23mm HR guidance

[Paul2660]

Problem with the Lee hood is that you can't use the center filter and the Lee wide angle rings. I use a similar setup to yours when the scene permits. You can mount a wide angle hood to the Lee 95mm to 105mm adapter which I have done occasionally in the field.

I am curious what clamp are you using for the Surface Pro?

Thanks

Paul

 

[[email protected]]

Paul, just posted some pics about the clamp on Kens Surface Pro thread (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...o-2-enabling-phase-iq-series-credo-mfdbs.html) that should answer your question. What is for you the advantage of using the WA rings over fixing the hood directly to the lens?

Thanks

Wolfgang

 

[kimyeesan]

Hi, just wanted to show how I use the HR23 with CF and Lee WA lens hood. I can extend the hood about 30 mm before it starts vignetting. Off topic a little hint how to fix a Surface tablet totally secure to the tripod.

Kind regards

Wolfgang

Dear Wolfgang, does the hood help to eliminate the orange/red blob center flare issue of the 23mm? or it will still happen and I better off in always shoot 2 shots (one normal and one with cup/extreme hood movement that has no flare) and blend them in PS later on?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Paul2660]

Paul, just posted some pics about the clamp on Kens Surface Pro thread (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...o-2-enabling-phase-iq-series-credo-mfdbs.html) that should answer your question. What is for you the advantage of using the WA rings over fixing the hood directly to the lens?

Thanks

Wolfgang

Hello Wolfgang: I missed this question.

BTW, many thanks again for the images of your solution on the Surface 2/3. Now in use for me and I love it.

On the 28mm I have worked it both ways. My first attempt was to use a 72mm Lee wide angle ring, which works fine. However I prefer to use the CF on my 28mm and the outer threading of the CF is 95mm that complicates things a bit.

Lee doesn't make a wide angle ring in 95mm, at one time Schneider did and it was called a wide angle ring and sold that way by B&H. I purchased it, but it was not a wide angle ring, instead just a normal ring, i.e. it pushed out from the lens, and didn't wrap around the lens barrel like the wide angle rings do, thus preventing vignetting. Schneider at one time may have made this ring in true wide angle design, as some on this forum believe they did, but it's no longer made that way. B&H even pulled the description off their site and modified it after I pointed this out to them. So, net unless you send the lens off to SK Grimes, and have a ring custom made, I don't know of a way to get the Lee hood to work on a 23/28 with the CF installed.

Lee makes a 95mm to 105mm adapter and I have that now. I installed a wide angle hood to it to see if I could get that to work. The 95mm to 105mm has 1 filter slot and the hood takes a 105mm adapter. I also just purchased the new Lee 105mm CL-PL and that is considerable less thicker than my B+W 105mm CLPL that I had been using. This should work, but it means that I will have to either carry 2 hoods, 1 optimized for the 28 and 1 optimized for all my other lenses, or unscrew the 95mm to 105mm adapter in the field and use the normal one that ships with the wide angle hood.

The hood I have found will stop a lot of the flare issues, but you really can't use any of the Rodenstock glass directly into the sun as the flare is just terrible. It's reminiscent of my Nikon 14-24 which also creates a terrible destructive non recoverable flare anywhere near the sun or moon. This is one reason I kept my old 35SK as the Schneiders are a lot more forgiving when pointed at the sun or near it, at least to my findings.

Paul

 

[AreBee]

Paul,

...you really can't use any of the Rodenstock glass directly into the sun as the flare is just terrible.

Just so that I understand correctly, do you refer only to the 23HR, or all Rodenstock lenses?

 

[Paul2660]

Hello Rob.

I have used the 23 and its not a lens I would shoot at the sun or angled towards it. Flare is very harsh.

The 28 Rodie I own and it's also not what I call a sunset lens. It doesn't get a center flare but creates a harsh magenta band opposite the source of light which is very hard to remove.

The 40 Rodie I own and I don't find it usable at all shooting into the sun. I get a hard orange band in or towards the center.

The 90 HR will flare when shot into the sun and can ghost ( which can be even worse) in certain shooting situations. I still may replace my 90 HR with the Schneider 90mm

I briefly owned the Rodie 105mm and it exhibited the ghosting issue I see with the 90HR.

I have read reports that the 32mm is less flare prone and the newest 90HR-SW is less prone to the ghosting issue.

This is all with a rm3di which has been checked for internal reflection issues. And a Phase 160 or 260 back.

Paul

 

[Wayne Fox]

40 HR (2 shot stitch) into sunset. Had to correct a small amount of flare

In my case, the majority of sunsets do not actually include the sun, so I haven’t thought much about it. I had the 23 and decided it was just too wide for my taste, so I traded for the 28 and do like it for occasions where I can’t stitch a longer lens.

 

[Smoothjazz]

How do you perform the calculation to determine the new effective focal length with shift? I would like to compare my current 55mm Rodenstock HR lens to the same Rodenstock in 40mm and 32mm focal lengths. Thanks for your help.

John

No. The image circle of the 40HR is 90mm, whereas the image circle of the 23HR is 70mm. Stitching with the 40HR shifted to the extreme in different directions could only give you an angle of view equivalent as 40mm/90*70=31mm, which is even less than that of the 32HR.

Similarly, by stitching with the 32HR (90mm image circle), you could achieve an angle of view equivalent as 32mm/90*70=25mm, which is still slightly less than that of the 23HR. Also, the center filter of the 32HR is too huge and I have no idea how to accommodate a filter holder.

For long exposure shots, I believe the 23HR with the center filter and Lee push-on filter holder is the best solution. I have some pictures posted at 500px

 

[Smoothjazz]

Does anyone know the mathematical formula for calculating the new effective focal length when stitching?
I wanted to compare the effective focal length of the Rodenstock 50mm, 40mm, and 32mm HR lenses when stitching horizonatally.

Thanks,
John

 

[voidshatter]

Does anyone know the mathematical formula for calculating the new effective focal length when stitching?
I wanted to compare the effective focal length of the Rodenstock 50mm, 40mm, and 32mm HR lenses when stitching horizonatally.

Thanks,
John

Just use this tool from DT: http://digitaltransitions.com/support/lens-visualizer-tools/

 

[voidshatter]

, using the Sigma 12-24 (are you serious - that lens is junk on FF DSLR), or the Nikon 13mm? Yeah sure - give it a go and let's see how well you get on.

It's quite interesting when we look back posts we made years ago What do you think now when we can purchase the 10 mm F 5,6 Hyper-Wide-Heliar and the Sony A7R-II for a remarkably less amount of money (when compared against the inductive price of the IQ180 + Alpa 12 FPS + Canon 17mm TS-E)? According to your words, the 17mm TSE + IQ180 combo simply isn't wide enough and doesn't have the required angle of view. You may claim that the Voigtlander 10mm is junk (or with high distortion) but I'd be curious to see a comparison after all. We all know that you make incredible wide angle images! :grin:

The simple fact of the matter is that the 23HR hard vignettes well before the 24TSE runs out of usable image circle. Ergo, the 24 is capable of taking shots that the 23HR can't deal with. As I very clearly stated - does that mean the 24 is as good as the 23HR if you don't shift? No. It's not. But the simple fact of the matter is that if you only have the 23, then it won't be able to do things that the 24 (and 17) can. Why would you limit your capabilities?

The usable image circle of both lenses more than covers a FF MFDB back sensor, and they open up opportunities that would otherwise be impossible to shoot.

I have tested the 17mm TS-E myself and also seen multiple results about the 24mm TS-E. My bet is that the 24mm TS-E is the same as the 17mm TS-E with severe field curvature in the extreme corners. To make these corners really "useful" you would need to stop down the lens down to f/16 and beyond to make the corners fall within DoF, but at the same time it hammers the sharpness of the whole image thanks to diffraction. The TS-E solution provides a great alternative towards the Rodenstock solutions under certain circumstances, but for really wide shots I would prefer the Voigtlander solution and for corner sharpness I would prefer the Rodenstock 23mm solution.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Damn voidshatter, you do like to wake up and poke the bear don't you? :facesmack:

 

[AreBee]

Graham,

...you do like to wake up and poke the bear don't you?

Which is worse: being considered by others to be someone who wakes up and pokes bears, or being considered by others to be a bear?

 

[GrahamWelland]

After Gerald's BTS image from the top of the Burj Khalifa I respect the bear with major cajones.

signed: the pussycat.