
-
I guess Cambo wanted to sell lenses sooner.
not quite.
Enda wanted to buy the lens sooner:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49564.msg408932#msg408932
-
not quite.
Enda wanted to buy the lens sooner:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49564.msg408932#msg408932
You're implying im somehow to blame!! Thomas what actually happened was I was assured that the lens would be available after Photokina. I was commissioned to shoot the new Terminal in Dublin airport in November. At the time I was told by my client I only had a couple of weeks before flights would commence and it would fill up with passengers (wasn't the case in the end) I pressed Cambo for the lens because I previously had to wait 6 months for everything when I bought my Cambo system originally and I didn't want the same to happen. At no time was I informed of any issues which were causing the delays with the 28mm lens regarding the focus mount. I thought they were just getting through all the pre orders and it was only after I got the lens and discovered the focus problem was I informed aboout the problems with the lens. That was wholly unacceptable by both Cambo and Schneider. I paid $6000 for a defective lens when is was knowingly so by the manufacturer. I'd love to know how I am to blame for that.
-
You're implying im somehow to blame!!
no, no - not at all!
It was an agreement between you and Cambo.
But not that Cambo was in a hurry to sell a (unfinished) lens... as Jeffrey implied.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Of course they should have informed you about the delay.
I've seen the lens at Photokina with the focus mount provided by Schneider.
It was actually a joke... unusable. And Cambo was very unhappy with it.
I guess Cambo was pretty suprised about the solution Schneider provided.
-
It's not yet actually available. It has a 95mm image circle so it has huge movements for such a wide angle lens. Unfortunately it does not come with an analogue centre filter. It does not have a front thread as such. You are forced to use a digital centre filter which just does not perform as well and as I'm finding out has huge affect on workflow because after all the processing of RAW files and custom white calibration etc you than have to get rid of the vignetting in photoshop CS4. (It's only in 32bit) For every shot you also have to make a note of every single movement plus aperture, which is than keyed into photoshop. Great fun when you pretty much always shoot panoramics and a total of about 6 to 10 images are needed every time. By the time I even get the proofs out, the seasons have changed!!
-
Unfortunately it does not come with an analogue centre filter.
without a glass centerfilter I'd say this lens is actually unusable with large movements and it's quite unbelievable that Schneider doesn't provide a glass CF. Software based correction of 4 stops (!) light falloff will introcude heavy noise at the edges... even with the latest and greatest digibacks; but more so with older models (on my non plus P45 it sure is a problem).
Sure, you can push exposure when shooting at the edges of the image circle but that requires even more post work. It's doable but it's time consuming and sometimes tricky... when you shoot the center at say f11 & 1/125'' and the edges at f11 & 1/8'' you may have an image that shows motion blur at the egdes (due to subject motion not beeing freezed at 1/8'' exposure) but not in the center.
It also requires to process all the LCC shots as TIFs so that you can use them as masks in Photoshop.
Not exactly a fluent workflow...
_________
edit: attached the falloff of the 28XL at f11 centered and at 15mm lateral shift with "exposure evaluation" showing the respective falloff in f-stops.
>2 stops centered and >4 stops at 15mm lateral shift (in conjunction with a P45).
Difficult to deal with without a glass CF... IMO.
-
No problem Thomas :)
I really do wish Cambo had informed me of all the issues before sending it to me. I just thought the delays were due to me been way down the pecking order in terms of delivery due to the huge delays I had previously experienced.
You're completely correct about the lack of choice. The strange thing is there is no filter thread on the lens but Schneider do supply 2 adaptor rings which can replace the outer ring on the lens. These are threaded. One is 95mm where you would get some vignetting and one is 112mm where you seemingly don't with a filter. I don't understand why don't they just have a permanent 112mm threaded lens which can be used with a centre filter.
The main killer for me is workflow. The digital centre filter does a decent job. However if you want to underexpose so you get a nice dark sky you have huge under exposure along the sides when you have greater movements and this is very difficult to recover digitally. Noise becomes a real issue after digital correction. You're method of removing the vignetting would drive me to the drink!! Ha
I have attached 2 images. The first is a stitched image. This is just a random proof shot I took yesterday so forget about the bright sky and so on!! I have actually 4 exposures for each side of the image so the final one would look very different. The movement on the left image was up 6 and left 15. The one on the right was right 10. So there were pretty large movements.
http://www.endacavanagh.com/Enda's%20Images/Images%20for%20Luminous%20Landscape/Untitled_Panorama1.jpg (http://www.endacavanagh.com/Enda's%20Images/Images%20for%20Luminous%20Landscape/Untitled_Panorama1.jpg)
The second is the left image prior to the digital centre filter been applied.
http://www.endacavanagh.com/Enda's%20Images/Images%20for%20Luminous%20Landscape/Terminal%202_1013032.jpg (http://www.endacavanagh.com/Enda's%20Images/Images%20for%20Luminous%20Landscape/Terminal%202_1013032.jpg)
On another note when I said seemingly no vignetting with the 112mm I have been trying desperately to get ND's in that diameter. I have tried Rodenstock and B+W but no joy even thought they are advertised on some sites (B+H for example). Lee have a new 150mm square filter but the wait time is 2-3 months!! Loads of pre orders seemingly. Even if I do get the bloody thing there is no ring for a 112mm lens. I'd have to blutack it on!!
Does anybody out there have any solutions??? ??? I use ND's on most of my water images and would love to have that option with the 28mm
-
I more and more think the Rodentsock 32 was the better choice, Yes even more expesnive, but it takes a nice glass center filter and the fall off is certainly less.
I really don't get it why Schneider is only offering a digital center filter, especially if they could make more money if they built a glass one. Very strange
-
No filter thread on the 28mm??
That's very strange...and a show stopper for me too. I regularly use 3 and 10 stop NDs and now a bit of infra-red...
-
The mtf-curves on Scneiders site is showing much better results for the 28mm than the 24mm.
Is it your feeling that the 28 is a sharper lens, Enda?
I was pretty suppriced how bad almost all the other mtf's for the digitars look.
Doesn't look like very high res lenses to me.
I mostly do macro, but in that field I have tested most lenses. Sorry to say it, but the Schneider
Macro digitar 120mm is not even close to the old Nikkor-lenses and the Zeiss-lenses from same period.
And they work perfect with digital backs.
I wonder if the same is true for the wide lenses?
-
"I was pretty suppriced how bad almost all the other mtf's for the digitars look.
Doesn't look like very high res lenses to me.
I mostly do macro, but in that field I have tested most lenses. Sorry to say it, but the Schneider
Macro digitar 120mm is not even close to the old Nikkor-lenses and the Zeiss-lenses from same period.
And they work perfect with digital backs."
Are you sure you're reading the mtf charts correctly?
Can you show us what you found?
-
This is the 24 Schneider:
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/foto_e/dig/pdf/TD_AP_56_24_R47815_2CIE.pdf
This is the 23 Rodenstock (scroll down):
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf
It's not easy to compare because they use different frequencies. Even the same company use different
Frequencies for differnt lenses. I am a little confused >:(
-
I have both and I find them them to be extremely sharp. I would say my best 2 lenses. The 24 does have some softening in the corners but a bit of extra sharpening and it is not noticeable at all. The same applies for the 28mm. It like other Schneiders has softening along the edges when you have greater movements but it's a much lesser problem than the 35mm xl. Again extra sharpening resolves the issue. The fantastic movements possible with this lens more than compensate for this in my view. I mean the shots that it now allows me to take are way beyond what I thought I could achieve.
To be honest the 24mm is the lens I use by far the least. It just doesn't suit the style that I have developed. Especially my architecture shots where I practically always need some form of movement. I was actually than going to buy the Rodenstock instead of the 28mm until I spoke with Peter Cox. Also the focal length of the 28mm suits me better than the 24mm. The perspective isn't so extreme. This doesn't really work for architecture where everything looks too distorted.
-
Also the focal length of the 28mm suits me better than the 24mm. The perspective isn't so extreme. This doesn't really work for architecture where everything looks too distorted.
IMO the 23mm works well for architecture - depending on the character and scale of the project, I use it for maybe 15-40% of my images, half of them as stitch. Of course, you have to be in "control" of the perspective when using it.
when I had the 24mm I used it way less due to the limitation of the image circle.
/adam
-
Hi Adam
Everyone to their own. ;) I just find it distorts the perspective for internals and in smaller spaces with furniture. One thing to note with the 28mm. One needs to sometimes hold back on the larger movements especially when stitching 2 shots left and right as it can look very distorted and stretched along the sides
-
Hi Adam
Everyone to their own. ;) I just find it distorts the perspective for internals and in smaller spaces with furniture. One thing to note with the 28mm. One needs to sometimes hold back on the larger movements especially when stitching 2 shots left and right as it can look very distorted and stretched along the sides
The 23 compares to the Canon 17TS and this is one great lens for architectural photography.
Like Adam stated, it is a difficult lens to work with and you have to be in control of the perspective in order not to have distorted spaces.
-
I more and more think the Rodentsock 32 was the better choice, Yes even more expesnive, but it takes a nice glass center filter and the fall off is certainly less.
I really don't get it why Schneider is only offering a digital center filter, especially if they could make more money if they built a glass one. Very strange
Neutral density is the most difficult filter for any manufacturer to produce and be neutral in color and density across its expanse
evenly. That is probably the reason behind trying to do it digitally.
Rod Klukas
-
Like I said Adam. Everyone to their own. It just doesn't suit me. I find it fine for bigger spaces but for smaller internal spaces it doesn't work. That's just my opinion.
-
Thanks Rod for the info. It's just a pity that the digital option isn't fully effective in it's role due to the large amount of light fall off, which results in noise along the sides, especially with shots darker shots, which are exposed for the sky.
-
Like I said Adam. Everyone to their own. It just doesn't suit me. I find it fine for bigger spaces but for smaller internal spaces it doesn't work. That's just my opinion.
I got the message in your first reply ;-) maybe this was ment for Tesfoto.
And your are absolutely right, everyone to their own......
/adam
-
Oops ::)
-
Just came across this thread. Yes, the problem with my 23mm Rodenstock was not camera-specific, nor was it lighting-specific. I would always get a big red flare spot in the middle of the image circle which would require extensive work in PS to remove.
Enda's telling of events is accurate - Rodenstock replaced the lens with another defective copy. Apparently this was an endemic problem with early versions of the lens, which has since been corrected. HOWEVER, they have not pulled the old lenses off the market nor are they capable of tracking which of lenses they have in stock are defective (as Enda said, Rodenstock told me they couldn't identify if it was a corrected lens based on the serial number).
There are good copies of this lens out there, but in good conscience I couldn't do business with a company so woefully incompetent as to behave in this way. Spend €5000 on a lens and you expect to be taken care of.
Arca-Swiss (who were the intermediaries in this as the replacement lens from Rodenstock had to go to them first for focus calibration and mounting) were excellent throughout. I got the Schneider 24mm instead, and while it doesn't have movements on the P45+, for most of the work I do that's not a deal breaker. If Schneider come out with a 24mm that has a larger image circle, I imagine I'll buy it, but for now I'm happy with the 24mm.
Rodenstock won't be seeing any more of my business.
Cheers,
Peter
-
What Am I Doing Wrong.
I went to the Alpa site, created an acct. downloaded the manual and supported backs and lenses, but cannot find where to download the software.
Help.
Bill
-
ooops, "Member Dowloads." Got it.
-
I have owned the 24 on 2 different camera systems and when it came out it was the best option for shooting that wide without stitching. The issue with it, as others have mentioned, is that it needs a 2 stop center filter to make it useful, so a 1 second exposure become 4 seconds, and 30 seconds becomes 2 minutes. It has very limited movement for sure and does suffer from less sharpness at the edges, but is super sharp in the middle. It also is a symmetrical design and has very little distortion.
The 23HR weighs a ton more and is much bigger due to its retro-focal design (which means distortion, but is correctable with the Alpa Lens Corrector software). This lens gives much more movement, does not need a center filter, and is very sharp edge to edge. There's no comparison really if you have the funds. I rarely even adjust the focus since its so wide, one setting works for 95% of the work I do with it, so that just contributes to the speed of working with it.
All of my other lenses are Schneider which I like very much, so this is my first Rodenstock. I'll trade the distortion for the speed and sharpness.
Hope that helps.
My question is prompted by the comments (in another forum) of a prominent architectural photographer who, as best I can determine, claims that retrofocus wideangle lenses, with their consequent higher degree of rectilinear distortion, are not suitable for architectural photography at its highest level, because (it is the contention of this photographer) software cannot satisfactorily correct for the consequent rectilinear distortion that is characteristic of such a lens. That is (according to the argument, not necessarily mine), once the lens has distorted the shape of the subject, it is not possible for the photographer or the software to recover the original shape of the subject to a degree that accurately represents the intentions of the architect in their fullest form.
My opinion? I would tend to agree with the photographer's argument with respect to some kind of architectural subject matter, but that the number of clients who are willing to pay for this kind of accuracy is very limited and that the compromise (even that of, gasp, small format) is generally acceptable.