Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: alosurdo on April 18, 2013, 12:19:09 am
-
Hi, i wanted to get some feedback on the Phase One 28mm Lens. I am trialling one at the moment on my 645DF and P30+ Back. While centre looks pretty good, im having a bit of a issue with corner sharpness. Ive been told that this is a trait of this lens. I have a Mamiya 35mm which i havent had much luck with so the 28mm is a lot better then what i am using. I am getting best results stopped down between f11-f16, a trade of between corners and diffraction.
Attached is a screenshoot of a 100% crop of the bottom right hand corner of a image.
If you want to have a look at 3 raw files i have zipped them. The files can be downloaded here (about 100mb) http://we.tl/sBbnkys0KO (just photos on the way to work, but you should be able to see what i am referring to)
Cheers
Andrew
-
Hi, i wanted to get some feedback on the Phase One 28mm Lens. I am trialling one at the moment on my 645DF and P30+ Back. While centre looks pretty good, im having a bit of a issue with corner sharpness. Ive been told that this is a trait of this lens. I have a Mamiya 35mm which i havent had much luck with so the 28mm is a lot better then what i am using. I am getting best results stopped down between f11-f16, a trade of between corners and diffraction.
Attached is a screenshoot of a 100% crop of the bottom right hand corner of a image.
I used to use that lens with my Mamiya ZD and was not impressed by its corner performance.
Not in absolute terms and even less considering the very high price of the lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hmm thats a shame, so what i have is as good as it gets. Im guessing there is no alternative in the similar price range (with out going to a tech cam etc etc)
-
Hello,
When I bought my first Mamiya 645 AF 28mm lens back in December 2007 it was so bad that after contacting Mamiya Japan directly they got me to return it to the factory. I received a replacement from Mamiya which was vastly better the the first. Even though it was very good the far corners where soft until I stopped down to F11.0 so I think it is just the way it is designed.
An alternative would be the Mamiya 24mm F4.0 fisheye lens which I also used to own and that lens is very sharp right to the far corners.
Photoshop CS6 now has a great feature call “Adaptive wide angle” which does a great job at removing the fisheye affect.
It could be a cheap alternative to buying a Mamiya/Phase 28mm lens.
Cheers
Simon
PS
I just had a look at the raw images you posted and the lens you have used is sharper in the corners than the lens Mamiya Japan sent me as a replacement.
-
Phase One 28mm LS MTF chart.
(https://www.captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/LS28_E22.jpg)
-
Neither the regular nor LS 28mm lenses are especially good, but most people who seriously use wides often go with tech cams instead, any Schneider or Rodenstock tech lens will smoke the wide angles available for 645 SLRs. The 28mm is a compromise in having the convenience of an autofocus lens for your SLR.
This is generally true for any system when the lens is designed to clear a mirror box, the lenses tend to get increasingly bigger and more expensive for so-so performance, compared to a mirrorless configuration. Just take a gander at Leica's wide angle lenses for the M system... Different format, same concept, similar results.
-
there are some amazing quality 35mm retro focus wides available, there's no reason why phase/mamiya cannot produce one for MFD. maybe they lack the funds for development? why should you be forced to use a tech-cam just to use a quality wide angle?
-
Ahh, wide angle lens in medium format SLR's...I have spent weeks and weeks searching for info, looking and images and trying to figure out all the alternatives.
What I found out:
The Mamiya Phase 28mm and 35mm lenses are not good enough for most MFDB's when pixel peeping for best quality.
The best bets are the Hasselblad H system 24mm, 28mm and 35mm lenses. (although I do not know how much is thanks to the software) Also Leica has an awesome 24mm for their S system and also awesome 30, 35 and a 30-90 zoom. All are VERY expensive. All are great. (from what I could gather)
Surprisingly, the Pentax 35mm 645 A lens (Manual Focus) is a really good lens. I am using this on my 645D and it is really good. Amazing for such an affordable lens. (around $500). It is a find. Pentax also has a good 25mm 645DF-A lens. BUT, its $5,000.
So, there is a reason that Tech cameras rule in medium format for wide angle use, say 47mm and lower.
Phase might make awesome MFDB's but in regards to their cameras and lenses the Mamiya past is still dragging them down. They have improved in a lot of areas but it still cannot compare to lenses that have been recently designed for digital from the ground up. They know this so you can expect a new phase one camera body in a year or two, hopefully less. Schneider K. has helped improve the lens line but wide angles are still the weak link in the system (from what I could gather). That is sad since IMHO wide angle scenes really require the extra resolution and dynamic range the are the strengths of medium format digital and the very reason a lot of people choose to buy into digital mf.
-
there are some amazing quality 35mm retro focus wides available, there's no reason why phase/mamiya cannot produce one for MFD. maybe they lack the funds for development? why should you be forced to use a tech-cam just to use a quality wide angle?
No one is forcing you, it's just the physics of the matter, and the fact that the 28mm LS already costs $6000. Any more and you'd be paying Rodenstock HR prices just to use a wide on your 645, when for the same price you can buy a pancake + wide, and have vastly superior image quality.
-
there are some amazing quality 35mm retro focus wides available, there's no reason why phase/mamiya cannot produce one for MFD. maybe they lack the funds for development? why should you be forced to use a tech-cam just to use a quality wide angle?
I don't think that's really true. There are some darn good 35mm retro focus wides (an accomplishment in of itself). But I have yet to see any that I would say show "amazing quality" in absolution (only relative to other 35mm retrofocus wides). The 24TS-E II is the closest I've seen, but even there sharpness with movement is an issue, chromatic aberration is present, and it's focus field shape makes it very hard to work with.
You can download our Phase One 28mm vs Schneider 28LS vs Rodenstock 32mm HR test (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-testing/28mm-32mm-test) images and crop in 1.3 to make a decent comparison against for your lens.
You can read my article on wide angle lens design (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/lens-design) to learn more about why designing around a mirror box is so prohibitive for lens design. The more severe the retrofocus-ness the harder it is to keep control of distortion/chromatic-aberration/flat-fieldness/sharpness.
Note that when comparing Hassy wides to Phase/Schneider wides for the DF that the Hassy 24 and 28 do not cover full frame sensors. Not an issue when you have a crop sensor but. But it makes for a rather apple-and-oranges comparison for anyone with a full-frame sensor.
For the time being, and for the foreseeable future, I don't see anything that can beat a Rodenstock 23HR or 32HR at the extreme wide end for pure image quality. Granted they are expensive and heavy (relative to lighter tech camera lenses at least), but highest quality often requires compromise of one form or another.
-
I used the 28mm quite a lot and got some very nice results from it. Trick is knowing its limitations and how to use it correctly , it has field curvature and the extreme corners are soft on a full frame sensor aka P65 and such but if you treat the lens more like a 30mm or 31mm with framing with a Full frame sensor you can stay away from the corner issue . Also C1 has in there lens corrections tab corner sharpness which works quite well. I did a whole interior job posted here with a P25plus back and the 28mm. Now the P25 has a slightly crop sensor which BTW is the same size as the P45. These turned out quite well and this will depend on your sensor size. Remember the P30 and P40 are even cropped more so the corners will not be a issue. So depending on your back size you can use this lens quite effectively. Focusing will be a key also because of the field curvature . Notice the low shot with basket on right its very close to me but my background is also in focus. Just good focusing with a field curvature lens. Now I owned the Rodie 28mm on my Cambo tech cam and you bet it's a killer lens no question about it and the best lens bar none in that focal length. You have to decide how far you will go for ultimate quality. The Rodie 28mm is the best but its close to 6k or so.
FYI this page the first images of the girl are with a Prototype IQ 180 and a couple landscapes are with the same back and there are also P40 images in there. Lol
I've had my share of backs and every lens for the DF almost. The 28mm is a good lens but it has the limitations spelled out here. Used you can pick one up for around 2700 dollars. That's about what I paid for mine. Also these are before the new LS model of lens which has the leaf shutter but same lens formula. I would love to see Phase address this lens with Schneider Glass and also in a shift mount. But if you want the absolute best get a tech cam with a Rodie 28mm. The results are amazing.
http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/browseimages.php?do=browseimages&c=9&page=43
-
The 35mm is a catch 22 . Some copies are very good but it took me a couple copies to get one that was very good. In the past this was fairly common when getting one. I do not know about today though.
Good luck on your decisions and you have to work on focusing that 28mm. Hint lean more to the front than to the back of a scene.
I would say the 35mm maybe the weakest link in the lineup so you really need to find a good copy. I'm finding the same problem with a lot of Nikon glass as well today and had the same issue with Canon in the past. Nature of digital. After the 35mm going up many lenses are extremely good though. Picking a 28mm and 35mm from old stock or before some of the newer versions you just have to careful on what you get.
I actually just got a Nikon 50 1.4g that goes beyond my AF adjustment. I bought used from a friend so ill send it in for adjustment . Honestly this stuff does not even bother me anymore as I know this happens with everything.
-
Like absolute, drop-dead feminine beauty in a spouse, many things about lens performance are hugely overrated. Yes, WA lenses on Tech Cams outperform WA lenses on Medium Format DSLR's, but by how freakin' much? At the end of the day, it's about the pictures, not whether the images please pixel-peepers.
I own a 35mm Mamiya lens for my Phase One with a P65 back. Nearly all of its shortcomings can be repaired adequately enough in Camera Raw and other software is available. The images I've made with it are often, often, the ones that get the highest kudos when exhibited. Much of that is due to the fact that almost all photographers take better pictures with an SLR than with a view/tech camera, especially when light is on the move or other challenges present themselves, like cramped POV, low camera angle etc.
I was stunned when I looked at the 32mmHR vs. 28mm Schneider leaf comparison. The 28-leaf is a lens I could not only live with but happily use. Yes, 6 grand, yes, you must have a DF body, so for 10-12 grand, (price the Arca RM3di with a 32mmHR with viewfinder, focus-unit et al) and it emerges as a bargain, esp. since you see an image, right-side-up, not reversed, choice of AF or manual focus--quickly, what you see is what you get, push the release.
I've never spent time with the Arca/32HR setup, but I have used a 4x5 with the 72XL and I can say without reservation, the camera limits the photographer and makes for fewer dynamic images.
Bill O'Connor
-
Like absolute, drop-dead feminine beauty in a spouse, many things about lens performance are hugely overrated. Yes, WA lenses on Tech Cams outperform WA lenses on Medium Format DSLR's, but by how freakin' much? At the end of the day, it's about the pictures, not whether the images please pixel-peepers.
Bill O'Connor
I suppose that when people spend as much as they do on medium format, "good enough" typically doesn't cut it, I mean for that much money you sure as hell better be pixel-peeping your images.
Yes, medium format outperforms smaller formats, but by how freakn' much? If this logic was that easily applicable, there would be only a couple old coons left on this forum, refusing to adapt to change, while everyone else would be out shooting the D800 because it's a more "dynamic" camera.
-
Like absolute, drop-dead feminine beauty in a spouse, many things about lens performance are hugely overrated. Yes, WA lenses on Tech Cams outperform WA lenses on Medium Format DSLR's, but by how freakin' much? At the end of the day, it's about the pictures, not whether the images please pixel-peepers.
I own a 35mm Mamiya lens for my Phase One with a P65 back. Nearly all of its shortcomings can be repaired adequately enough in Camera Raw and other software is available. The images I've made with it are often, often, the ones that get the highest kudos when exhibited. Much of that is due to the fact that almost all photographers take better pictures with an SLR than with a view/tech camera, especially when light is on the move or other challenges present themselves, like cramped POV, low camera angle etc.
I was stunned when I looked at the 32mmHR vs. 28mm Schneider leaf comparison. The 28-leaf is a lens I could not only live with but happily use. Yes, 6 grand, yes, you must have a DF body, so for 10-12 grand, (price the Arca RM3di with a 32mmHR with viewfinder, focus-unit et al) and it emerges as a bargain, esp. since you see an image, right-side-up, not reversed, choice of AF or manual focus--quickly, what you see is what you get, push the release.
I've never spent time with the Arca/32HR setup, but I have used a 4x5 with the 72XL and I can say without reservation, the camera limits the photographer and makes for fewer dynamic images.
This is why we post comparisons. I heard (honest and meaningfully evaluated) opinions ranging from "those are more or less the same for my purposes" to "I can't believe how much better the 32HR is".
Also bear in mind the 32HR provides rise/fall/swing/tilt, without adding any additional glass, even on a full frame 80mp sensor. The 28 is, of course, a fixed lens.
-
There can be - as Simon mentioned - some copies that are better than others (common with lenses that are pushing the envelope). If you purchase one, be sure to share your results with your dealer (if they are familiar enough with the potential performance to know the quality of your copy).
Generally I consider the Phase/Schneider 28mm to be a really, really good 35mm lens. That doesn't mean you can't use it over the entire frame, and as Bill O'Conner indicates, it is not always about having maximum resolution at the edges. Sometimes adequate resolution suffices. That is obviously the case, because in the 35mm and medium format world, the number of wide lenses that are really good at the edges is in the minority. So buyers obviously still feel there is some use for these performers.
That said, there is no question the 32HR is far superior, at the edges, as is the case with most Schneider/Rodenstock wide lenses in comparison to their 35mm/medium format brethren.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
"Generally I consider the Phase/Schneider 28mm to be a really, really good 35mm lens"
"There are some darn good 35mm retro focus wides (an accomplishment in of itself). But I have yet to see any that I would say show "amazing quality""
:D ::)
-
Since the performance of the 24 TSE has been brought up, I thought it might be worthwhile linking back to this thread where I compared it to the 23HR.
I'm fortunate enough to own both lenses, along with an Alpa FPS for the 24, and a Max for the 23.
The Canon 24 along with an FPS (or Hartblei Hcam) makes a very compelling argument in my view. There are occasions when it can deliver a shot the 23HR can't. If nothing options can nail the shot, I'd always go for the 23.
I don't recall seeing a single end-user of the Mamiya/Phase lenses raving about them in comparison to the tech-cam options. As someone alluded to earlier in the thread - if you've paid $30k to $50k for your digital back, why would you even consider compromising image quality to save a few $K on a camera and lens? If budget is an issue, personally I'd rather have a 60MP back and the absolute best quality glass, than an 80MP back and have to drop down to a lower quality lens.
Sure, there may be some use cases for wanting that DSLR and auto focus, but if that doesn't nail a "must have" requirement for what you shoot, I'd not even consider the option.
Regards,
Gerald.
-
Oops. Sorry. Forgot to post the link to the thread -
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75282.0
-
What Nikon should do is to release their sensors as 35mm format digital backs so that they can be used on tech cams :)
-
Hello Andrew:
I owned and shot the Mamiya version of the 28mm for about 2 1/2 years. My results are similar to yours, sweet spot is F11 to F16. Your corners are actually a bit better than mine were. As Guy mentioned, the ability to sharpen the corners in Capture one do help a lot on this lens. Mine had a bit more detail smearing especially when used around F5 to F8.
For the the 28mm was not very filter friendly. I used a home made rig to allow me to use a Cokin X-pro holder over the built in shade. I believe Phase One now offers a similar feature for this lens, I remember seeing it on the web during Photokina.
Doug's testing may prove me wrong, but I also don't think that there was much optical improvement in the Leaf version of the lens.
I switched over to the Rodenstock 28mm HR and have found it provides a much more enjoyable shooting experience, especially with the addition of tilt.
I also used the 35mm Mamiya for about the same time or longer. Mine was a bit better in the corners when I was using a P45+, however that sensor is a 1:1 crop. When I started using the 35mm on a 60mp sensor I quickly found that it was having much more trouble resolving to the sensor. Mine was a older lens and I briefly tried a new one from B&H but found it preformed about the same.
My single biggest complaint was the fact that neither of these lens were very good wide open, or even stopped down to say F6.3 or 7. Shooting conditions I work in don't always allow for F11 to F16. Also when I was using my P45+ on night shoots, I found the 35mm much better than the 28mm since my 28mm in the wider apertures showed considerable detail smearing. Softness might be recoverable smearing can't be.
Paul Caldwell
-
Ah, if only the TSE lenses could be used on Nikon...
Yes it's a great lens.
here is is fully shifted bottom right corner:
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens/Crop3/2009-08-06_13-29-41.jpg)
not shifted:
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens/Crop3/2009-06-29_10-54-40.jpg)
Even wide open at 3.5 it's exceptional. bottom right corner
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens/Crop3/2009-06-29_10-48-21.jpg)
Most importantly it has no visible CA so it takes sharpenning very very well if you shoot very stopped down
and diffraction starts to affect the image.
-
Yes it's a great lens.
But it's important to note that its not 'very very good' or 'amazing', has field curvature issues, bad chromatic abhorration and is very hard to work with. ::)
-
Wow, thanks for all the feedback!.
I only have this lens for a few more days, so i went out and shot some night scenes last night. I have found it much better in real world applications (compared to the "test" images i uploaded). Guy, i have found that actually focussing slightly further back in stead of fron is giving me better results.
Thanks again for your thoughts everyone, as always they are appreciated.
Andrew
-
Wow, thanks for all the feedback!.
i have found that actually focussing slightly further back in stead of fron is giving me better results.
Andrew
With live view or in the viewfinder?
-
im on a P30+ so through the view finder :)
-
im on a P30+ so through the view finder :)
If you are getting better results by focusing furthur back you may have a focus calibration issue.
Or are you simply focusing a bit further back so as to get a focus compromise for the center and the corners
of the frame. Focusing in between the two lens focal curvature panes..
-
It's like lenses employed double-glazing. Now there's an idea!
Rob C