The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

47XL vs. 43XL

thomas

New member
thank you very much !
you're welcome!

Now it would be stunning to have somone compare the Schneider 43 and the Rodenstock 40.
in what respect?
I think both are sweat lenses and deliver very fine, incredibly sharp images.
Other than that they are different...

pros for the Digaron-W 40:
- f4; allows less DOF and faster shutter speeds; it's also brighter on the groundglass
- less light falloff due to the retro focus design

pros for the 43XL:
- much larger image circle
- significantly smaller/lighter
- probably less distortion
(me personally I also like the snap-locks on Schneider's apture rings ... because you don't have to look at the indication to adjust a certain aperture on the lens)
 

Christopher

Active member
- I think performance at f8 could be interesting. For example the Rodenstock is already quite good qide open compared to the Schneider.
- Does the huge image circle of the Schneider really gives a better image when shifted?

Well I can now say that i will soon have both lenses and certainly will do a comparsion in all aspects.
 

archivue

Active member
i didn't bought the 40 digaron because i was afraid of distortion... so i went with the 35XL and the 45 apo sironar digital... i was just able to tried the 40 on an arca 69, (just looking no pictures done...) and the image was incredibly clear compare to my lenses.

So for architecture with a technical camera, i won't go with the 40... but with a monorail for landscape it makes more sense !
 

thomas

New member
- Does the huge image circle of the Schneider really gives a better image when shifted?
it depends. Sometimes you need large movements but the image-content at the outer edges is not so important re sharpness. So for instance if you shoot a building in vertical composition with a high amount of rise ... when there is sky above the building the softer edge at the top of the image doesn't matter...
With regard to stitching I guess the higher resolution always wins over a wider field of view on a smaller format - so for instance a 4-way stitch with the 43XL (or 47XL) might be a bit soft at the edges... but as it is so much larger than a single shot with e.g. a 28mm lens it is actually sharper in the final print.... especially when you are printing large. So if you want to cover the respective field of a 35mm and 28mm lens the larger image circle comes in handy.
I try to keep critical image-content within movements of +/- 15-17mm with the 47XL (resp. 43XL). I'd say within +/- 12mm shift the 47XL and the 43XL are very, very good... but +/-17mm is still usable. Above, i.e. at larger movements than 15-17mm it depends...*

Well I can now say that i will soon have both lenses and certainly will do a comparsion in all aspects.
great! please let us know the outcome!

* this goes for my P45 and its 49x37mm sensor plane. But as the Dalsa Sensors are a bit more forgiving with movements the amount of movements may roughly apply to your P65+ as well... not sure though, just speculating.
 
Last edited:

thomas

New member
i didn't bought the 40 digaron because i was afraid of distortion... so i went with the 35XL and the 45 apo sironar digital... i was just able to tried the 40 on an arca 69, (just looking no pictures done...) and the image was incredibly clear compare to my lenses.

So for architecture with a technical camera, i won't go with the 40... but with a monorail for landscape it makes more sense !
Maybe another thing to consider is the look of the lenses. I only shoot with the 47XL (resp. now with the 43XL) and the Digaron-W 70... so this is the only comparision I can talk about. From this comparision me personally I think the Schneider lenses have a nicer look... especially regarding color rendition. The 70HR is brutally sharp but it also looks totally neutral...
The differences are subtle, though.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
From this comparision me personally I think the Schneider lenses have a nicer look... especially regarding color rendition. The 70HR is brutally sharp but it also looks totally neutral...
Good question Arch and excellent answer Thomas. When I shot LF, I found the same thing: a smoothness to Schneider lenses where the uber-sharp and contrasty Rodenstocks came off a bit harsh. And I agree, this is a pretty subtle -- yet notable -- difference between them.
 

archivue

Active member
Good question Arch and excellent answer Thomas. When I shot LF, I found the same thing: a smoothness to Schneider lenses where the uber-sharp and contrasty Rodenstocks came off a bit harsh. And I agree, this is a pretty subtle -- yet notable -- difference between them.
when i was shooting 120, i've sold my 55 apo grandagon and bought a 58xl for this reason... but when i tried it with an MFDB it wasn't sharp enought... and bought a 55 apo sironar digital...
 

thomas

New member
re distortion...

You can check the distortion of LF lenses (and recently many MF and DSLR lenses) quite good with the Alpa Lens Corrector.
Just make an image in the correct dimensions, add a grid with straight lines and apply the lens profile for a certain lens to see the inverted distortion of the respective lens.

Attached the inverted distortion of the 47XL, the 43XL, the Digaron-W 40 and for comparision a 45mm MF lens (Zeiss-Contax Distagon 2.8/45 here).
The images show the distortion for the P45 without movements... so only for the image plane of the P45 sensor. When you take the entire image circle of the lenses into account the distortion is of course more obvious.
I think it's clear that the Schneider lenses show very little distortion whereas the distortion of the Digaron-W 40 is pretty obvious (less than a MF lens, but still...).
(the first image is the undistorted grid)
 

thomas

New member
actually... you can also replicate the real distortion... you just have to invert the algebraic signs of the correction values (i.e. the numeric values in K1, K2, K3) in the Alpa LC.
Here are the 43XL and the 40hr again...
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Thomas - thank you for the continued flow of information.

The MTF for the 43XL would seem to indicate that it is also slightly better in the center at f/5.6 than it is at f/8, although it falls off rather quickly.

I think the 47XL may also be better in the center at f/8 than at f/11, but as you point out the edges are much better at f/11. I am not basing this on any keen tests I've done, just some general observations from my shooting. I have the 47XL, not the 43XL, and mostly shoot at f/11. Also, I'm shooting on a 37 x 37 sensor so it does not take much to keep me happy at the edges.

Interesting observation about the character difference between the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, I will have to look for this in images I see (I only have two Schneider lenses). Do you notice any difference in character between the 43XL and the 47XL considering you say the 43XL has more contrast?

Even though the 47XL has so little distortion, I find that using the Alpa Lens Corrector can make a subtle difference. Some images look fine, I really don't notice anything but I run them through the Lens Corrector and they look ever so slightly more natural - perhaps I am deluding myself because I think it is a fantastic tool.
 

thomas

New member
The MTF for the 43XL would seem to indicate that it is also slightly better in the center at f/5.6 than it is at f/8, although it falls off rather quickly.
yes, that's true. But the falloff (on my 49x37 sensor) produces that typical kind of "glow" at the edges. So for certain applications f5.6 is super... but not if your target is an even sharpness all over the image plane.

I think the 47XL may also be better in the center at f/8 than at f/11, but as you point out the edges are much better at f/11.
yes, I agree! However even without movements I've always preferred to shoot at f11 with the 47XL.

Do you notice any difference in character between the 43XL and the 47XL considering you say the 43XL has more contrast?
yes, the 43XL has more punch overall ... but still nice.

Even though the 47XL has so little distortion, I find that using the Alpa Lens Corrector can make a subtle difference. Some images look fine, I really don't notice anything but I run them through the Lens Corrector and they look ever so slightly more natural - perhaps I am deluding myself because I think it is a fantastic tool.
I agree. I shoot a lot of straight/rectangular objects and use the Alpa LC all the time. Although distortion is so little the corrected image looks so much better! Of course especially when you are stitching. Depending on what you shoot distortion correction has a really high impact on the image expression... IMO.
And yes, the Alpa LC is really a great tool! The degradation due to the interpolation is really not that much. There is some... but it's almost negligible. The correction is apparently based on lens data provided by the lens makers (so it is not based on actual measurements made by Alpa)... but LF lenses seem to have little sample variation. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong... but the correction is really accurate. The same goes for my Contax 645 lenses.
Kind of unbelievable that the Alpa LC is for free, especially as it now also supports DSLR lenses. Well, maybe the marketing effect is worth the effort...
 

thomas

New member
BTW: Schneider told me they will make a glass centerfilter for the 43XL.
They won't make a regular series of filters … but will make a line of samples and customers can order one (delivery time will be 8-12 weeks).
So most likely these centerfilters will be even more expensive… but still it's great to have that option… IMO.
Don't know when they are ready… i.e. when they start to accept orders… hopefully anytime soon.
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Kind of unbelievable that the Alpa LC is for free, especially as it now also supports DSLR lenses. Well, maybe the marketing effect is worth the effort...
Well, when "Things are Simple at the Top" you can almost charge anything you want AND give stuff away for free too, I guess!
 
Top