NWS 23mm & 110mm APO lenses in Hasselblad V-mount

[jng]

Go figure. So then it would mount to, and focus at infinity on, a Hassy 200 series or 500 series, or could be mounted to a Phase One DF+ or Phase One XF via adapter.

For those using a digital back with a sensor-based electronic shutter such as the IQ3 100mp or IQ4 100mp or IQ4 150mp that would seem to be a broadly workable solution on a 500 series. For those using other digital backs they would be limited to the 200 series (for the limited range of backs that work on that) or a Phase One DF+ or Phase One XF since those three have focal plane shutters.

Hi Doug,

Yes, it seems an odd coincidence that the flange distance is the same as on the V-series bodies given the stated incompatibility, although as someone else here has spectulated, it's possible that a protruding rear element might interfere with the mirror. This might be a non-issue when adapted to a Phase/Mamiya body with the shorter mirror (6x4.5 vs. 6x6)? And at least to my knowledge, there are no V-mount digital backs with electronic shutter.

John

 

[vjbelle]

Info says 74.9mm 23APO - NWS Instruments AG

FFD would be more than sufficient for a GFX. The image circle should be large enough for movements of 15mm.

Victor

 

[dougpeterson]

The top line of the NWS 23 Apo shows the same frequency (40 LP/mm). If that would be true it would mean this lens is much sharper than the TS-E 24mm L II. But with about 5% distortion while the TS-E 24mm L II has close to zero. A distortion of 5% is quite an unfortunate decision for a lens that is marketed together with a kind of view camera. Otherwise it would have been an amazing choice for architecture.

IMO for those lenses profiled in Capture One (which allows raw-based distortion correction, including with movements applied) a few percent of distortion is not really a big problem.

To borrow the tree-falling metaphor... if a lens distorts, but you never see the distortion, does it really matter? The answer is, IMO, "yes, but not as much as you'd think". You can lose a very small amount of sharpness as the pixels get pushed around to undistorted the image, but for a few percent of distortion this isn't a huge effect. You lose a bit of effective focal length since you have to slightly crop into the frame post-correction, but at a few percent of distortion this too isn't that much of an effect.

In short, I'd much rather have a sharp lens that has distortion (assuming it's profiled in my raw software of choice) than an unsharp lens that is free of distortion.

Of course we're all just speculating. I place very little value in MTF charts (they are an imperfect description of a small part of real-wold performance on 3D subjects). The rubber hits the road when you can do actual raw-file testing in the field in real situations. The management and optical designers of this company have a great pedigree so there is reason to be optimistic, but as they say in finance: past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Accordingly, I've contacted them to inquire about a test copy.

 

[MrSmith]

Hi Doug,

Yes, it seems an odd coincidence that the flange distance is the same as on the V-series bodies given the stated incompatibility, although as someone else here has spectulated, it's possible that a protruding rear element might interfere with the mirror. This might be a non-issue when adapted to a Phase/Mamiya body with the shorter mirror (6x4.5 vs. 6x6)? And at least to my knowledge, there are no V-mount digital backs with electronic shutter.

John

I would imagine these lenses are aimed at the growing market of mirrorless MFD and for tilt/shift on 35mm systems, probably a bigger market than anything with a flappy mirror.

 

[marc aurel]

IMO for those lenses profiled in Capture One (which allows raw-based distortion correction, including with movements applied) a few percent of distortion is not really a big problem.

To borrow the tree-falling metaphor... if a lens distorts, but you never see the distortion, does it really matter? The answer is, IMO, "yes, but not as much as you'd think". You can lose a very small amount of sharpness as the pixels get pushed around to undistorted the image, but for a few percent of distortion this isn't a huge effect. You lose a bit of effective focal length since you have to slightly crop into the frame post-correction, but at a few percent of distortion this too isn't that much of an effect.

In short, I'd much rather have a sharp lens that has distortion (assuming it's profiled in my raw software of choice) than an unsharp lens that is free of distortion.

Of course we're all just speculating. I place very little value in MTF charts (they are an imperfect description of a small part of real-wold performance on 3D subjects). The rubber hits the road when you can do actual raw-file testing in the field in real situations. The management and optical designers of this company have a great pedigree so there is reason to be optimistic, but as they say in finance: past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Accordingly, I've contacted them to inquire about a test copy.

High Doug,

I agree, we will have to wait and see the real life performance. Generally I am very pleased to see someone making a lens like that. They did not show a photo of that but in the text they say there will be a shift adapter too (which I would prefer over a view cam setting because I only need shift). Lets hope for a good new option. It would be great if you could test a copy.

About distortion correction: I agree that 5% of distortion are not a real problem concerning sharpness. My comment was more about the workflow. You always need to know the amount of shift in x- and y-axis for correcting in software (can be tricky sometimes). While Capture One does a great job on that with shifted lenses - I am just not a big fan of C1s interface and workflow and prefer Lightroom. I wish Lightroom would have a functionality like C1 concerning the correction of shifted lenses. That's why I am so glad about Canon's new TS-E 50mm and TS-E 90mm L: they are razor sharp across the whole image circle and have practically no distortion.
Having lenses like that around 24mm and 35mm for my GFX would be a dream come true. But you can't have it all it seems

Marc

 

[bab]

When I inquired about H mount lenses possibility in future productions this was the response from the company.

Thank you for your interest in our products.

We do not make H- camera backs or lenses. Our lenses have a Hasselblad V-compatible mount, not H. We decided to use the V-mount due to its widespread ownership and the range of accessories already owned and used by many expert photographers. Some H- to V- adapters may be compatible with our lenses but there will very likely be clearance and electrical contact interference issues that we cannot influence.

Hope this helps and please stay tuned for more details about our progress through our website.

 

[sog1927]

Go figure. So then it would mount to, and focus at infinity on, a Hassy 200 series or 500 series, or could be mounted to a Phase One DF+ or Phase One XF via adapter.

For those using a digital back with a sensor-based electronic shutter such as the IQ3 100mp or IQ4 100mp or IQ4 150mp that would seem to be a broadly workable solution on a 500 series. For those using other digital backs they would be limited to the 200 series (for the limited range of backs that work on that) or a Phase One DF+ or Phase One XF since those three have focal plane shutters.

Except, if you look at the renderings on the individual lens pages, it sure looks like the rear element protrudes past the flange. It might possibly extend into the mirror box - with unpleasant consequences if one tried to use it on, say, a 203FE without locking the mirror up first.

Then again, that's just a rendering and not a photo of the actual lens.

 

[fotoism]

They just put it on Kiskstarter here yesterday. Interesting.

 

[cuida1991]

any recent news about this company and the lenses? it seems the website is down somehow. Do they close the production?

 

[joakim]

if you look at the linked Kickstarter page (post #28) you will see that the project was cancelled. It looks like they received only a fraction of the funding they needed.

 

[ruebe]

it appears that the company is on the verge of termination (see link)

NWS Instruments AG in Liquidation | Moneyhouse

NWS Instruments AG in Liquidation in Lenzburg ✓ in liquidation ✓ Founded 2016 ✓ Management: Matthias Fridolin Becker et al. ✓

www.moneyhouse.ch

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Insane - they canceled the kickstarter after 1.5 weeks and there was practically no interest. What a shame for an interesting product! It is very tough to develop a new lens range as a no-name.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Funny that this has come up again, I just happened to look up the link last week to see if there was any progress. There's never enough good lenses available and I was looking forward to these seeing the light of day. Oh well.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Alkibiades]

23 mm shift lens on the optical level like Fuji 30 mm T/S, with the possibility to use on different systems- a dream.
But the price is probably too high for no name company.
We live in a totally globalized world, so I ask myself why such ambitious but very small companies could not work together with bigger companies that cant offer this optical quality but could produce such lenses much, much cheaper. For example Laova- a company that can produce solid shift lenses, with nice mechanic, but cant acheave a real high-end optical standart.
High-end optical glasses and superior lens design meets solid but cheap mechanical production.
So german- or swiss knowledge meets chinese production...
What i mean is something like Sigma- real high end lenses, well made, with same optical quality like the other high end producers but much cheaper.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

What's crazy about this is that they people involved were top notch - ie former CEO of Leica, former head of optical construction at Leica, etc.; ie all was in place and firm was founded in 2016, so they really worked hard on this - only to see zero interest. I mean looks like no lenses were pre-sold.

 

[Alkibiades]

The problem is that nobody will spend so much money for a lens that never have been testet in the practical use, that nobody has ever seen, from a small company that nobody ever heard about.
When Leica or Zeiss would develope such superior lens that would be a different story.
I wonder that leica was never interested in developing shift lenses. They simply relabeld Schneider shift lenses.
Fuji 30 mm T/S is a big point now for going into Fuji system.
Leica could go also in a similar direction, do some really special lenses, that nobody else can offer. this is something that i expect from a premium lensmaker.
I am sure that would be not a big deal for leica user to pay 6 k for a leica 23 mm shift lens.

 

[cuida1991]

I was very interested in their 23/3.5 because they claim a better performance on 4150 than hr-23. Hopefully one day the lens can go back to production.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The company is in liquidation, ie dead ... meaning people moved on.

Its super tough to develop a new MF lens in this market, have salary and location costs in Switzerland - it won't come back, in all likelihood, unfortunately

 

[wattsy]

Did a single demonstration/review example of either lens (or the view camera mount thing) ever exist or was the whole "start-up" only ever a few people with good credentials and a bunch of CGI visuals? The whole episode seems a bit strange to me.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Well it seems like there exists at least one prototype of each lens, but I'd think there are a few. They posted sample images online ... Prototypes that cost an incredible amount of money to build if you roll in all the costs to setup and run the company for a few years incl. salaries, tooling, etc.