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!

Alarming news o the PhaseOne 45 TS

tashley

Subscriber Member
David, Thanks very much indeed! Extremely useful. I'd love to see the full sized ones at some point as well.

Have a great vacation!

Tim
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
An update on the Hartblei/Mamiya 45 rotator.

I obtained another copy and tested it and discovered what I think may be the inkling of an answer to the lens' peculiar performance traits --- I suspect the lens elements are decentered purposely in an effort to center the optical sweet-spot with 5mm of shift imparted(!)

IOW, the sharpest way to use the lens is with 5mm of shift; at 0 you are at one side of the IC and at 10mm shift you are at the other, and while 12mm is allowed it is marked in red denoting performance falloff.

Another way to use this info is to extrapolate that if the lens is set to 0 shift, then the weakest performing area will be opposite the direction of shift, and the strongest area will be in the direction of shift -- so orient the shift direction to suit the image if using the lens zeroed. For example, when shooting a conventional landscape with sky and detailed mid and foreground, orient the lens so the shift direction is down -- in this way the foreground and mid-ground will be in the crispest region of the lens and let the sky goes soft near the top of the frame.

Hope this helps some of you get more from this lens!

Cheers,
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
An update on the Hartblei/Mamiya 45 rotator.

I obtained another copy and tested it and discovered what I think may be the inkling of an answer to the lens' peculiar performance traits --- I suspect the lens elements are decentered purposely in an effort to center the optical sweet-spot with 5mm of shift imparted(!)

IOW, the sharpest way to use the lens is with 5mm of shift; at 0 you are at one side of the IC and at 10mm shift you are at the other, and while 12mm is allowed it is marked in red denoting performance falloff.

Another way to use this info is to extrapolate that if the lens is set to 0 shift, then the weakest performing area will be opposite the direction of shift, and the strongest area will be in the direction of shift -- so orient the shift direction to suit the image if using the lens zeroed. For example, when shooting a conventional landscape with sky and detailed mid and foreground, orient the lens so the shift direction is down -- in this way the foreground and mid-ground will be in the crispest region of the lens and let the sky goes soft near the top of the frame.

Hope this helps some of you get more from this lens!

Cheers,

I think I'd more or less reached the same conclusions though I hadn't twigged that it might be purposeful on the manufacturing front! I have gotten into the habit of rotating the lens so as to put the weak spot where I least mind it, and it's a piece of glass I'm starting to love.

Got my Silvestri/Schneider combo today and though I'm sure this is because it needs shimming or whatever, my £395 Hartblei gives sharper results.

It's a strange and often surprising world!
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
I'm curious to see how the Leica 30mm T/S for the S-System will fare against the HTS and the Phase 45mm T/S. Leica will be the only company designing and manufacturing their own lenses in this range when the S2 comes to market. Phase uses Mamiya and Hartblei, Hasselblad works together with Fuji, Sinar uses Zeiss and Schneider lenses. Leica is an optics company, first and foremost. I'm hoping to see more at PMA and already have an appointment with the S2 product manager.

Just a thought, but I tend to doubt that Leica would put out a lens like this and just shrug off performance sacrifices (expecially at this price point).

David
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Given my experience with Leica, I would be shocked if the S system lenses weren't the best available in medium format -- probably by a wide margin. I would also be shocked if they averaged less than 5000 dollars a lens for any other than the 75mm.
 

carstenw

Active member
We have always heard that medium format lenses resolve (lppm) so little compared to 35mm lenses because they don't need to, since the negatives/sensors are larger. I sincerely doubt that Leica will use this excuse, and I expect that we will see some lenses resolving far more than most of the competition, especially in the wide angle and T/S segments.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
We have always heard that medium format lenses resolve (lppm) so little compared to 35mm lenses because they don't need to, since the negatives/sensors are larger. I sincerely doubt that Leica will use this excuse, and I expect that we will see some lenses resolving far more than most of the competition, especially in the wide angle and T/S segments.
I also believe that Leica will present some fine lenses. However from what we see from lenses of existing systems (maybe besides T/S) I dont see any real "problem" with optical quality from Schneider , Zeiss, Mamiya or Hassy lenses if we look at the results.
Too bad that the T/S etc will appear leater in the future, and the fact that there will be no used market for such lenses in the first 1-2 years will not make it (financially) easier to step into such a system as an amateur photographer.
 

carstenw

Active member
It is true, there are specific lenses with very good performance. However, I am not aware of any current/recent lens lineup which had uniformly high standards across the lineup, possibly except the Contax 645 lineup (maybe not the 45mm though...), and the F/FE Hassie lenses were apparently also pretty uniformly good. In general, there have always been mediocre standard lenses, weak wide angles, and macros lenses which were soft at infinity, as well as teles with soft corners.

Is the Rollei lens lineup really exempt? I know that there are some great lenses there, but are they *all* great?

I do expect Leica to provide a consistently stunning lens lineup from bottom to top, corner-to-corner, plus or minus some QC and replacement copies.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Is the Rollei lens lineup really exempt? I know that there are some great lenses there, but are they *all* great?
I only can comment on the lenses I use: I havent had any reason to complain so far regarding the Schneider 40mm, the Xenotar 80mm and the Zeiss 110mm - I would even say that I really like those 3. The 150 ZEISS I havent used much so I cant comment at all (I dont feel I really need it after getting the 110)
But those are only 3 lenses and I cant comment on the others of the Rollei lens setup. Plus I use them with "only" 22 MP.
One thing I have to admit is that the lens range from Rollei is somewhat more limited compared to other brands, probably due to the bigger format.
(So far) nothing wider than 40, some lenses only in MF version, 55 as widest T/S,...
This is fine for me, but I guess one has to admit that Hassy for example offers many more options plus the T/S adapter.
For me its not so important that all lenses from a brand are great, for me its important that the focal length I want/need are "great".
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
In fairness to Leica, I don't think this system is aimed at amateurs, so they can be forgiven for not making used lenses available for it. It is being designed from the ground up.

As for Rollei, I guess I am a bit more picky. Most of the lenses are very very good, but I am not extremely happy with the 40mm -- there is a lot of distortion (to my eyes), and it is not very sharp at f/3.5, f/4 or f/4.5. The corners don't get very sharp until f/11 I would say. I do like the size and ergonomics though. As for the other lenses, the 80mm is faultless. The 150 Tele-Xenar is excellent, though focuses only to 1.4m. It is better than the 150mm Zeiss, which is still good, but not as sharp, particularly at f/4. The 110/2 is superb, but of course it is not beyond reproach wide open (its look is, but objectively it is not great other than in the center when used wide open). The 180/2.8 is very good from f/4, though it is a monstrous lens (same with the 110/2). I have not used the others. None of these lenses are as technically spectacular as, for example, the APO Leica lenses, or the ASPH wide angles....the R system too, so not just the M lenses. For this reason, and the fact that they will not have to use as large an image circle, I suspect that the Leica lenses will be significantly better.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
One problem I have withe the Leica S2 idea - is that I wont be able to shoot film with the system. This is a significant factor ( for me) - understand that with all other lens designs - one can shoot film and digi.

If I wanted the absolute 'best' proven in the field and studio and ridiculously expensive glass it would be the autofocus Zeiss series exclusively designed for the Sinar M - these will be the benchmark against which Leica's claims will be tested.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Peter are you aware of anywhere where people have posted impressions or tests of these lenses? I am not convinced there are more than 3 people on the planet have ever used them...even then what makes them better? It is still an 80mm planar, a 40mm distagon, a 120mm f/4 makro planar and a 180mm sonnar....is there any evidence that the designs have been updated or upgraded other than adding the AF?
 

Paratom

Well-known member
In fairness to Leica, I don't think this system is aimed at amateurs, so they can be forgiven for not making used lenses available for it. It is being designed from the ground up.
I dont think it is aimed at amateurs, but I believe that in the end amateurs will be an important part of the customers.
Regarding the Rollei lenses: My experience is limited to few weeks and limited to mainly landscape and some personal portrait stuff.
Also I have to say that I judge more from the overall impression at looking at images than searching/analysing certain factors. If I dont see anything wrong in an image I am not searching for it.

Judging this way I feel I dont miss anything in the 40,80,110 compared to what I get from the comparable Leica M lenses on the M8 but I am confident that a carefull analyses might very well show differences as mentioned by Stuart.
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Yes, I have been shooting these lenses for about three years, so I have some more time with them. I don't tend to shoot brick walls and lens charts though. My general pattern is that I will shoot something, and I may notice a problem. If that is the case, I will shoot a test to see if it was something like me missing focus or shaking the camera, or whether it is a feature of the camera. The other issue with medium format digital is that since the backs are so slow (usually base ISO of 50, though "50" on my back is actually 25...or less), there is an incentive to shoot them wide open even if you have a tripod. This is particularly the case with portraiture.

People who are always shooting landscapes may say, well just put it on a tripod and shoot a 1 second exposure at f/11. But if you are trying to photograph a person in that landscape, 1 second is not going to cut it, so you need to shoot the lens wide open (which is usually f/2.8-4...not that fast)....then you start to see some of the failings of these lenses. The other solution is to spend a few thousand bucks on a good battery based strobe system, but it's just another thing to carry, set up, bring along, get rained on, etc etc.

By the way, sorry to bring this thread SO far off track...
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Peter are you aware of anywhere where people have posted impressions or tests of these lenses? I am not convinced there are more than 3 people on the planet have ever used them...even then what makes them better? It is still an 80mm planar, a 40mm distagon, a 120mm f/4 makro planar and a 180mm sonnar....is there any evidence that the designs have been updated or upgraded other than adding the AF?
Hi Stuart - Regarding useage I dont know about the rest of the world, but I do know who buys and uses the system in Australia - pretty much large Museums & Art galleries for copy and archival work. The Sinar dealer down has been kind enough to offer an introduction to some people at the National Art Gallery in Melbourne so I can check out how they use stuff as well as some high end flat bed scanning equipment from CREO.

If I take up the offer I will keep you posted.

Regarding quality and formulations - I have just started the process of investigation - again will let you know if you are interested.

Pete
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Sounds good. Let me know if you learn anything in particular. I must say I find it odd though that they would choose an autofocus camera system for copy and archival work...I can see using the Sinar M in a different configuration (like on a view camera), but it seems like the AF module and the extreme cost of those lenses would be wasted on completely static subjects. Why not just use one of the great Sinar view cameras and the Schneider or Rodenstock digital lenses? Anyway...
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Hi Stuart - typically these institutions will buy an M system as the shutter device on a P3 ( view camera) and use both the Sinar digi lenses and teh SLR lenses. I am as keen as you to know why and how..

I am considering the same set-up for my stilllife work and have more interest in getting the right view camera and lens system than buying the next elephantine megapixel back. thsi is why I am a very happy chappy with swapping into teh 75LV back and out of Phase One. Fo emy purposes the H3D11-39 is all the autofocus and Leaf shutter horsepower I need. Sinar gives me a far greater total system intergration potential from a view camera perspective.

pete
 
Top