Alkibiades
Well-known member
this would be the point.
Ideal for natural look would be 60 xl or 43xl. both will shine on BSI 100c sensor, and here is the place for a technical camera that can do a big and precise stich.
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!
Fuji GF 30T/S, Digaron-W32mmHR, Digaron-S35mmHR, ZeissDistagonPC35mm comparision
- Thread starter Alkibiades
- Start date
Ideal for natural look would be 60 xl or 43xl. both will shine on BSI 100c sensor, and here is the place for a technical camera that can do a big and precise stich.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
That’s the whole point of the IQ4 - the SK60 is the ultimate Archi lens. You can literally rise the 30mm on the Arcs Rm3Di and there is no limit to the IC.
Everything is straight and proportions look natural … I also think the TS30 is the new kid on the block, so everyone wants to play with it right now, but there is just something about SK glass on tech cams … and the allure of it is intrinsic to the symmetric lens construction and the LFesque workflow in composing and creating stitches.
The allure will even increase more if we see, I hope at least, an IQ5 with advanced I/O, ie EVF compatibility.
Of course from a value perspective the Fuji beats everything given price, but you have limitations around choice of lenses, stitching and it is retro focus. Everything has pros and cons.
Everything is straight and proportions look natural … I also think the TS30 is the new kid on the block, so everyone wants to play with it right now, but there is just something about SK glass on tech cams … and the allure of it is intrinsic to the symmetric lens construction and the LFesque workflow in composing and creating stitches.
The allure will even increase more if we see, I hope at least, an IQ5 with advanced I/O, ie EVF compatibility.
Of course from a value perspective the Fuji beats everything given price, but you have limitations around choice of lenses, stitching and it is retro focus. Everything has pros and cons.
Last edited:
I'm sorry that I misunderstand you - and glad I did.
When I use a Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad with t/s lenses for assignments, more than 50% of the images are stitches, 2 or 3 stitch, and this works very well - most of the times - interior can be tricky, due to movement of the lens, but you learn what to look after over time so, and when creating a panorama in photoshop, you can incorporate an action showing a line where the stitch is, for an easy inspection, so in a practical workflow it's usable.
But yes, a tech cam is a joy to use for multiple stitches.
The image circle of the 24 XL is big enough for a 44 x 33 sensor (+- 2mm shift) but you need the CF which is very prone to internal reflections.
When photographing interiors with a window view (which is very often the case),
there is often a foggy circle in the middle of the picture.
But the same applies to all Schneider CFs, which is why I changed my 28 Super XL for the 28HR and never regretted it...
With the P45+, the image circle of the 24 XL was very tight and the corners were not crisp and sharp.
diggles
Well-known member
Here are a couple of images I made while testing out the 30TS that illustrate why you would want to stitch diagonally. Please excuse the harsh afternoon light.
Here is the image without any shift:
I am standing where I am because I want the spacing of the soffit to be even all the way around. If I simply shift up then I won't be able to get the left side of the building in the shot. If I turn the camera to get the left side of the building then I ruin my 1 point perspective.
The solution is diagonal shifting at 300° + 11.7mm shift with a TS lens or left about 5mm and up about 10mm with X+Y shifting on a tech cam. Same result. You get your 1 point perspective, the soffit remains even all the way around, and the whole building is in the shot.
diggles
Well-known member
My experience with the 35XL is that a usable image circle of 75mm is accurate if the top of the image is mostly sky, but a generous number if you need edge to edge sharpness. An image circle of 'only' 70mm with edge to edge sharpness still makes it a useful lens. If your copy shows a 75mm+ IC with edge to edge sharpness that is great news! Looking forward to seeing the results of your tests.
diggles
Well-known member
10mm of shift is just within the published 70mm image circle. I'm wondering if the C1 lens correction tool will fix distortions outside of the 70mm published image circle. Have you tried it?
The reason I ask is that with the Blue Ring 35mm and the Contax 645 35mm, the C1 lens correction tool does not fix distortion outside of their published image circle.
rdeloe
Well-known member
A 70mm image circle on 33mm x 44mm is 9mm of shift on the long edge, which can be very helpful. I don't shoot architecture so I can do a lot of what I do with modest amounts of shift.
Interestingly, I wasn't look at this lens because on my F-Universalis outfit, I can only shift it 8.5mm before hitting the side of the GFX mount. But it sounds like there isn't a lot more shift room anyway...
Ohh yes, I now remember those, they where dreadful with the 24XL - even the 35 XL with centerfilter could cause a fair amount of flare/foggy parts and also duplicate reflection from light fixtures and so on.
So when the 60mp CCD backs was introduced and "forced" you to invest in Rodenstock glass instead, I was also very happy to get rid of those, they ruined more images than noisy corners of a LCC corrected Rodenstock images without centerfilter.
But, you then have to deal with the distortion of the Rodenstock.... no free lunch here apparently
corvus
Active member
This corresponds to the information that SK once published in their data sheet for the Apo-Digitar 5.6/35 XL - see last page on image circles and image angles. However, they state 70mm IC at open aperture f/5.6 - by stopping down to f/11 it should be 90mm. I'm sure you've already stopped down, Warren ... perhaps at f/8-f/11?
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
On the 35XL on IQ4:
I got somewhere between 13-15mm rise in horizontal position easily with LCC that fully cleans up after practicising a bit the LCC process.
I even got to 22mm of rise and still was able to clean up the image although with tiling artifacts. I also saw very slight tiling around the 15mm mark, which was LCCed away. So if you are careful, have the right CF you will be able to go beyond 10mm. Without CF below 10mm.
I've heard that there are sample variations over time due to the shutter or ex factory, mine is a mint Alpa 35 XL so basically it went through extra QC back in the day and the condition shows that it was handled with care.
I need to find proper time to go out, but honestly on the IQ4, with the IIf, this is a great lens. I initially thought 8-10mm is the max, but I think it is more if you work well.
By extension on the CFV100c it is under-rated. You need the original CF, though as the light falloff is strong.
Here just the top part of of an image somehwere between 13-15mm rise ... (I can't show the bottom as there are people, but suffice is to say that 15mm rise on 35mm on IQ4 is a huge angle of view). I will try to find time to do some building shots.
That's cleaned up with LCC.
I've tested for a few days the Digaron 35-S, but it has almost no rise on the full frame chip and distorts quite a bit and on top close elements towards the edges flee easily due to the retrofocus design and I didn't like at all this strong retrofocus effect. If you photograph a person in the middel with the 35S they will look thin in the face and if they happen to be on the edge they will look weirdly pulled out.
On a 35 XL even on the far edge of the image proportions are kept like they are in nature – that's the reason why symmetrical designs are unparalleled for geometric representation. Look at these people on the far left of an IQ4 frame on the 35 XL – these are the real proportions. On a retrofocus lens the software will correct these proportions by pulling around pixels at the edges and centre which will distort known proportions on top of the optical distortions by design.
Lines will look ok, but known proportions are at risk ...
They look perfectly natural. The face shape from the side is accurate, the car's grill is not distorted or wider than in reality ... buildings look right up to the far edge.
With the 35-S you can, of course, photograph buildings and C1 distortion correct them, but as soon as you have close elements or people in the middle not too far away (strong environmental portrait even) or on the edges it becomes ... squeezed or elongated. You need to pay super attention with it. If you don't mind LCC, the 35 SK XL is fantastic on IQ4 or CFV100c and arguably superior over the Rodie 35 which has a really limited IC and suffers from distortion.
35S is still great on a crop back, but you get the Rodie deal – crispness wide open and lack of LCC vs. retrofocus distortion and small IC. IQ4 mitigates the CC issue to a large extent, so it becomes purely a workflow thing. Its about knowing the limitations and willing to accept them. R35S would be perfect for a compact landscape or walkaround camera, very controlled architectural photography with no compositional problems with far out or close elements, etc. The F4 aperture without need for CF is the main draw in my view.
So ... I think at 1.5-2k market price 35XLs are great deals and they are still in good supply. So an absolute no-brainer for the crop back IMHO, even if you yourself have an IQ4 and only feel comfortable with 10mm rise, where I see excellent results.
Without CF you will, on the crop back, still have enough rise and on top there are other filter you can attach, like the II, which will also mitigate any effects.
Symmetry is a beautiful thing ... and with BSI the tradeoff has become fully negotiable while it was non-negotiable during the pre-BSI era.
The 35S has its reasons to exist – I am longing for one for walkaround and fast aperture = shutter speed. The 35 XL at F11-16 and with CF needs tripod ... clearly, not ideal for walkaround given lack of X shutter and slow shutter speeds ...
I got somewhere between 13-15mm rise in horizontal position easily with LCC that fully cleans up after practicising a bit the LCC process.
I even got to 22mm of rise and still was able to clean up the image although with tiling artifacts. I also saw very slight tiling around the 15mm mark, which was LCCed away. So if you are careful, have the right CF you will be able to go beyond 10mm. Without CF below 10mm.
I've heard that there are sample variations over time due to the shutter or ex factory, mine is a mint Alpa 35 XL so basically it went through extra QC back in the day and the condition shows that it was handled with care.
I need to find proper time to go out, but honestly on the IQ4, with the IIf, this is a great lens. I initially thought 8-10mm is the max, but I think it is more if you work well.
By extension on the CFV100c it is under-rated. You need the original CF, though as the light falloff is strong.
Here just the top part of of an image somehwere between 13-15mm rise ... (I can't show the bottom as there are people, but suffice is to say that 15mm rise on 35mm on IQ4 is a huge angle of view). I will try to find time to do some building shots.
That's cleaned up with LCC.
I've tested for a few days the Digaron 35-S, but it has almost no rise on the full frame chip and distorts quite a bit and on top close elements towards the edges flee easily due to the retrofocus design and I didn't like at all this strong retrofocus effect. If you photograph a person in the middel with the 35S they will look thin in the face and if they happen to be on the edge they will look weirdly pulled out.
On a 35 XL even on the far edge of the image proportions are kept like they are in nature – that's the reason why symmetrical designs are unparalleled for geometric representation. Look at these people on the far left of an IQ4 frame on the 35 XL – these are the real proportions. On a retrofocus lens the software will correct these proportions by pulling around pixels at the edges and centre which will distort known proportions on top of the optical distortions by design.
Lines will look ok, but known proportions are at risk ...
They look perfectly natural. The face shape from the side is accurate, the car's grill is not distorted or wider than in reality ... buildings look right up to the far edge.
With the 35-S you can, of course, photograph buildings and C1 distortion correct them, but as soon as you have close elements or people in the middle not too far away (strong environmental portrait even) or on the edges it becomes ... squeezed or elongated. You need to pay super attention with it. If you don't mind LCC, the 35 SK XL is fantastic on IQ4 or CFV100c and arguably superior over the Rodie 35 which has a really limited IC and suffers from distortion.
35S is still great on a crop back, but you get the Rodie deal – crispness wide open and lack of LCC vs. retrofocus distortion and small IC. IQ4 mitigates the CC issue to a large extent, so it becomes purely a workflow thing. Its about knowing the limitations and willing to accept them. R35S would be perfect for a compact landscape or walkaround camera, very controlled architectural photography with no compositional problems with far out or close elements, etc. The F4 aperture without need for CF is the main draw in my view.
So ... I think at 1.5-2k market price 35XLs are great deals and they are still in good supply. So an absolute no-brainer for the crop back IMHO, even if you yourself have an IQ4 and only feel comfortable with 10mm rise, where I see excellent results.
Without CF you will, on the crop back, still have enough rise and on top there are other filter you can attach, like the II, which will also mitigate any effects.
Symmetry is a beautiful thing ... and with BSI the tradeoff has become fully negotiable while it was non-negotiable during the pre-BSI era.
The 35S has its reasons to exist – I am longing for one for walkaround and fast aperture = shutter speed. The 35 XL at F11-16 and with CF needs tripod ... clearly, not ideal for walkaround given lack of X shutter and slow shutter speeds ...
Last edited:
Paul,
I seem to recall that tiling with the 35XL is more difficult to correct on less featured subject areas like blue sky. Do you find this to be the case? I also recall that @diggles had a method for correcting this, although it was a bit involved. For these and other reasons, I decided to stick with my 40HR as architecture-for-a-living is not in my remit.
John
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
I saw tiling at somewhere between 10-15mm on the IQ4. You will need, on a blue sky, likely have to resort to the PS trick to invert the LCC frame with a divide layer. Diggles made a post with it. And be reminded – I have the IIf CF on it. Without CF the light falloff is strong.
I am new to this lens as I snapped it up as I figured they might become rarer with the CFV100c, but I will report back in the coming days once I find time to do some proper testing.
It may very well be that you need to distinguish between pre-tiling and post-tiling rise levels, which will set in somewhere between 10-15mm. On a featured background like above the tiling was vertical in the top part and LCC fully picked it up.
The 22mm rise tiling I got wasn't cleaned up by LCC and I need to see how easy that would be in PS in a blue sky scenario.
Of course that's all not as effortless as a 32 HR, but also this one has limits in useability above 12-15mm I think on full frame (useable till 15-18, but loses sharpness above the XT's rise level).
I'd say it is very useable on the IQ4, excellent on the CFV100c and of course if you have a 43 XL that's the lens to use on the IQ4, but we are talking alternatives here, right ...
40 HR is a great lens and all of the Rodie lenses are sharp wide-open, don't require LCC, etc. – that's why they are great in themselves.
But for geometry – SK reigns supreme. You need to adapt your workflow a bit, but personally I love the SK look and how it doesn't distort anything.
The 35 has ZERO distortion. Its remarkable to photograph buildings or objects with lines with it ... but we are talking F11-16 with CF on a tripod – just to be clear. That with LCC is a deal killer for some and then the 40 HR is an excellent lens just because it is sharp, problem free and has ample IC ... you cannot go wrong with them, I guess!
I am new to this lens as I snapped it up as I figured they might become rarer with the CFV100c, but I will report back in the coming days once I find time to do some proper testing.
It may very well be that you need to distinguish between pre-tiling and post-tiling rise levels, which will set in somewhere between 10-15mm. On a featured background like above the tiling was vertical in the top part and LCC fully picked it up.
The 22mm rise tiling I got wasn't cleaned up by LCC and I need to see how easy that would be in PS in a blue sky scenario.
Of course that's all not as effortless as a 32 HR, but also this one has limits in useability above 12-15mm I think on full frame (useable till 15-18, but loses sharpness above the XT's rise level).
I'd say it is very useable on the IQ4, excellent on the CFV100c and of course if you have a 43 XL that's the lens to use on the IQ4, but we are talking alternatives here, right ...
40 HR is a great lens and all of the Rodie lenses are sharp wide-open, don't require LCC, etc. – that's why they are great in themselves.
But for geometry – SK reigns supreme. You need to adapt your workflow a bit, but personally I love the SK look and how it doesn't distort anything.
The 35 has ZERO distortion. Its remarkable to photograph buildings or objects with lines with it ... but we are talking F11-16 with CF on a tripod – just to be clear. That with LCC is a deal killer for some and then the 40 HR is an excellent lens just because it is sharp, problem free and has ample IC ... you cannot go wrong with them, I guess!
Last edited:
diggles
Well-known member
Worthwhile question– 95% of the time I used this lens at f/11. Once in a while I would use f/16 or even f/22 when I needed more depth of field.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
No matter how you slice it it, it is clearly above 70mm and therefore a good tool on a crop sensor IMHO. The 43XL is perfect on IQ4, the 35XL right at home in the crop world. Even if you say it gives you 10mm rise sharp on IQ4 that means 7mm on the crop in addition (short end of IQ4 = 40mm, of CFV100c = 33mm).
So let's say very conservatively speaking you say 10mm with CF, IIf or alternatives; then you are at 17mm rise sharp on the crop sensor w/o tiling – which corresponds to the Alpa STC or Arca Factum ... which provide 18mm of rise. Which is still plenty with 35mm.
For 2k a great deal and entry point.
So let's say very conservatively speaking you say 10mm with CF, IIf or alternatives; then you are at 17mm rise sharp on the crop sensor w/o tiling – which corresponds to the Alpa STC or Arca Factum ... which provide 18mm of rise. Which is still plenty with 35mm.
For 2k a great deal and entry point.
Alkibiades
Well-known member
The 35xl was tested by a lot of people 10-15 years ago , here and on LL, there were so much tests done against the 35HR, so there is no reason to start new battle 15 years later. The lens did not change, the strength and the weekness.
the 35xl was my first wide anle lens, I payed additional calibration at Schneider, I had the CF and was never happy with the degradation of sharpness and resolution at bigger rise, the additional calibration changed nothing. about these issue complained a lot of users at the time of 22 and 39 MP backs. Even stopping of ap 16 changed nothing, the image itself become less sharp. Even the 35 xl physical image circle is 90 mm the real usable was much smaller. We can discuss what sharpness is good enough, but this will be very subjective.
If you compare 35xl to 32 HR the distortion will be a point for XL but as it is easy done by correcting by C1 it is not a so big point. If you compare 35xl to 35HRs so the 35HR have no visible distortion!!!! untill you stay under 10 mm movent you will see nothing.
if you go further and move to 15 mm rise you will see the distortion at the top, this is also easy corrected with C1. But you have the sharpness till the last mm of the image circle.
For big chip there are 7 mm of movement possible, if you have sky and you can correct the edges in post later you could make 10 mm also. But the advantage is simply a sharper image, a lens that can be used even at 5,6-8 at full image circle, that is even usable at 4, when you want.
35xl will be interesting for somebody that want to start to use the new hasseblad back , it is really cheap, I would say too cheap, becouse it is a good lens.
nothing wrong with that.
But I would get the same crispy image from a 100 MP that the new Fuji glasses can deliver and that give me the Rodenstock glass and the latest schneider generation.
Last edited:
Alkibiades
Well-known member
The 35xl is too cheap, indead.
some day the price will grove, as more use start to use the hasselbald 100c on a tech. camera
diggles
Well-known member
Agreed, the 35XL is a good tool on any sensor and at 2k is a great price for a high quality tech cam lens. Would I buy the 35XL, yes.
Based on my experience…
- the 43XL is an excellent lens, but definitely not perfect. It comes with its own set of issues. would I buy it again, maybe…
- the 35XL is sharp edge to edge at 70mm, further than that it depends if edge sharpness matters for the scene
- when shifting vertically with the back in horizontal position, sensor tiling is noticeable at about 8mm on the CSV II 50C or IQ4 and at about 10mm with the 43XL
Alkibiades
Well-known member
mostly there is nothing to fix at 35hr, becouse no visible distortion is there. Not like the 32 hr where there is much even without movements.
When I made some tests and choose straight at the top so only the extrem top needs to correct the distortion - it is out of the 70 mm IC, it start at 10 mm, you fix it at C1 just by moving the
regulator for distortion.