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!
Help re tech camera lenses please
- Thread starter Bill Caulfeild-Browne
- Start date
I too like the longer focal lengths and have both the 100N and 150 Schneider's. Both are outstanding and are my most used focal lengths. Both have very large IC's and can be easily tilted. My lenses are both short barrel and require a 34mm adapter - I use the tilt adapter.
Victor
Victor
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Again, you have hard facts from me. I am 100% certain about the image circle size of the 120ASPH (150mm*). If you've not been around long enough to know my postings I will just say that I don't state things as facts unless I am very sure of them (I'm very quick to add equivocations or caveats when I'm not sure).
It is a real lens. I received and tested one for our film scanning solution and found it performed excellently - even better than the very very good 120M.
I believe production has been very slow and there were some production issues they shut the line down to improve efficiency on. So not surprisingly there have not been that many "real world sightings" of the lens yet. But I have seen the lens - and it is good
.*technically 153mm
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Rene Rook at Cambo got back to me. He acknowledged their typo of the image circle in the sales guide (link posted earlier) and said the typo will be corrected soon.
Doug - I think you misread my post - I've been talking all along about the does-it-doesn't-it-exist 100 ASPH ... not the 120 ... just trying to get some hard facts about the former since it turns up indirectly in S/K and Cambo literature but not on the S/K website.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Ha!
Yes, I completely misread that.
I can't say nothin' about the 100 ASPH.
Yes, I completely misread that.
I can't say nothin' about the 100 ASPH
.Fortunately, programmers are a lazy bunch , and whilst the link to the info has been removed, the info itself is still there:
Schneider-Kreuznach 100mm f5.6 'Aspherical'
Oddly, from the MTFs it would appear that contrast/resolution/distortion are inferior to the older 'N' version - kind of like with the 120 'Aspherical' vs the 120 'N'. So, this probably means that the 100 'Aspherical' has a much larger image circle, right? Er, nope - it says the image circle is 100mm - i.e. same as the older 'N' version. Doesn't really make sense - hopefully a typo with the IC dimension - I would expect it to be at least 120mm, maybe even more, to bring it in line with other recent digitar lens releases.
, and whilst the link to the info has been removed, the info itself is still there:Schneider-Kreuznach 100mm f5.6 'Aspherical'
Oddly, from the MTFs it would appear that contrast/resolution/distortion are inferior to the older 'N' version - kind of like with the 120 'Aspherical' vs the 120 'N'. So, this probably means that the 100 'Aspherical' has a much larger image circle, right? Er, nope - it says the image circle is 100mm - i.e. same as the older 'N' version. Doesn't really make sense - hopefully a typo with the IC dimension - I would expect it to be at least 120mm, maybe even more, to bring it in line with other recent digitar lens releases.
Pemihan
Well-known member
According to this it has a 120mm IC.
Arca-Swiss Schneider 100mm f/5.6 Apo-Digitar Aspherical 51521000
Peter
Arca-Swiss Schneider 100mm f/5.6 Apo-Digitar Aspherical 51521000
Peter
Good spot - that must have just appeared - seems like the cat is out of the bag, through the front door and off down the street.
An IC of 120mm makes more sense, but to be honest 100mm is more than enough for my Alpa STC. I was hoping that other performance characteristics would 'enable' me to justify dropping the extra $ on the 'Aspherical' version, but that's not the case - so it looks like I'll be going for the 'N' and saving a few bucks. The B&H listing mentions 'flattening of field curvature' - and whilst field curvature is an issue with wider lenses (notably the 35) I've not read of any such issues with the current crop of longer digitars ?
An IC of 120mm makes more sense, but to be honest 100mm is more than enough for my Alpa STC. I was hoping that other performance characteristics would 'enable' me to justify dropping the extra $ on the 'Aspherical' version, but that's not the case - so it looks like I'll be going for the 'N' and saving a few bucks. The B&H listing mentions 'flattening of field curvature' - and whilst field curvature is an issue with wider lenses (notably the 35) I've not read of any such issues with the current crop of longer digitars ?
Interestingly, there is relatively less discussions about longer (150mm-ish) lenses with tech-cams than with wide angles. I wonder why this is ? Here a few hypothesis:
- The lenses are larger (generally not telephoto) so people prefer to use their (MF-)-DSLRs for shots requiring long focal lengths
- The Tech-cam "idea" is more adapted to short FLs - I don't really know why, but perhaps people feel this way ? Perhaps as the lenses are longer, they get unwieldy ?
- The long focal lenses on SLRs are better, and so a tech cam is not necessary and an SLR is easier to use
- Focusing is tougher, also framing may be more difficult (compared to an SLR) ?
Any other ideas ?
I am just a complete newbie to tech cams, but really like the 150mm FL on my Hassi V + IQ 160, so am wondering why people seem to not use this king of FL as much as wider options...
- The lenses are larger (generally not telephoto) so people prefer to use their (MF-)-DSLRs for shots requiring long focal lengths
- The Tech-cam "idea" is more adapted to short FLs - I don't really know why, but perhaps people feel this way ? Perhaps as the lenses are longer, they get unwieldy ?
- The long focal lenses on SLRs are better, and so a tech cam is not necessary and an SLR is easier to use
- Focusing is tougher, also framing may be more difficult (compared to an SLR) ?
Any other ideas ?
I am just a complete newbie to tech cams, but really like the 150mm FL on my Hassi V + IQ 160, so am wondering why people seem to not use this king of FL as much as wider options...
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Four main reasons I think:
- Tech cameras are rangefinder like. Long lenses are inherently more difficult to use on rangefinders than SLRs.
- Tech cameras are compact by nature, even with "relatively large for a tech camera" lenses they are typically more compact than an SLR with equivalent length lenses. But if you go to especially long lenses you'll need (depending on the system) a special lens board, an extension tube (or other form of box/extension), and they system is no longer as compact.
- Tech cameras, with their rise/fall/shift/tilt/swing mostly serve the architecture/interior/landscape/street-shooting market where wide angles are more common than longer lenses.
- The difference in optical quality between a tech camera wide and an SLR wide is huge. See our test of the 28D vs 32HR. But the difference in optical quality between a tech camera long and an SLR long is modest (the SLR may even win sometimes).
It's not that no one uses long lenses on a tech camera. But it's definitely less common.
Since digital backs are modular a lot of our tech camera clients also have an SLR body (Phase/Mamiya/Hassy/Contax etc) which they use for faster work or longer lenses, and a tech camera which they use for slower and more wide angle work.
- Tech cameras are rangefinder like. Long lenses are inherently more difficult to use on rangefinders than SLRs.
- Tech cameras are compact by nature, even with "relatively large for a tech camera" lenses they are typically more compact than an SLR with equivalent length lenses. But if you go to especially long lenses you'll need (depending on the system) a special lens board, an extension tube (or other form of box/extension), and they system is no longer as compact.
- Tech cameras, with their rise/fall/shift/tilt/swing mostly serve the architecture/interior/landscape/street-shooting market where wide angles are more common than longer lenses.
- The difference in optical quality between a tech camera wide and an SLR wide is huge. See our test of the 28D vs 32HR. But the difference in optical quality between a tech camera long and an SLR long is modest (the SLR may even win sometimes).
It's not that no one uses long lenses on a tech camera. But it's definitely less common.
Since digital backs are modular a lot of our tech camera clients also have an SLR body (Phase/Mamiya/Hassy/Contax etc) which they use for faster work or longer lenses, and a tech camera which they use for slower and more wide angle work.
dchew
Well-known member
Doug described my feelings pretty well. I have the sk150, and it may be my most-used lens. The other factor is many of us have backs with plenty of pixels, so cropping is a reasonable alternative on the long end. It's just easier for me to visualize a how the cropped telephoto image will turn out vs. a cropped wide angle.
I would like and use a 210mm, but if I crop a 150mm image to a 210 field of view that is still 41MP. Actually if Alpa would make a "double-short" barrel I might be more interested. I could stack adapters I already have, reducing the packed length of the 210mm.
Dave
I would like and use a 210mm, but if I crop a 150mm image to a 210 field of view that is still 41MP. Actually if Alpa would make a "double-short" barrel I might be more interested. I could stack adapters I already have, reducing the packed length of the 210mm.
Dave
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Like Dave I use the sk150 short barrel with my Alpa. It's about as long a lens that I can store vertically like my wider lenses in my F-stop bag without having to allocate a full bag section to it. I considered a longer focal length such as the 210/250 but the physical lens size becomes significant.
It is convenient to have a reasonable telephoto for landscape work. Even I as a gear slut won't take both the DF camera/long lens and the tech camera out together unless shooting from close by the car.
It is convenient to have a reasonable telephoto for landscape work. Even I as a gear slut won't take both the DF camera/long lens and the tech camera out together unless shooting from close by the car.
James Clark
New member
This is exactly what I do. I use my Rodie 40 on the tech cam, then pack my Phase DF with the 75-150 zoom for good versatility in the longer ranges.
Hey, I'm back !
I now have the Factum, plus 3 lenses, all Rodenstock: 32HR, 50HR and 90SW. For the moment, that suits my shooting style quite well, and I don't find the jumps between focal length too large.
Only (very minor) annoyance is the spacer I have to put between the tech-cam and the digital back for the 90mm. One extra step of handling, but not a big deal.
I am now considering one extra lens (it never stops !), at the long end. With the experiance of my Hassi-V rig with the IQ160, I would tend towards a 150mm (120mm seems a bit close to 90mm, and if 150mm is too long, I have no problem stitching).
Question is: is the Arca-swiss spacer for the 90mm the same as the spacer for a 150mm ? Or does each focal length come with it's own spacer ?
I now have the Factum, plus 3 lenses, all Rodenstock: 32HR, 50HR and 90SW. For the moment, that suits my shooting style quite well, and I don't find the jumps between focal length too large.
Only (very minor) annoyance is the spacer I have to put between the tech-cam and the digital back for the 90mm. One extra step of handling, but not a big deal.
I am now considering one extra lens (it never stops !), at the long end. With the experiance of my Hassi-V rig with the IQ160, I would tend towards a 150mm (120mm seems a bit close to 90mm, and if 150mm is too long, I have no problem stitching).
Question is: is the Arca-swiss spacer for the 90mm the same as the spacer for a 150mm ? Or does each focal length come with it's own spacer ?
I am quite happy with the Factum. It's lightweight and compact, "cute", I like that the 0 position in shift (or rise/fall depending on the orientation of the body) has a clear position (it falls into place at zero and stays there, no need to look at the numbers), same thing for tilt. I like the build quality and "feel" of the body (which I took with the extra grip - it adds quite a bit of weight, but is very useful).
The L bracket is very handy (but a bit heavy in my taste), and allows to quickly change between tilt and Rise/fall.
I will start experimenting with viewfinder options (a cheap Chinese zooming optical viewfinder, vs an iPhone holder), but need to get hold of a cold shoe adapter.
Note that the Factum only has the Monoballfix type attachment by default, so you can't directly use the old style Arca-swiss rails and accessories (that go on an Rm3di) without an adapter (and those are not cheap).
Some nitpicks in general: the Arca-Swiss R-line lens mounts are quite big and heavy (they add to the weight / bulk to a lens) - nothing you can do about it though, the throat in the A/S system is quite large. It takes a bit of practice to attach and remove the lenses (it's quite different from a Canon bayonet, on the A/S you need to carefully screw the lens in).
All in all, very happy camper at the moment !
The L bracket is very handy (but a bit heavy in my taste), and allows to quickly change between tilt and Rise/fall.
I will start experimenting with viewfinder options (a cheap Chinese zooming optical viewfinder, vs an iPhone holder), but need to get hold of a cold shoe adapter.
Note that the Factum only has the Monoballfix type attachment by default, so you can't directly use the old style Arca-swiss rails and accessories (that go on an Rm3di) without an adapter (and those are not cheap).
Some nitpicks in general: the Arca-Swiss R-line lens mounts are quite big and heavy (they add to the weight / bulk to a lens) - nothing you can do about it though, the throat in the A/S system is quite large. It takes a bit of practice to attach and remove the lenses (it's quite different from a Canon bayonet, on the A/S you need to carefully screw the lens in).
All in all, very happy camper at the moment !