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!

23mm HR guidance

jimban

New member
Hi-

I'm planning on getting a Rodenstock 23mm HR for use with my Alpa STC and IQ180. I'd like to here some experiences, guidance, and limitations for this lens on a tech camera. I currently have the 40mm and 70mm HR Wides. My other option is to get the 32mm but it's so close to the 40mm which I find to be exceptional.

Any help is appreciated.

jim
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The 23 is an excellent optic, however very limited on shifts due to the small 70mm image circle. On the 180, you will get about 5mm max shift before you hit the disc which shows the edge of the image circle (this is horizontal shifts). Your 40 HR-W is 90mm circle which makes a huge difference on shifts.

There is a CF for this lens @ 1K or so, same for the 23 and 28 (same filter works on both lenses). This takes you from 72mm to 95mm.

The 23 is flare prone, and it's a very destructive flare, in that recovery is hard in post. A hood of some type is a good idea. If you use a Lee hood, then use of the CF is not possible, since the Lee ring that is 95mm, actually a Schneider ring is not a "wide" angle style ring and you will vignette with just the ring and hood. Working with the Lee 72mm wide ring is much easier, but then you have the issue of greater noise towards the edge of the frame. So it's a trade off. This also true with the 28mm.

I briefly tried the 23, but quickly moved to the 28mm. I did not need the super wide and the 28mm is less flare prone. I use the CF on mine 90% of my shots.


Paul
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
As Paul mentioned, the 23mm is basically a zero movement lens on the Alpa with a full frame MFDB. In fact I leave mine in a dedicated TC body although obviously it does work just as well on any of the Alpa bodies.

It does have a tendency to red central flare if any stray bright light hits the front element and I've also had some other strange demon flare elements in images when something like a street light had shone into the frame. The central flare can be eliminated generally with a hood - I use the LEE wide hood with no filter slots. Alternatively, if you have the luxury of time you can shoot two images with one for the full scene and the second with potentially an extreme lens shield to prevent centre flare (and potentially your shielding being in the frame). You then combine the images in post with the second one used to blend into the centre if there is a flare spot. It sounds onerous but actually very easy to do in the field and no worse than shooting the LCC which with this lens is absolutely mandatory.

I don't use the centre filter myself as it's big and expensive and precludes using any lens hoods at all. The LCC can be pretty extreme though and hence shadow noise when applied if the corners are dark already or if you're dealing with a low light scene.

The above sounds like the lens is a pain to use but in reality it just means that as a super wide lens it takes care and attention. The results though are pretty spectacular and worth the effort. Like any super wide lens I also avoid tilting the camera with it and endeavor to keep it level and crop if necessary.
 
Last edited:
Now with all this said, you might want to also consider whether the range of movement with the 40HR on the STC will allow you to shoot a stitched pair of images equivalent to the coverage of the 23mm horizontally or vertically at least (strictly speaking 22mm on one dimension and 27mm on the other equivalent according to the Alpa shift calculator & 54x40mm sensor).
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
 
For the OP's reference, here are the LCC shots of the 23HR with center filter mounted on an ALPA 12 SWA and a Phase One IQ280. The color cast is acceptable and fully correctable but an LCC shot is strongly recommended for every picture.



I am quite satisfied with the results I get from the 23HR (with an IQ260, which is very similar as the IQ280 in terms of color cast etc). It is still the widest angle of view you can get from 645 lenses. In tricky situations you can still shift the lens out of the image circle and tilt your camera up a bit so that after you correct the vertical perspectives in post processing with keystones you just crop off the black circle and retain as much effective pixels as possible. If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.

 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
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
Quite right - my bad, I miscalculated the theoretical max coverage of 90mm vs the 70mm max of the sensor with shift 15mm each way.

Nice job with the 23HR long exposures too btw!
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
. If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.
Canon 24 TS-E provides more shift, 17 TS-E far wider.

(on Alpa FPS or Hartblei H-Cam)

Kind regards,

Gerald.
 
Canon 24 TS-E provides more shift, 17 TS-E far wider.

(on Alpa FPS or Hartblei H-Cam)

Kind regards,

Gerald.
Here are the test pictures by chrismuc on luminous-landscape:

Canon 24 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Contax645+iQ180/Canon-24TSE+12mm-upperhalf.jpg

Canon 17 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Contax645+iQ180/Canon-17TSE+12mm-upperhalf.jpg

The resolution in the corners (even without shift) looks nothing comparative against what you can get from the 23HR. You also lose the ability to use the Lee 100 filter systems if you don't want hard vignetting on the 17 TS-E. (Instead the monstrous Fotodiox 145 system is taking up too much room and causing inconvenience.)
 
Last edited:

Paul2660

Well-known member
That's a good point on the 23mm and Lee 95 to 105mm adapter. With that installed you can use both 1 Lee 2mm slot and the 105mm CLPL in front. Can't shift with this solution as you instantly vignette.


Paul
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Here are the test pictures by chrismuc on luminous-landscape:

Canon 24 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Contax645+iQ180/Canon-24TSE+12mm-upperhalf.jpg

Canon 17 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/Contax645+iQ180/Canon-17TSE+12mm-upperhalf.jpg

The resolution in the corners (even without shift) looks nothing comparative against what you can get from the 23HR. You also lose the ability to use the Lee 100 filter systems if you don't want hard vignetting on the 17 TS-E. (Instead the monstrous Fotodiox 145 system is taking up too much room and causing inconvenience.)
There's no point comparing the 17 on a FF MFDB with anything. No other combination of lens and sensor - on any format - can do this out-of-camera:

The Burj Khalifa Collection

Here's a test of the 23 vs the 24 at various apertures. You need to shoot the Canon at between f/11 and f/16, then there is not as big a difference in the corners as many would have you believe.

http://08.ae/panos/24TSEvs23HR/HRTSE.html

I was specifically addressing your comment -

If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.
That statement is demonstrably false.

If the image circle of the 23HR isn't big enough, consider the 24 TS-E.
If it's not wide enough, consider the 17 TS-E.

Is the 23HR a better optic than both of them if the shot you want fits in its field of view and you don't need to shift? Absolutely. That's why I own all of them.

Kind regards,

Gerald.
 

mike6272

New member
..........
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.
..........
Why don't you take a look at the filter holder made by LinholfStudio Lee Filters SW150 XXL Filter Holder which i believe they can solve the problem.

Michael
 
There's no point comparing the 17 on a FF MFDB with anything. No other combination of lens and sensor - on any format - can do this out-of-camera:

The Burj Khalifa Collection
You deliberately chose such a scene so the dark out-of-IC area blend into the dark sky. In such case yes the 17mm TS-E has the advantage here. You don't need any corner sharpness or filter here. If argued, (just a guess) I might even be able to do a better job with the Schneider 47mm XL (for film) on a 4x5 large format camera if I deliberately shift the lens out of its image circle. Alternatively I could (possibly) try to shift the Sigma 12-24mm lens or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 lens on a Sony A7R camera with custom made parts (Or just IQ250 via ALPA FPS).

If the image circle of the 23HR isn't big enough, consider the 24 TS-E.
Disagreed. See both the test shots I linked, and your test shots as well. The useful image circle of the 24mm TS-E is less than that of the 23HR.

I was specifically addressing your comment -

If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.
That statement is demonstrably false.
If you must argue, then please read carefully, that my statement used the wording "MFDB lens". The 17mm TS-E is not an MFDB lens but an FF lens, so it does not fall into such category.

My apologies for not being careful enough while I try to make my point - I take filters into consideration, but I forgot to explicitly state it in the post. I do long exposure shots during daylight.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you take a look at the filter holder made by LinholfStudio Lee Filters SW150 XXL Filter Holder which i believe they can solve the problem.

Michael
It shares the same disadvantage as the Fotodiox 145 system for the Canon 17mm TS-E lens - the filters are too bulky to carry. Also, there is no confirmation that the Lee Filters SW150 XXL Filter Holder is free of light leakage issues when coupled with the Singh-Ray 10/15-stop Mor Slo filters (150x150mm). Lastly, for long exposure shots, it is almost impossible to stitch images together to achieve a wider angle of view - the clouds are moving! After all, the 32HR is not suitable for my long exposure shots.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
You deliberately chose such a scene so the dark out-of-IC area blend into the dark sky. In such case yes the 17mm TS-E has the advantage here. You don't need any corner sharpness or filter here. If argued, (just a guess) I might even be able to do a better job with the Schneider 47mm XL (for film) on a 4x5 large format camera if I deliberately shift the lens out of its image circle. Alternatively I could (possibly) try to shift the Sigma 12-24mm lens or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 lens on a Sony A7R camera with custom made parts (Or just IQ250 via ALPA FPS).
Seriously? You're accusing me of deliberately choosing that scene because of the dark sky, because I'm trying to hide the fact that it goes beyond the image circle of the lens, and I'm just trying to win an argument for the sake of it?

You should get some manners before chucking around allegations such as that.

There is NOTHING in that shot that is out of the image circle. In fact, it's cropped ever so slightly on the right hand side of the image due to a light-leak in the H-Cam (I had removed the rail it's supplied with and remounted it, without realizing that you had to cover the screw hole otherwise light would leak in).

Here's another one from a different building. Canon 17 TS-E on the ALPA FPS:



(I only have access to the Instagram version right now. Ignore the borders, that's the full frame of an IQ180.)

edit -

100% corner crop.


You can choose to make whatever assessment you want - objective or subjective - as regards the "quality" of that crop or indeed the entire image. I like it, it's good enough for me, and frankly what anyone else thinks is of little interest. My choice is to be able to create the image, not walk away because there's no "MFDB" lens that can do it.

/edit

There is no other rectilinear lens/sensor combination on the planet that can get that shot without nodal stitching. None.

I really am quite perplexed as to where your attitude is coming from.

I bought the H-Cam and the 17 TS-E specifically for that fireworks shot. No other lens on no other format has ever been demonstrated to have sufficient field of view required to get the Burj Khalifa straight on in landscape orientation from that distance.

None.

You want to try the 47 on 4x5? Be my guest. It won't come close. Nor does the 72 on 5x7 (I have it. I tried it).

12mm on FF DSLR? Doesn't have the required field of view, regardless of shifting.

IQ250 with its 1.3 crop sensor, 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.

There are unsubstantiated claims out there that the Nikon 14-24 at 14 will just cover the IQ250 sensor if you shave the lens hood. That's possibly the only other option that could come close, but it's yet to be proven. IF it can be demonstrated, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat because of the CMOS benefits the IQ250 sensor provides.

Disagreed. See both the test shots I linked, and your test shots as well. The useful image circle of the 24mm TS-E is less than that of the 23HR.
You can disagree all you like. It doesn't make it a fact.

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?

If you must argue, then please read carefully, that my statement used the wording "MFDB lens". The 17mm TS-E is not an MFDB lens but an FF lens, so it does not fall into such category.
No. If YOU must argue, then do so in a civil manner, and base your claims on facts rather than wild speculation that you are incapable of backing up, and tantamount accuse me of cheating with my images.

Both the 17 and 24 are lenses that can be used with considerable degree of success on MFDB. Want to have a semantic argument about what makes a MFDB lens an MFDB lens? Go have one somewhere else, because I won't entertain one.

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.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? You're accusing me of deliberately choosing that scene because of the dark sky, because I'm trying to hide the fact that it goes beyond the image circle of the lens, and I'm just trying to win an argument for the sake of it?

You should get some manners before chucking around allegations such as that.
I think you are over-reacting. No hard feeling please. If anything I said would make you upset you have my apologies.

There is NOTHING in that shot that is out of the image circle. In fact, it's cropped ever so slightly on the right hand side of the image due to a light-leak in the H-Cam (I had removed the rail it's supplied with and remounted it, without realizing that you had to cover the screw hole otherwise light would leak in).

Here's another one from a different building. Canon 17 TS-E on the ALPA FPS:

(I only have access to the Instagram version right now. Ignore the borders, that's the full frame of an IQ180.)

edit -

100% corner crop.

You can choose to make whatever assessment you want - objective or subjective - as regards the "quality" of that crop or indeed the entire image. I like it, it's good enough for me, and frankly what anyone else thinks is of little interest. My choice is to be able to create the image, not walk away because there's no "MFDB" lens that can do it.
Again, you put the sky in the corners so it could be that the softness blend into the sky and no one cares about upper corner sharpness. You might have shifted the lens upwards a bit so the bottom corner sharpness doesn't look bad at all. I admit that for such situation the 17 TS-E is a nice choice.

There is no other rectilinear lens/sensor combination on the planet that can get that shot without nodal stitching. None.

I really am quite perplexed as to where your attitude is coming from.

I bought the H-Cam and the 17 TS-E specifically for that fireworks shot. No other lens on no other format has ever been demonstrated to have sufficient field of view required to get the Burj Khalifa straight on in landscape orientation from that distance.

None.
I take it that you are quite confident when making this blowing statement. So you have tried the Sigma 12-24mm and Nikon 13mm f5.6 on an IQ250 already, and confirmed that they would not work? I assume that you are talking about facts that you could back up right?

If all you care about is just the angle of view, then let's compute the diagonal fullframe-equivalent focal length assuming that the speculated lenses can cover the corresponding sensors:

17mm on IQ280: 17/(53.7^2+40.4^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.95mm
12mm on IQ250: 12/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 9.44mm
13mm on IQ250: 13/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.23mm
14mm on IQ250: 14/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 11.01mm

If either the Sigma 12-24mm or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 works, then your blowing statement is rendered false. I am unable to validate these.

IQ250 with its 1.3 crop sensor, using the Sigma 12-24 (are you serious - that lens is junk on FF DSLR),
If you could call the Sigma 12-24 as junk, I could also call the 17 TS-E as junk. It's just a different degree of tolerance. These are not designed for 645 sensors after all.

There are unsubstantiated claims out there that the Nikon 14-24 at 14 will just cover the IQ250 sensor if you shave the lens hood. That's possibly the only other option that could come close, but it's yet to be proven. IF it can be demonstrated, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat because of the CMOS benefits the IQ250 sensor provides.
Unfortunately this will not work. See the calculations above. This will not be wider than the 17mm + IQ280 combo, if all you care about is the angle of view.

You can disagree all you like. It doesn't make it a fact.

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?


From what I have seen, I can't figure out why the 23HR hard vignettes before the 24 TS-E. Unless one of us have made a mistake recording the amount of movement. Could you please clarify this with your test shots? I could be wrong about this when I just look into pictures not taken for the same scene, so it could help if you could correct me. But nevertheless, I would not consider the 24 TS-E for that softness in the corners which can be seen in chrismuc's test shot.

100% corner crop of 24 TS-E on IQ180 with no shift:


No. If YOU must argue, then do so in a civil manner, and base your claims on facts rather than wild speculation that you are incapable of backing up, and tantamount accuse me of cheating with my images.

Both the 17 and 24 are lenses that can be used with considerable degree of success on MFDB. Want to have a semantic argument about what makes a MFDB lens an MFDB lens? Go have one somewhere else, because I won't entertain one.

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.
Just calm down. When I wrote my statement I didn't even think about the Canon lenses, just like you would never consider the Sigma 12-24 lens. I agree that they meet your expectations, and I agree that they perform well for your work.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I think you are over-reacting. No hard feeling please. If anything I said would make you upset you have my apologies.



Again, you put the sky in the corners so it could be that the softness blend into the sky and no one cares about upper corner sharpness. You might have shifted the lens upwards a bit so the bottom corner sharpness doesn't look bad at all. I admit that for such situation the 17 TS-E is a nice choice.
Oh, so right after your "apology", you go right ahead and accuse me of doing a similar thing again.

After this post, you can say what you like, because I won't be giving you another moment of my time.

But here's a handy little hint - that 100% crop isn't in the sky, and if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you'd know that you could calculate the exact amount of shift in that image from the position of the horizon.

I take it that you are quite confident when making this blowing statement. So you have tried the Sigma 12-24mm and Nikon 13mm f5.6 on an IQ250 already, and confirmed that they would not work? I assume that you are talking about facts that you could back up right?
I went through 3 copies of the Sigma 12-24 back in the days when I was shooting full frame DSLR. Compared to every other lens being discussed, it's a piece of junk on 35mm DSLR. Guess what - it's not going to suddenly turn into a great optic on a larger sensor.

If all you care about is just the angle of view,
Hold your horses. The reason why angle of view is being discussed is because YOU came out with this statement -

"If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough..."

We're addressing your stated limitations of the 23HR, and the ability of other lenses to address them.

Carry on...

then let's compute the diagonal fullframe-equivalent focal length assuming that the speculated lenses can cover the corresponding sensors:

17mm on IQ280: 17/(53.7^2+40.4^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.95mm
12mm on IQ250: 12/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 9.44mm
13mm on IQ250: 13/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.23mm
14mm on IQ250: 14/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 11.01mm

If either the Sigma 12-24mm or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 works, then your blowing statement is rendered false. I am unable to validate these.
Yes thank you for that, I can do the maths too.

The Sigma doesn't. End of conversation on that one. I've owned three.

The Nikon is a ridiculously tough lens to get hold of, very expensive, and if you even wanted to attempt to use it on a sensor larger than 35mm, the first thing you're going to have to do is shave the hood off because it will vignette on any larger format.

The chances of it covering 44x33? As close to zero as makes it absolutely pointless to even consider given its cost and rarity and the fact you'd have to butcher it to even test.

If you could call the Sigma 12-24 as junk, I could also call the 17 TS-E as junk. It's just a different degree of tolerance. These are not designed for 645 sensors after all.
No. Compared to the Sigma 12-24, the 17 is an astonishingly good lens - even on FF MFDB. I'd put the 17mm on a FF MFDB up against the Sigma at 12mm on any 35mm camera you want, and it will trounce it.

Unfortunately this will not work. See the calculations above. This will not be wider than the 17mm + IQ280 combo, if all you care about is the angle of view.
I don't have to look at your calculations. I've already done them. Did you even bother to read what I said? Here - let me repeat it for you and I'll even help you out by bolding the relevant bits:

"That's possibly the only other option that could come close, but it's yet to be proven. IF it can be demonstrated, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat because of the CMOS benefits the IQ250 sensor provides.

Frankly, if I told you what I thought about your "argument", I'd probably get a long ban from this place, and you're not worth it. 10.95mm against 11.01. Are you fricking kidding me?

From what I have seen, I can't figure out why the 23HR hard vignettes before the 24 TS-E. Unless one of us have made a mistake recording the amount of movement. Could you please clarify this with your test shots?
If you think I'm going to expend any more effort whatsoever in helping clarify something for you, you are very much mistaken.

My apologies to the OP for the way this has gone.

Disengaging.
 

stephengilbert

Active member
We see this too often. Someone joins the Forum and treats long standing, respected contributors as if they're trolls. I have no experience with these lenses, but do have experience with Gerald.
 

jimban

New member
Hi-

Thanks to everyone, Paul, Graham, Gerald, Michael, voidshatter. for your insights. Sorry for the brouhaha but the comments are a great help. Now all I need to do is pry open my wallet.

jim

BTW I've used the FPS with the IQ180 and 17mm & 24mm TS-E lenses but found them to be too soft after about 60mm IC. I think the combination with the IQ250 would be better. YMV
 

MILESF

Member
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
May I please ask if anyone uses a solid ND (not graduated) filter in this combination and if so which one(s) ? As far as I understand it the Lee Series 100 3, 6 and 10 stop filters are too small (100x100mm) and the Series 150 filters are too big (with no solid ND filters in that range). Series 100 Graduated ND's are of course not a problem.

Any suggestions/ideas ? Or am I barking up the wrong tree ?

There's also the wide angle lens hood as explained by Graham but this has to be CF-less and likely noisy in darker areas when the LLC is applied.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
A bit more on the hard vignette of the Rodenstock.

As I understand it the 23mm and 28mm Rodenstocks hard vignette by design. Rodenstock places some form of an image circle marker in the lens so to let the photographer know they are at the edge of the image circle. This is true on on all if the HR and on up lenses. As these lenses only have a 70mm image circle you hit the disk after about 6mm of shift on a full frame back. The 50MP back most likely would allow just a bit more due to the crop factor 1:3.

It's most unfortunate they do this as most of the lenses would work a bit pars this hard point determined by Rodenstock.

Back in Guys detailed review of the 28HR vs the 28XL Schneider there is discussion if this issue.

Paul
 
Top