Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
This is what I mean. It is astounding and frankly a pleasure when you open files like that.
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
Alkibiades
Well-known member
Thanks Warren!
I am very jealous about the blue sky and and the sunny weather!- here we have mostly grey sky with rain!
I use the diagonal sometimes with canon ts-e lenses and the hart-blei T/S adapter and 11-24.
My point was the stich- lets imagine the house would be maybe 200 meter long and even higher, you have not much distance, there are buildings bihind you and you want a very natural look, similar to a an architectural drawing.
I made some years Photorealistic 3D visualisations after CAD dravings and I like the loo that is not complicated to achieve in the digital world. You can place digital your camera whatever you want, also the dictance, surrounding is not a problem, where the situation at real life is always different.
I hope i could discribe the point...
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
@Alkibiades: Do you still have the 28mm Rodenstock HR?
Is it also as sharp within 70mm as the 35mm or is it a notch below in performance vs. 35HR?
I always forget that this one was also a popular architectural photograhy lens before all the W options came out.
I guess the main reason to use it would be to have a colour cast free 28mm on crop MF?
Is it also as sharp within 70mm as the 35mm or is it a notch below in performance vs. 35HR?
I always forget that this one was also a popular architectural photograhy lens before all the W options came out.
I guess the main reason to use it would be to have a colour cast free 28mm on crop MF?
Last edited:
Alkibiades
Well-known member
I sold my 28 HR some years ago. I worked at the time with Leaf 12 big sensor 80 MP and for this was 32 HR much better option. Also in the wide place I had the Digaron-S 23mm HR that is even better. I made some comparision for me and the edges of the 23 hr were always better than of the 28 HR. 28 HR was not bad, it was the best 28 mm wide angle lens on the market, much better than hasselblad h or mamiya lenses. The 28 hr was a brother of the 35 HR. The design of the 35 hr was pushed to more wide angle, when you compare the 35 hr to 28 HR so the 35 hr has very less distortion, mostly non visible. The 28 hr has some, not much, but correction in PS was alwasy needed, where the 35 hr when not shiftet to extreme did not need correction. 28 hr is sharp, in whole image circle, that goes more than 70 mm. Rodenstock write 70 mm- this is the bullet proof image circle in that the lens has their optimum, but you could go for little more. I used the 28 hr with 5-6 mm on big sensor, or even 10 mm- than I cleaned the dark corners- when it was sky, it was not a problem.
When you want to use 28 hr on big sensor so the 32 hr is the much better deal. Also the 23 hr is an updated HR lens design therefore opticly better- you see it at edges performace and even better Field curvature. The 28 hr could be very interesting for the new 100c back as it will deliver movements till maybe 15 mm. if you dont go to extrem movements the image quality will be as expected from HR lenses.
The reason why 28 mm HR is not in production any more is the better option with the 23HR and 32 HR as the king of big chip. The 35 HR was still in production, is the better optition for smaller chip- sharper then 32 hr, less distortion- but afcourse for big chip is the 32hr the way to go, when you want bigger movements.
The color cast with all HR lenses was never a problem, so on the new BSI will be even better.
wallpaperviking
Member
Thanks for this, much appreciated!
Is any combination available using the "diagonal" shifting method? ie to replicate any combination of shift left/right and rise/fall on a view camera? Or is limited on the Fuji 30mm TS-E?
The same should apply to the Canon 50mm TS-E?
If it is and I can get my head around it, will save me a whole bunch of cashola!
Thanks!
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
The 35 HR is a fine (, on IQ4 very wide) lens. It really is. It is the sharpest lens in 35 I've seen, with extremely fine resolution. At F4-5.6, without CF needed. That's what makes it remarkable.
Her'es a shot of a street scene I made while walking around on a TC:
This is C1 distortion corrected.
The resolution is astounding:
250% – I can read what it says on the sign.
The 35 XL copy I have is also very sharp, but I think the 35 HR would be a tiny bit better.
BUUUUUTTTT (a very big but):
So the gripe I have with it is the retrofocus distortion and the practical limits ofa 70mm IC on a large chip. You have no room to shift, so you are constrained to this rather large FoV without being able to get in more of the top, so to say. That makes it not so useable on a large chip (I don't like large bottom parts) except if you holt it upwards or shoot landscapes say.
I also found the retrofocus distortion tricky. You can see how the windows and the car "flee" as soon as you go close to the frame edge and when you use this lens you need to really pay attention to not having subject elements at varying distances to the photographer be positioned closely to each other horizontally or else you get to see the ugly elongations retrofocus wide-angles produce. On a SK lens that effect is less pronounced and proportions look right even at the edges. So a lot of the images I took fell through in my taste due to the way geometry was rendered in street like walkaround scenarios with people in it.
If you can control the composition and have time to set the shot up right, I think you can manage it (by working in parrallel orientations to critical compositional elements, central perspectives, etc.), but the limited IC again is a bit of a problem if you are not fond of large bottom part sections. If this lens could shift 5-10mm on the large chip it would be a lot more useful in my preference.
I have some portrait shots I made where people's faces get weirdly thinner in the middle and arms and legs skewed on the edges. Frankly it is horrible, lol, and no, I am fully aware that wide-angles are tricky for portraits, but it gets compounded if you have a retrofocus lens which you on top distortion correct in C1, meaning edges get pulled out a tiny bit.
I might get it down the road for TC as I like the performance, but the retrofocus design makes it not easy to use.
The hydrant here is not at the edge of the image. But it gets pulled into the corner and in this environmental portrait I had a fleeing bottom section which didn't look nice at all. To protect the identity of the persom I cant post the whole image. The foot got also stretched a bit and here it is not that bad because the subject makes up a tiny part at the centre, but it is noticeable. On a symmetric lens this elongation effect is reduced which is the main advantage of it. Its reduced inherently and then by the fact that there's no additional software correction shifting pixels around.
So to sum it up:
+ Probably sharpest 35 I have seen, but 35 XL is very close, at least my cope. To the point where I'd say in practice not a problem (but F4-5.6 vs. F8-11!)
+ F4 sharp and no CF needed, which is why its great for walkaround
+ Retrofocus distortion requires careful shooting to avoid overly distorted elements at edges of frames which are close to the subject matter
+ No shift on big chip limits practical use for me to specific scenarios - you always have a lot of bottom ...
On the crop chip you will have the issue that you cannot work directly with C1 meaning you have no access to the 35 HR profiles except if you do a convoluted multi step workflow with pre-processing in Phocus and subsequent processing in C1 which I find very limiting.
So basically a good lens, but with some marked drawbacks which is why I personally prefer the 35XL much more.
For landscape though I'd say this one is a winner as you can hold the camera a tiny bit up and it won't overly be a problem, even with keystone correction.
On a crop chip if you don't need distortion correction it is an interesting option, but again prefere diretly symmetric lens designs for most uses.
Also, this is I think the main reason why peoeple skip it, you have the 32 and 40 ... 40 is also compact, needs more spacers due to large FFD, but is excellent and the 32 is the big king of Rodie wide angles for large chips.
So this is why most of time (95%) people will forego this one for the 40 HR which is a bit less wide, has endless shift and very sharp as well with only diffrence being that you have a longer FFD. Ie on an Alpa you need a 17mm spacer with the 35 HR not. That makes the 35 HR more compact to the tune of 2-3ish cm (because the 35 HR itself is shorter than the 40 HR as well). For walkaround this can make a BIG difference, for stationary not so much. I truly loved the compactness combined with performance quasi wide open.
This is also why I might get it, ie because the 40 HR is a bit bulkier on the TC due to the required spacers. SK glass is compact, but requires F8-F11 at the centre whic his not ideal for walkaround ...
Within its IC though, the resolution of this one is remarkable. The 35 HR is more compact, so for walkaround a lot better than the 40 or 32 ... so that's where I see it: as a compact travel lens on a Factum or TC, requiring careful composition due to the wide FoV and distortion you need to factor in. Clearly specialist and if I had to choose I'd get the 40 HR first, then the 35 XL and then the 35 HR.
More principally speaking 35 is a special FoV in walkaround – more like 24mm in 35mm terms, which is for many even as a street lens on the very wide end, requiring skilled use of the environment and careful management of horizontals and verticals. If you get the right shot though, 24mm can be very interesting as evidenced by Alan Shaller's work on the M platform.
On non P1 crop chips without access to C1 distortion correction the 35XL first, also given cost. But you need the OG CF or a good alternative SK II.
Her'es a shot of a street scene I made while walking around on a TC:
This is C1 distortion corrected.
The resolution is astounding:
250% – I can read what it says on the sign.
The 35 XL copy I have is also very sharp, but I think the 35 HR would be a tiny bit better.
BUUUUUTTTT (a very big but):
So the gripe I have with it is the retrofocus distortion and the practical limits ofa 70mm IC on a large chip. You have no room to shift, so you are constrained to this rather large FoV without being able to get in more of the top, so to say. That makes it not so useable on a large chip (I don't like large bottom parts) except if you holt it upwards or shoot landscapes say.
I also found the retrofocus distortion tricky. You can see how the windows and the car "flee" as soon as you go close to the frame edge and when you use this lens you need to really pay attention to not having subject elements at varying distances to the photographer be positioned closely to each other horizontally or else you get to see the ugly elongations retrofocus wide-angles produce. On a SK lens that effect is less pronounced and proportions look right even at the edges. So a lot of the images I took fell through in my taste due to the way geometry was rendered in street like walkaround scenarios with people in it.
If you can control the composition and have time to set the shot up right, I think you can manage it (by working in parrallel orientations to critical compositional elements, central perspectives, etc.), but the limited IC again is a bit of a problem if you are not fond of large bottom part sections. If this lens could shift 5-10mm on the large chip it would be a lot more useful in my preference.
I have some portrait shots I made where people's faces get weirdly thinner in the middle and arms and legs skewed on the edges. Frankly it is horrible, lol, and no, I am fully aware that wide-angles are tricky for portraits, but it gets compounded if you have a retrofocus lens which you on top distortion correct in C1, meaning edges get pulled out a tiny bit.
I might get it down the road for TC as I like the performance, but the retrofocus design makes it not easy to use.
The hydrant here is not at the edge of the image. But it gets pulled into the corner and in this environmental portrait I had a fleeing bottom section which didn't look nice at all. To protect the identity of the persom I cant post the whole image. The foot got also stretched a bit and here it is not that bad because the subject makes up a tiny part at the centre, but it is noticeable. On a symmetric lens this elongation effect is reduced which is the main advantage of it. Its reduced inherently and then by the fact that there's no additional software correction shifting pixels around.
So to sum it up:
+ Probably sharpest 35 I have seen, but 35 XL is very close, at least my cope. To the point where I'd say in practice not a problem (but F4-5.6 vs. F8-11!)
+ F4 sharp and no CF needed, which is why its great for walkaround
+ Retrofocus distortion requires careful shooting to avoid overly distorted elements at edges of frames which are close to the subject matter
+ No shift on big chip limits practical use for me to specific scenarios - you always have a lot of bottom ...
On the crop chip you will have the issue that you cannot work directly with C1 meaning you have no access to the 35 HR profiles except if you do a convoluted multi step workflow with pre-processing in Phocus and subsequent processing in C1 which I find very limiting.
So basically a good lens, but with some marked drawbacks which is why I personally prefer the 35XL much more.
For landscape though I'd say this one is a winner as you can hold the camera a tiny bit up and it won't overly be a problem, even with keystone correction.
On a crop chip if you don't need distortion correction it is an interesting option, but again prefere diretly symmetric lens designs for most uses.
Also, this is I think the main reason why peoeple skip it, you have the 32 and 40 ... 40 is also compact, needs more spacers due to large FFD, but is excellent and the 32 is the big king of Rodie wide angles for large chips.
So this is why most of time (95%) people will forego this one for the 40 HR which is a bit less wide, has endless shift and very sharp as well with only diffrence being that you have a longer FFD. Ie on an Alpa you need a 17mm spacer with the 35 HR not. That makes the 35 HR more compact to the tune of 2-3ish cm (because the 35 HR itself is shorter than the 40 HR as well). For walkaround this can make a BIG difference, for stationary not so much. I truly loved the compactness combined with performance quasi wide open.
This is also why I might get it, ie because the 40 HR is a bit bulkier on the TC due to the required spacers. SK glass is compact, but requires F8-F11 at the centre whic his not ideal for walkaround ...
Within its IC though, the resolution of this one is remarkable. The 35 HR is more compact, so for walkaround a lot better than the 40 or 32 ... so that's where I see it: as a compact travel lens on a Factum or TC, requiring careful composition due to the wide FoV and distortion you need to factor in. Clearly specialist and if I had to choose I'd get the 40 HR first, then the 35 XL and then the 35 HR.
More principally speaking 35 is a special FoV in walkaround – more like 24mm in 35mm terms, which is for many even as a street lens on the very wide end, requiring skilled use of the environment and careful management of horizontals and verticals. If you get the right shot though, 24mm can be very interesting as evidenced by Alan Shaller's work on the M platform.
On non P1 crop chips without access to C1 distortion correction the 35XL first, also given cost. But you need the OG CF or a good alternative SK II.
Last edited:
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Another scene with the 35 HR; ignore the skewed verticals, that's another problem with walkaround. namely the ES readout. I've set it to low file quality and still in every two out of three shots get wobbly lines which are too much.
I wanted to address the elongations at the edge of ICs of Rodie glass, especially 35 HR once you apply the corrections on the LARGE chip. Crop might be different. But on the LARGE chip, as you can see above, there's a fleeing tendency outwards at the very edges.
You can see clearly how the windows get stretched more and more especially in the last 15% of the frame on the large chip, ie as you approach the edge of the IC of the 35HR.
Basically everything at the last part of the outer edges gets stretched, depending on the angle you are at more or less. That's less the case with symmetric designs. An on top the fact that sofrware further stretches the image when distortion correcting.
The way to avoid this is to shoot in parallel and to avoid things close to you at the edges of the frame in a non perpendicular angle to the lens.
That's why I didn't find a lot of the images pleasing to look at – approaching 70mm they became overly stretched.
Essentially, the way I look at it, imagine the outer 15% of the 35 HR on the FF chip having a slight magnet outward applied ... very slight, but noticeable as soon as stuff is non-perpendicular. Also the trees are stretched on the outer parts:
Not a problem for a mountainscape, a problem for portraits, for street if you don't manage the environment.
The closer items are the edges, to more extreme it gets. Here it is semi-ok, to be honest. But here:
On another frame with people on it I have squeezed items at the edges ...
So a fantastically sharp lens, with specific quirks which are deal-killers for some. On a crop sensor the story is less problematic, but then you have to deal with how to distortion correct where SK glass is effortless once you've mastered technique and setup your LCC plates.
Last edited:
Alkibiades
Well-known member
here an example of the 28HR on the big sensor: I use bigger movements with 28 and 23 hr to get the right view, it was more then 10 mm on 53,9 x 40,4 mm , so you see the dark edges. As they are in the sky area I could clean them simply or even crop the picture a bit.
the details are very good, the distortion is visible, as the movent is strong also. As comparision the same shot done with 23hr, the same situation...
Attachments
Alkibiades
Well-known member
The new Hasselblad 100c back open the way to use some lenses that were not so in focus: 35xl, 35hr, 28xl.
here soem pics from symmetrical 28xl that have no distortion and 35 hr that is the sharpest lens it this range, retrofocus, but the wide angle with best distortioncorrection i ever seen on retrofocus wide angle lenses. Is there diferance visible in normal work- when not shifted to extrem i would say no.
files are not distortion corrected...
here soem pics from symmetrical 28xl that have no distortion and 35 hr that is the sharpest lens it this range, retrofocus, but the wide angle with best distortioncorrection i ever seen on retrofocus wide angle lenses. Is there diferance visible in normal work- when not shifted to extrem i would say no.
files are not distortion corrected...
Attachments
Alkibiades
Well-known member
28xl first than 35hr
Attachments
Alkibiades
Well-known member
35hr,
rise 14 mm
first no correction-
at this strong movents C1 corection is needed afcourse..
rise 14 mm
first no correction-
at this strong movents C1 corection is needed afcourse..
Attachments
Last edited:
Alkibiades
Well-known member
35hr
Attachments
Alkibiades
Well-known member
28 xl compared to Fuji 30 TS,
here 28xl pics:
here 28xl pics:
Attachments
Last edited:
Alkibiades
Well-known member
28xl even on old 39 MP back is a pleasure to work, 30 TS, shines in extremly high resolution even at full 15 mm movements...but it will need distortion correction- I use C1 22, I need an update to get the correction for 30 TS..
here Fuji 30 TS
here Fuji 30 TS
Attachments
Last edited:
Whisp3r
Well-known member
I've just revisited this thread and noticed your question was not answered directly, you probably already found the answer but, in case you didn't, here's what Warren Diggles wrote on page 3 of this thread:Is any combination available using the "diagonal" shifting method? ie to replicate any combination of shift left/right and rise/fall on a view camera? Or is limited on the Fuji 30mm TS-E?
The same should apply to the Canon 50mm TS-E?
If it is and I can get my head around it, will save me a whole bunch of cashola!
Thanks!
"True, you are not able to get 15mm X + 15mm Y, but you are still able to shift 15mm in any direction in 1° increments. The shift amount becomes the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
So let's say you rotate the lens to 45° and shift the full 15mm, this means you are shifting 10mm X + 10mm Y. Or let's say you rotate the lens 67°, this means you are shifting the lens 5.88mm X + 13.8mm Y. It's very useful.
Thankfully, you don't have to think about any of that when composing. You simply look through the viewfinder as you rotate the lens and adjust the shift amount. It's a very fluid way to compose your scene and you have very precise control."
The only thing I have to add is that, for some strange reason, my GF 30mm T/S cannot rotate in 1° increments, more specifically: during rotation the viewfinder will display rotation amount in 3° increments instead of 1° increments. Not sure if this carries over into software as I mainly use Lightroom.
Yes, the same applies to the Canon 50mm TS-E, minus the shift/rotation sensor of the 30mm T/S of course.
That should answer your question. So yes indeed, you will save a whole bunch of cashola
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Which is which – filename not revealing?
diggles
Well-known member
After reading this I double checked. When I saw data like 249° in C1 I assumed it was being recorded in 1° increments. I was wrong, lens rotation direction is displaying and recording in 3° increments for me as well.
Interestingly, shift amounts are displayed in .5mm increments on my screen, but C1 shows shift amount data in .1mm increments.
Whisp3r
Well-known member
Mr. Spinnler, all of the seven images in the post you're quoting were shot with the GF 30mm T/S on a GFX 100S.
Whisp3r
Well-known member
Thanks for double-checking! Very curious indeed.. So as a result the EVF/LCD on my GFX100 II displays 'less accurate' information?
If the shift/rotation sensor passes information to C1 in .1mm increments for shift and 1° increments for rotation, then I wonder why the EVF/LCD does not reflect this.
Or there might be other theories explaining this discrepancy.
diggles
Well-known member
The shift information is displayed on the LCD in 0.5mm increments, but when it's sent to C1, it's recorded in 0.1mm increments.
As for the rotational increments, both the screen and the data sent to C1 are in 3° increments. This is where I was wrong in my first comment, I originally thought C1 was recording lens rotation in 1° increments.