Phase One Schneider 28mm f4.5 LS lens

[gazwas]

Apart from the test Doug posted (that didn't create much interest) I've not seen or heard of anyone who has sprung for this lens or any further user reports.

From looking at Doug's test results, to my eye the Schneider looked sharper in the centre but had worse edge performance than the standard Phase/Mamiya 28mm. Can anyone who has any experience with these two lenses on a FF chip offer any further evaluation as I'm considering wide angle options for the DF?

 

[dougpeterson]

The basic jist of my test was that the field curvature of the lens made it nigh impossible to get identical results with both lenses in the field. I also had test made in more controlled situation (out our window against a brick wall) which showed the 28LS with a slight advantage sharpness wise throughout the frame, but I don't think that's the lesson to be learned. The lesson to be learned is that to get expansive focus on a FF 80mp sensor reliably in the field you'd have to stop down to at least f/11.5 at which point the sharpness is effected by diffraction such that both lenses would be very similar.

I'd buy the 28LS if the LEAF SHUTTER is important to you. Whether for the flash sync or the modest improvement in usability at slower shutter speeds in the shutter-bounce range (e.g. 1/8th). The FP shutter still fires with an LS lens mounted, but the timing is such that there is modestly less issue with shutter bounce.

If you're only looking for price vs. optical performance I think the 28D is your better bet. But I would buy it from a place where you can test (or have it tested and a file sent to you) in advance, as we have seen more batch variation from the 28D than 28LS - which is is line with Phase/Schneider claims that the biggest improvement they made when doing the 28LS was better mechanisms to center the large aspherical element to achieve better alignment with the other lens elements.

Hope this helps. I really wish the lens test would have produced one of the clear "this one is simply better across the board without reservations" result (like when you compare the 150AF/3.5 with the 150D/2.8, but alas that was not the case and we reported the complexity as best we understood it.

Both are, of course, significantly out performed by a 32HR or similar tech camera lens. It was also much easier to get assured focus with the 32HR throughout a wide range of focus distances and throughout the frame. Note the sample image I posted of the 32HR at f/8 which is tact sharp throughout the frame and was straight forward to capture.

Can you tell I love tech cameras for wide angle work?

 

[Don Libby]

Years ago when I was shooting with the P30+ I had great success using the Mamiya 28mm; actually one of my best selling images from the Grand Canyon was taken with this combo. I remember trying it out shortly after I got the WRS and upgraded to a P45+ and vaguely remember being disappointed in the results.

I'm back to using the DF with a IQ160 and have begun wondering if anyone else is using either the older 28 or new 28 with either a P54, IQ160 or IQ180 and if you have any comments you'd like to share. I'm looking for sharpness and falloff; can you use the entire file or do you need to crop in for a usable image? Any other comments are welcome as well.

Thanks in advance

Don

I was writing this when Gareth and Doug wrote so instead of begining a new thread I thought I'd drop it in here.

 

[gerald.d]

But I would buy it from a place where you can test (or have it tested and a file sent to you) in advance, as we have seen more batch variation from the 28D than 28LS - which is is line with Phase/Schneider claims that the biggest improvement they made when doing the 28LS was better mechanisms to center the large aspherical element to achieve better alignment with the other lens elements.

Doug - why doesn't QC catch this kind of issue?

If it is common knowledge that there is such a degree of quality variation between individual copies of the lens coming from the manufacturer, wouldn't it make sense for dealers to test each lens they get in, and return the ones that are not up to standard?

It just seems really, really odd to me that a customer should have to request a lens to be tested. Can't get my head around it at all. We're talking about $5K/$6K lenses here!


Regards,

Gerald.

 

[dougpeterson]

Doug - why doesn't QC catch this kind of issue?

If it is common knowledge that there is such a degree of quality variation between individual copies of the lens coming from the manufacturer, wouldn't it make sense for dealers to test each lens they get in, and return the ones that are not up to standard?

It just seems really, really odd to me that a customer should have to request a lens to be tested. Can't get my head around it at all. We're talking about $5K/$6K lenses here!

In my experience I don't think the variation is that great. I just think the level of pickiness is pretty high as it should be given the price point. The great majority of lenses we test, or that our customers test are excellent and match other samples to all practical analysis. Some do not; when they do not we've never had any problems getting a replacement or a tune up. Also, the comment regarding going for a 28D from a dealer is also because the more complicated lenses (e.g. 28D/28LS/32HR) are more prone to physical damage/wear-tear that might throw them out of alignment and cause their performance to drop. Just ask Ed Cooley .

Also, as I said, tighter tolerances were the biggest point Phase made regarding the SK28LS as compared to the previous 28D. So they are obviously working to get even better.

Variation of actually delivered lenses is true of every lens line I've ever carried or worked with, including Leica, Phase, Zeiss, Schneider, Canon, Hassy.

As a dealer we can only determine reality and do our best to help customers .

 

[Paul2660]

I looked at Doug's testing and it pretty much assured me that there wasn't that much difference between the new LS and older D 28mm.

I have owned 2 different copies of the 28D (Mamiya branded). The 2nd one was a good 35mm (focal) length lens as you had to crop out that much due to corner softness. The AF on my 2nd lens was much more accurate than my 1st one and I used it to varying success for 2 years. This was on a P45+, with the IQ160, it became pretty much a non issue.

When I purchased my 160, I tried the 28mm again, and found it just could not work for what I wanted. From F4.5 to F11 I found pretty bad corner softness and a bit of detail smearing. From F14 to F16, you started to see OK corners but could also start to see diffraction setting in. Past F16, corners were good, but diffraction hurt the center.

I was able to purchase a used 28mm Rodenstock and it has become my no1 go to lens. The 28mm Rodenstock shows much better contrast and is very good from F4.5 to F8 and excellent from F8 to F11 and one or more stops past. With 1/2 a degree of tilt you can get a solid hyper focal of about 8 feet to infinity and this is with a full frame that can be used. I feel that the 28mm Rod, benefits from the physical CF and use it most of the time on my lens. What's very impressive on the 28mm Rodenstock is just how good it is wide open.

At the cost of the Phase LS 28mm if you already own a tech camera, I would try a demo of the 28mm Rodenstock. For that matter demo them both. You may get a good copy of the Phase 28mm. The Schneider 28mm is also great, but does not handle filters as well as the 28mm Rod. I feel you will see the same results Doug had with the 32mm Rodenstock. Main difference is the 32mm is 3.5K more and has the larger image circle so it will shift more than the 28mm The 28mm is hurt by the 70mm image circle and is limited to about 7mm of shift before you start to get a hard edge vignette.

Paul

 

[gazwas]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Seem like Phase and Schneider were way off the mark with this lens and I'm not quite sure why they bothered releasing a new version of the 28D without correcting any of the faults first?

Kind of makes you think what is the point of the Schneider relationship if they don't have any effective input on the end design other than the marketing/cost to end user implications...... Such a shame!

 

[gazwas]

At the cost of the Phase LS 28mm if you already own a tech camera, I would try a demo of the 28mm Rodenstock. For that matter demo them both. You may get a good copy of the Phase 28mm. The Schneider 28mm is also great, but does not handle filters as well as the 28mm Rod. I feel you will see the same results Doug had with the 32mm Rodenstock. Main difference is the 32mm is 3.5K more and has the larger image circle so it will shift more than the 28mm The 28mm is hurt by the 70mm image circle and is limited to about 7mm of shift before you start to get a hard edge vignette.

Hi Paul

I do own an Rm3di but wanted to explore the wide options for the DF so I had a Phase One wide rather than the Canon I use at present for when shoots need to run a bit quicker than a tech camera allow.

Looks like the TS-E Canon's are looking even more likely.

 

[Paul2660]

Hi Gareth,

I wasn't try to sound harsh, sorry if I did. My main reason to switch to the rm3di was the lack of a good wide for the Phase Mamiya solution. After working with the 28 Rodenstock, I was truly amazed at the differences between the two optics and was again glad I made the decision. I would be using a 32 Rod as it allows more shifting, but the cost factor is just too great for me. Plus the 32mm is even bigger, has an even larger CF outer diameter, and seems to be a bit fragile in the field if not carried with extreme care.

In retrospec, looking back, most of the affordable wides for tech cameras don't really have a good shifting solution. The 28mm Rod's image circle is too small only allows 7mm or less, the 35mm Schneider has a larger image circle, but I can't really shift it past 10mm without huge loss in both detail and color sat. This leaves the 32mm Rod, just too expensive for me, the 40mm Rod and 43mm Schneider. The 43mm Schneider is an excellent lens on the 160 and I will get good shifts up to 18mm with it but on the 180, it's not that good even on center. Opticall greatly but color cast really harsh. (sorry to get off topic) So when I can, I still try nodal pans with the 28mm, 35mm and 43mm.

I only have experience with the Mamiya/Phase wides, not Hassi. They may be excellent. I found the 28mm, 35mm and 45mm all pretty lacking in image quality with my P45+ and a 1:1 Crop and pretty much not useable on the 160/P65+ solution due to the amount of corner softness.

The new Canon 24 and 17 are as you point out great optics for 35mm and seem to be a good solution for the Medium format digital world with the hartblei solution. I just wish the Hartblei was easier to get a hold of for a demo.

Paul

 

[MB100]

From a little while ago, Image I shot with the 28mm LS with Lance from DT

PhaseOne 28mm LS Herald Square | Flickr - Photo Sharing!