Wide angle for arca R

[cunim]

I am settling the lens selection for my new (to me) Rm3di. Wonderful that I can now move lenses back and forth between the 3di and Monolith rail camera. That's the reason I sold the Alpa (sob) and the flexibility is working out as I had hoped.

Anyway, my present range is 70 - 210 mm. I need one quite wide lens in R mount and am trying to pick between the 32 and 40mm HR. I had the 40 previously, and liked it. On the other hand, why shift if you don't have to and the 32 would certainly help there.

I see lots of discussion of the 32, but wonder if experienced shooters end up feeling it is worth the trouble, what with the weight, filter troubles, fragility, and so forth. IOW, is shooting with the 32 rewarding enough to justify the hassle? Using the 40 is pretty simple, in comparison.

 

[stngoldberg]

It seems to me that one of the dealers who sponsor this site should be in the business of renting the lenses that fit onto these technical cameras so that potential customers like Cunim can make intelligent decisions
Stanley

 

[dougpeterson]

It seems to me that one of the dealers who sponsor this site should be in the business of renting the lenses that fit onto these technical cameras so that potential customers like Cunim can make intelligent decisions
Stanley

We provide customer several ways of doing such evaluations. However, given the niche nature, it's not feasible for us (or anyone, as far as I know) to have all lenses in all possible mounts at once. [23/28/28/32/35/35/43/47/60/70/72/90/90/120/150] for [Arca, Cambo, Phase A Series / Alpa].

That's one of the reasons we prioritize our own in house testing and real world shooting experience. I've never shot a 23HR side by side with a 28XL but I've shot with both and can provide customers some pros/cons of each.

 

[dougpeterson]

I am settling the lens selection for my new (to me) Rm3di. Wonderful that I can now move lenses back and forth between the 3di and Monolith rail camera. That's the reason I sold the Alpa (sob) and the flexibility is working out as I had hoped.

Anyway, my present range is 70 - 210 mm. I need one quite wide lens in R mount and am trying to pick between the 32 and 40mm HR. I had the 40 previously, and liked it. On the other hand, why shift if you don't have to and the 32 would certainly help there.

I see lots of discussion of the 32, but wonder if experienced shooters end up feeling it is worth the trouble, what with the weight, filter troubles, fragility, and so forth. IOW, is shooting with the 32 rewarding enough to justify the hassle? Using the 40 is pretty simple, in comparison.

Two very good options. Optically both are absolutely first rate even if the 32HR does have a slight edge in direct comparison. The 32mm is (duh) wider, but is larger, heavier, more expensive, more prone to flare, and does need some extra consideration when you're packing it to avoid the large lens element wearing on the shutter.

If you're looking for simplicity and minimalism I'd go with a 40. If you're looking for "the ultimate" I'd go with the 32HR.

The other consideration is what other lens(es) might be in your future, and providing room for those lengths. A 32HR doesn't leave room in a small kit for a 23HR (too close together if you only are going to have 3 or 4 total lenses) while a 40HR probably does. On the other hand a 32HR leaves room for the very nice Schneider 60XL while the 40HR would probably bump you up to the 70HR.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

As Doug said, it is difficult to have all or most of the lens models on hand in rental for technical cameras. It's not justified from strictly a rental standpoint, it does have value as a lens to demo, but in most cases, an in-hand demo is nice, but not always necessary.

That said, while we don't have a 32HR in our Arca Swiss R Lineup, since we carry all of the tech camera systems (Arca Swiss, Cambo, Alpa), we usually have the lens someone is looking for on one of those systems. So, it could be available for rental, you'd just possibly need to also rent a body to go with it. And naturally, we do offer evaluation rentals which can be applied toward the purchase.

Rental List

Or you could request a real world demo file - provide a specified subject matter and conditions you'd like a lens shot shot under, as well as which digital back you'l like to pair it with and we'll send you a customized raw file to your specifications.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

 

[cunim]

Thanks, all. I am in Canada, where the market is small and demo units limited. I will see what can be done.

Doug's point about stress on the shutter mount is well taken. I had a problem with my 90 HR going out of alignment and that was smaller than the 32. Pain sending to Germany for realignment.

The 40 sounds a better choice and I know it well. Not my favorite lens for some reason. There is a difference between an excellent lens and one that strikes you as really special. Not sure the 40 got there for me.

If I can't find a 32 to try, I'll go with the 40. As you point out, only a direct trial of the 32 would really justify a purchase - or not.

However practical the 40, I do admit to an attraction for the 32. I love big glass. My Grandagon 200 lives on an old Sinar in the middle of my office. Use it rarely but, sometimes, it tells me stories about what photography was.

 

[jagsiva]

If you are around London, ON, feel free to come and try out 23/32/40HR in R-mount. I have the 28HR on a lens board that you can try on the monorail. Depending on your definition of WA, the 60XL with its very large IC can give you a very wide FoV. I have the 60XL as well.

I think Walter has the 43X, which, depending on the back you have may be one to try out.

 

[jagsiva]

Two very good options. Optically both are absolutely first rate even if the 32HR does have a slight edge in direct comparison. The 32mm is (duh) wider, but is larger, heavier, more expensive, more prone to flare, and does need some extra consideration when you're packing it to avoid the large lens element wearing on the shutter.

Doug, my experience has been that the 32HR flares less than the 40HR. Not nearly as badly as the 23HR, but certainly more than the 32HR. When it is not outright flare, shooting into the sun or with the sun coming in from the side, it does tend to desaturate as well.

One negative you may have missed is that the CF is a real consideration for the 32HR, while it is not for the 40HR.

 

[Paul2660]

One other consideration on the 32, besides it being a bit delicate and front heavy, is the need for the CF. When I tested a 32mm, I found on center I was fine but when shifted (and to me that was the reason to purchase the 32mm) I felt that the shifts of 12mm to 15mm benefited greatly by using the CF.

The CF goes from 86mm to 105mm and you can put (1) 105mm slim filter in front of the CF before you hit the vignetting created by the filter.

Lee doesn't make an adapter to fit to the 105mm, you might be able to get their 95mm to 105mm filter adapter to work.

The CF is around 1K extra.

I have considered the 32mm many times, would not buy a used one due to the issues listed above. I have the 40mm and it's my main go to wide. I also have the 60XL, and feel it's still a better solution over the 70mm Rodie since Rodenstock puts device inside to show you when you hit the edge of the image circle. It's in all of their lenses. This creates a artificial vignette that is a hard edge and will ruin that top of the shot and bottom. If the 70mm has a larger IC than 90mm, then you may be OK. The 60XL has a 120mm IC (I believe I have that correct, it's either 110 or 120) and I have easily shifted it to 25mm on my IQ260 rm3di with the CF on the 60XL.

Paul

 

[cunim]

Thanks to all for the comments and advice. While I am very impressed by posted images from the 32, the 40 is more practical for my applications. That leaves me with 40, 70, and 120 macro in Rodenstock, and 120, 150 and 210 in Schneider.

Reviewing my 70mm images, that is a fine lens. Overshadowed by the 90 SW (which I lust after) - but a fine lens that is compact and reasonably priced.

 

[Ken_R]

Thanks to all for the comments and advice. While I am very impressed by posted images from the 32, the 40 is more practical for my applications. That leaves me with 40, 70, and 120 macro in Rodenstock, and 120, 150 and 210 in Schneider.

Reviewing my 70mm images, that is a fine lens. Overshadowed by the 90 SW (which I lust after) - but a fine lens that is compact and reasonably priced.

Hi, I have the 40mm HR along with the 70mm HR and love it. Great combination (w/ my RM3Di and IQ160).

I have traveled with only the 40mm HR. It's wide enough but not too wide and since it has a large, usable, image circle with very little vignetting and color cast it is a very versatile lens that is easy to filter. Its pretty small and light so it is very easy to travel with. It's a great "one lens quiver" for landscapes. I grab the 70mm for the more distant landscapes. Great lens also that has a VERY large usable image circle.

If I shot mostly Architecture with the RM3Di I might prefer the 32mm though.

 

[Wayne Fox]

I have the 28, 40, 70, and 90 (also Schneider 120 and coming rodie 180, both more for stitching)

I do stitch most things, but the 40 is my go to lens. 70mm is my second most used. The 90 and 120 are more recent, mostly for stitching so I’ll see how they work into the mix.

I’m headed to italy and currently am planning on only taking the 40 and 70 and maybe the 120 since it is very small and light. (well the lens is small, the extension box is a bit bulking but at least it doesn’t weigh much)