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!

SK 35xl vs 43xl

TsurTriger

New member
I didn't find any comparison between those two lens.
One, as far as I know, is still on production (the 43xl) and one is discontinued (35xl).
But the 43xl has IC 110mm and I know that IC size is in contrast to the MFT and sharpness on the image, especially with high resolution sensors (smaller pixels).

How is the 43xl compare to 35xl?
How is the 43xl compare to the 40HR?

I noticed that most of the "heavy" users with high resolution backs are prefer the 40HR as the wide angle lens. Although the SK 43xl has its benefits over the 40HR.

Any real life experience will be more than welcome.
 
Not sure about the 43XL, but if you look into multiple comparisons made by Digital Transitions (test 1, test 2), you would be able to notice that the Rodenstock 40mm HR is way sharper in the corner than the 35XL. Interestingly, Digital Transitions decided to hide the RAW files of vertically shifted images for the 40HR in test 2, probably trying to prevent the potential buyers from seeing the vertical banding artifacts in the sky (note that this vertical banding artifact can also be seen in the 35XL images).

If you look into Alpa's website (35XL, 43XL and 40HR) you could also find that the 35XL and the 43XL actually perform quite similarly. I would assume that the 43XL is just a slightly zoomed in version of the 35XL, with the same design, structure and MTF characteristics.

One thing that prevented me from going for the 35XL or the 43XL was because Paula at Linhof Studio just informed me that the center filters for these two lenses (IIa and IIJ) are both discontinued.

31.JPG
 
Last edited:

f8orbust

Active member
The 35XL is a cracking lens - small, light, sharp, distortion free, beautiful rendering, no flare. Not as shiftable as the 40 (but the 35 is significantly wider), and doesn't behave as well (when shifted) with the 80MP and 100MP DBs, but still a great lens and still popular with many pros.

Take a look at Julian Calverley's website, 95% of the landscape stuff there was taken with the 35.

Jim

P.S. The 35 can be tricky to focus, due to field curvature. You'd want to shoot it at f11. For me, the top photo looks like it has as much to do with poor focussing as it has to do with reaching the edge of the IC. Just my 2c. See this thread.

P.P.S. The 43XL is a gem as well.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Interestingly, Digital Transitions decided to hide the RAW files of vertically shifted images for the 40HR in test 2, probably trying to prevent the potential buyers from seeing the vertical banding artifacts in the sky (note that this vertical banding artifact can also be seen in the 35XL images).
I find that extremely insulting. You seem to be reading the exact opposite intention into the test. Far from trying to "hide" potential issues this test was done to reveal them.

We purposefully set up this particular test to be stressful (lots of color and detail throughout the range of movement), and released them with a report that highlights the several ways in which a specific back may fail when coupled with a symmetrical wide-angle lens (loss of color fidelity, artifacts, light falloff, sharpness falloff, etc). The entire purpose of this test was to show which lenses work with which backs at what amounts of movement, and what happens when they fail. It was a wild success in that regard as I've seen them used on this forum and in many other places, to show the potential issues. Movements not tested are clearly not compatible. For example we didn't do max rise with the 23HR and the IQ3 100mp (since that lens has an image circle that can barely support a few mm of rise)... are we "hiding" the results (rolls eyes)?

We have created a catalog of hundreds of Phase One raws from hundreds of hours of testing (here are the 100mp raw files), under a variety of stress tests. We provide them at no cost, including to the 80% of people who download them who don't live in the US and therefore could never be our customers. We do this despite knowing that on the internet anything you offer like this will be picked apart pixel by pixel with every possible criticism of the test aired and every possible nit picked.

So you can see where I'm more than a bit insulted.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
A few notes, on both lenses based on use with IQ160, IQ180 and IQ150.

The 35XL, I feel needs a CF all the time, otherwise the corners will just have too much noise, period. The max shift on the 60MP backs, is around 8mm and on 80MP 5mm. Past this and the color cast, is just too extreme for the LCC to correct. The 35XL is a very sharp lens, as other mentioned and performs best in the F8 to F11 apertures. As to the images taken by DT, I can't comment, but the corners on my 35XL are very sharp, non shifted. It should be very sharp across the frame. If you shift past 8mm on a 60MP, you will start to also excessive smearing in the corners. I used this lens for most of 4 years and only put it down for the 40 Rodenstock as the 40mm has much better shifting performance on the higher MP backs. And the 40mm does not need a CF. For my style of shooting, I tended to add a bit of downward tilt to the 35XL. The 35XL also is great lens to pan with (mainly with the camera vertical, but it also works well horizontally). You will see much less of the retrofocus issues such as the edges becoming elongated and fatten, something that is very visible on the 40mm, and worse on the 32mm Rrodenstocks.

The 43XL, can shift to around 18mm on the 60MP backs and 12MP on the 80MP backs, if you are going to shift this much then a CF is a necessity. Center shots are very nice, but again, I always added tilt. I picked up the 43, as I wanted to be able to shift further than the 35mm and Schneider did not have the IC indicator in their lenses, which allows you to shift without a hard vignette when reaching the limits of the IC.

Both of these lenses, are prone to micro lens ripple on the Phase CCD backs on shifts past 4mm, but the LCC process does a great job of removing this problem.

The Rodenstocks are excellent also, but are more expensive, and considerably heavier and bulkier, (especially the 32mm).

I would work with a dealer that is familiar with your digital back, the tech camera you either own or are interested in, with both of these lenses, to get the best opinion. As you have mentioned both Schneider is no longer making any of the tech lenses (to the best of my knowledge), so that also may be an issue for repairs or adjustments to these lenses in the future.

This image was taken with an IQ160 and 35XL, nodal panned, not shifted and is extremely sharp throughout the image.



Paul Caldwell
 
I find that extremely insulting. You seem to be reading the exact opposite intention into the test. Far from trying to "hide" potential issues this test was done to reveal them.

We purposefully set up this particular test to be stressful (lots of color and detail throughout the range of movement), and released them with a report that highlights the several ways in which a specific back may fail when coupled with a symmetrical wide-angle lens (loss of color fidelity, artifacts, light falloff, sharpness falloff, etc). The entire purpose of this test was to show which lenses work with which backs at what amounts of movement, and what happens when they fail. It was a wild success in that regard as I've seen them used on this forum and in many other places, to show the potential issues. Movements not tested are clearly not compatible. For example we didn't do max rise with the 23HR and the IQ3 100mp (since that lens has an image circle that can barely support a few mm of rise)... are we "hiding" the results (rolls eyes)?

We have created a catalog of hundreds of Phase One raws from hundreds of hours of testing (here are the 100mp raw files), under a variety of stress tests. We provide them at no cost, including to the 80% of people who download them who don't live in the US and therefore could never be our customers. We do this despite knowing that on the internet anything you offer like this will be picked apart pixel by pixel with every possible criticism of the test aired and every possible nit picked.

So you can see where I'm more than a bit insulted.
You provided many useful comparisons which we (the community) appreciate. Your Morgan Library test has become the golden standard for technical camera lens tests. Without such tests, it would have become much harder for many of us to make decisions.

However, if you are familiar with the vertical banding artifact (i.e. when a CMOS digital back is heavily shifted along the shorter edge) of the sky, then why would you hide such shots for the 32HR, 40HR, 50HR etc (presumably revenue generating Digaron HR-W series) while you show such shots for the 35XL (prone to discontinuity) and 23HR (not so well sold Digaron HR-S)? I could hardly think of any other explanation. The real right thing to do imo, is that you (as an influential person) push Phase One to improve the LCC algorithm, just as Hasselblad does in Phocus, and release the vertically shifted images for the 32HR, 40HR, 50HR etc. However, I'm not in a position to judge what you should do, as what you have done is already appreciated.

By the way, I have noticed that you replied to my thread about red shadow cast of IQ3 100MP during long exposure, saying that the issue has been addressed with the latest firmware, while my friend confirmed the opposite (though without supplying a RAW file to me).
 
Last edited:

TsurTriger

New member
Thanks to all of you. All your inputs are very useful.
I'll keep the lens, 35xl, at F/11 all the time if it the sweet point for this lens. I do use it mainly at my studio, so it not an issue to use constant aperture.
 
Top