The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

[Stephan S]

Hey gang!

I’m sketching out a lens plan and I’m getting stuck on wides… Any advice?

I’ve got an Alpa MAX and TC on order with Rodenstock 90HR-W SB and 50HR SB lenses.
I own a DF+ 80mm and 55mm on IQ160

I’m biased toward the Rodies over Schneider because of their sharpness using wide apertures, large image circles for movements and stitching on the Max.
Half my shots are 3-4frame stitch and half single shot hand-held.

Obviously 90 and 50 are my two go-to focal lengths, but they’ve left me in a bind choosing a 3rd lens. As “good spacing” is usually 40HR -60XL -90HR or 32HR - 50HR - 90HR.

The elephant in the room is the 32HR. But, this lens is too big, too heavy, too wide and too costly for a lens I only use for a hand full of shots. Never mind the smell!

I love the no compromises 40HR. But I think even Dante would roll his eyes if I packed a 3 lens kit 40 - 50 - 90. The 40 is just a few mm too tight overall and especially next to a 50? Right?

I think a 36mm would be my perfect wide if you could talk me into Schneider:

Has anyone worked with the Schneider 36XL?
-It’s compact, has same 90 degree IC.
-But I would assume that only minimal movements would be useable
-It’s only available in LB (long barrel) so another compromise there.
ALPA of Switzerland - Manufacturers of remarkable cameras - Schneider/ALPA Apo-Switar 5.6/36 mm XL, LB

Is this comparable to the 35XL I see so many of you gleefully using?
I don’t see the 35XL listed on the alpa website as useable though?

Long time reader, first time posting here... Thanks!!

 

[kdphotography]

HR40.

Forum recommended. Dante Approved.

 

[miska]

I have also the 50mm and 90mm on an IQ160. As a wide, I got the 32mm. It's big, it's expensive, but it's gooooood. 'nuf said
Oh yes, it is Dante approved also.

 

[Paul2660]

I agree with Ken.

You mentioned stitching and the 40mm will go to about 18mm before the inner disc creates too harsh a vignette. No CF is needed on the 40mm.

The 35xl will go to about 8mm of shift on your back possibly 10mm if you don't have a lot of solid blue sky. It will need the CF and as you point out is really the best between F8 and F11.

The Rod can flare and really can't be shot at or nearly at the sun. The 35xl does very well in bright light.

Paul

 

[Stephan S]

Ah I see, Thanks Doug. To clear it up... I see there is a Rodi 35mm APO. And the Schneider 35mm-36mm XL.

The The 35 APO Rodie has a 105 degree IC, which sounds good on paper. But I think that's an older lens probably outperformed by the 40 or the 32.

 

[Stephan S]

Great point about the center filters Paul, I'd much prefer to work without them if at all possible.

18mm would be nice on the 40HR for rise/fall. Is the 40 much for stitching? or is it so wide that there isn't much need for it?

 

[kdphotography]

HR40 stitches just fine---just depends on the subject matter.



Three image stitch with Cambo WRS, HR40 t/s, and IQ180.

 

[Paul2660]

I stitch the 40 most of the time I take it out. It's a stitching dream lens tack sharp out to around 15mm past that unless you are at f11 I feel the last 3mm is a bit soft. But it may be my lens.

I have a older heliopan CF I on the 40 whe I am in low light. This is due to lack of shadow recovery with the Phase One 60mp CCD chips. They love light. In the field I often shot in very mixed lighting when working the smaller streams I like to hike.

I feel the the LCC correction by Phase One could be better on the 40mm as my shots still hold some red cast on shifts when I have a lot of solid blue sky. C1 with the ability to do WB adjustments on local layers helps out a lot here.


I also forgot to mention that you will see more microlens ripple with the SK35 on shifts and the LCC many times can't correct all of it.

Paul

 

[Jamgolf]

By all accounts 40mm is a superb lens so you can't go wrong there. For me personally though, 40mm + 50mm would be too close together. You could divest yourself of the 50mm and get a 40mm and SK60mm. That would get you to the 40/60/90 kit. But that 60mm is a Schneider not a Rodenstock (you mention your preference for Rodenstock).


Adding 32mm would give you what I consider a perfect 32/50/90 kit.

 

[torger]

The SK35XL (Alpa 36) is nice, I have it, but I would not recommend it for large movements on the IQ160, too much cast issues. I've had the old Rodie Sironar 35 too, but it's not as sharp as the SK35. The Rodie40 is a bit sharper when shifted than the SK35.

There's the Digaron-S 35mm too, should be very sharp but only 70mm IC.

 

[Jack]

IF I already had the 50, I'd go for the 32 and not bother with the 40.

That said, my favorite 3-lens formula has always been and even in film days was:
Normal at roughly the diagonal of the capture frame rounded to closest focal available; Wide at the short edge length of the capture frame rounded to nearest available; Tele at 2x the long edge side of the capture frame, but here I'd always round up to available focal.

 

[Stephan S]

Interesting Jack, I'm not familiar with this formula. What is the "short edge length of the capture frame? Could you list one lens selection as an example?

Wide at the short edge length of the capture frame rounded to nearest available; Tele at 2x the long edge side of the capture frame,..

 

[danlindberg]

HR 32. Dante approved. Nuff said.

 

[Jamgolf]

Interesting Jack, I'm not familiar with this formula. What is the "short edge length of the capture frame? Could you list one lens selection as an example?

I am not Jack, but I believe this is what he is referring to...

Example for a 40x54mm sensor

Normal
at roughly the diagonal of the capture frame => 67.2mm
rounded to closest focal available => ~70mm

Wide
at the short edge length of the capture frame => 40mm
rounded to nearest available => 40mm

Tele
at 2x the long edge side of the capture frame => 108mm
but here I'd always round up to available focal => 120mm

 

[jagsiva]

32HR for a no compromise solution.

40HR if you plan on replacing the 50 at some point with the 60XL. The 60XL is a great lens, up there with the latest Rodies, as is the new SK 120ASPH.

I don't thing the 35XL in the same league any of the lenses above.

Between the 32HR and 40HR, leaving out price/weight/size, I always reach for the 32HR. I find it flares less and is marginally better overall than the 40HR.

 

[kdphotography]

Ok, it's settled then.

Stephan---you need to buy the 32HR, 40HR, and SK60.

That'll make a really nice 32/40/50/60/90 kit. :ROTFL:

Next....



32HR with CF is pricey---and the right lens in the line-up. But *ouch*
40HR is much easier to use (no CF) and a somewhat more palatable price. I bet the price of the 32HR with CF is pretty darn close to the price of the 40HR and SK60 combined....and certainly more palatable if you part with the 50mm....

 

[dchew]

I started out close to Jack's formula: 40, 70, 100 and 150 (I gapped around the 2x long edge).

What got me to change to the 40, 60, 90 and 150 was the need to sometimes take only one or two lenses. The 60xl is wide enough and shifts a little better for a 1-lens solution, and for me the 60/90 combo is a great 2-lens kit. Taking fewer lenses at times may not be a consideration for some, but it was important to me.

So I'm obviously in the 40/60 camp. But ooh that 32! If you like shooting that wide then by all means... (See how I did that Sir Dante?)

Check out Dan's recent posts in the tech cam thread. He is obviously enjoying the 32!

Dave

 

[danlindberg]

Check out Dan's recent posts in the tech cam thread. He is obviously enjoying the 32!

Dave

Love it!

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi Stephan -

I hear you on the 32mm - it is really large, heavy, high maintenance (care must be taken due to the high contrast ratio of lens size to shutter size). And you may not use it that often. But it is one of the most rewarding lenses you can ever shoot with. It would potentially have the added advantage of capturing the same scene in fewer shots than the 40mm in many instances. The 40 is also great, and you'll have the savings on size/weight, and a couple grand in your pocket.

Just a note on the Alpa versions of the Schneider Digitars, since you mentioned it - the Alpa 36XL Helvetar is indeed based on the Schneider 35mm APO Digitar lens, but Alpa typically labels closer to the actual focal length (hence the 47mm is 48mm, the 72mm is 75mm, etc). They also in some cases adjust the filter size. The 36mm Helvetar is a very good lens for a cropped sensor P45+, for example, but not a lens that is easy to grow with (as one would upgrade to larger sensors) for shifting out into the edge of the available image circle.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

 

[Paul2660]

No doubt the 32mm is an excellent optic.

Things to consider with it:

1. As already mentioned, it has a huge weight in front of the Copal shutter and thus you really have to be careful when placing a camera on the ground with the lens mounted. Rodenstock even mentions that this is not recommended due to possible shock. Net you can dislodge the front of the lens from the shutter enough to get it misaligned.

2. Should you use the CF or not. I have shot this lens 2x, and once it had the CF and the other did not. I felt the images I took benefited from the CF on shifts. NOTE, if you are using a CMOS back, then I don't feel that the CF would be a requirement due to the huge amount of shadow recovery that is possible.

2A, If you have the CF installed, you now are at 105mm. You can probably mount 1 thin filter in front before you see serious vignetting. So if you use filters (I do) then this needs to be taken into consideration

3. If you add a Lee hood or other style hood to the front of the 32mm, you are adding even more weight to the front of the lens. Thus more possible strain is being placed on the front. Adding a filter slot to the Lee hood would contribute more to this.

4. Lee's hood allows for the 105mm ring to be added to the front of the hood, so you can place a CL-PL or other filter, (note Lee now has a slim CL-PL to fit this ring). I think if you add the ring to your hood on a 32mm Rod, it's going to instantly vignette as the diameters are both 105mm. But others may have experience with this.

5. The 32mm is said to have less flare issues than the 40mm, so a hood may not be as important. Both times I shot the 32mm on my rm3di, I was positioned with the sun behind me and had no issues with flare or ghosting.

I have been up and down on this lens way too many times. The extra care issues I can handle and the weight, since I could cut out my 40mm and 28mm. But the filter issues are a problem for me as I am an outdoor landscape shooter, I often need ND filters and a CL-PL combination.

Best solution would be to try to demo it.

Paul