Magic Four Series: The versatile SK 60 XL – laudatio on one of the best MFD lenses ever made

[akaru]

Last night I was searching online for the CFV 100C that is rumored to be on the way

Last I checked, Camera West had an anniversary edition WRS camera for a great price

 

[Paul Spinnler]

If I make 15-20 different interior shots that means it's been a 10-12 hour day. No matter which camera system.

What drew you away from the IQ4 / SK / Rodie combo? Is Fuji faster to setup and less hassle?

 

[jng]

Last night I was searching online for the CFV 100C that is rumored to be on the way

And just when you thought you were out, they pulled you back in!

 

[4x5Australian]

On the workflow topic.

Diggle's recent exit is the key example of that and for me it's clear that if you just want to go in, and shoot that building or interior hassle-free - then Fuji TS is faster and more convenient.

Essentially: GFX 100 II, TS lens, backpack, go. Go to location, shoot hundreds of shots, maybe even handeld, go home, ingest, keystone correct with metadata, preset process to folder and send zip to client. 1 hour post production, done, invoice. I get it. Setting up an Arca, do LCC shots, slowly move from spot to spot. It's probably 25% as efficient as Fuji TS architectural photography.

I mean I get it. Long gone are the times where you could invoice the fact that you use a Phase back (or 4x5 film for that matter!). Its about volume and getting the job done.

BUT – there's this enjoyment of the tech cam process, the wider range of lens options, ultimately the ability to stitch 4x4 with 150 megapixels, etc.

Fuji TS is the new Canon TSE and the middle zone practitioners - those who tasted MFD to get quality a notch above Canon TSE but are not forcibly enamored with highest quality possible or extensive post workflows may just settle for Fuji.

The part of the current fine art, enthusiast crowd that's already on IQ4, etc., IMHO will still be after the tech cam process, I believe.

I bet CI ordered half a million or more worth of GFX II stock on day one of the announcement. Cambo / Alpa? On request.

In terms of shooting workflow, my experience is that shooting with the Cambo WRS, IQ4 and compact SK lenses is far quicker and slicker than with my Fuji GRX 50R and Canon TS-E 24mm Mk2.

I used my GFX 50R and TS-E 24mm II (pre-set to f/11) recently for a low-budget job of just-completed apartment interiors. The client wanted the shots in a hurry for his online brochure and was perfectly happy with the smaller jpeg files from the 50R. However, the shooting experience for me felt clumsy and slower compared to the Cambo WRS and IQ4. I missed the compact square form and no-fumble simplicity of the WRS, the adjacent two-axis bubble levels, the fast and secure lens lock, and the much smaller lenses together with the lens protection bars that serve as handles. Most of all, I missed the geared XY double shift of the WRS that provides simultaneous rear fall and lateral shift, along with its well-placed shift roller knobs that rotate easily under my thumb. Focusing the 50R and TS-E lens manually on specific points within the frame was slower than the with the IQ4 because the 50R's magnified focus patch would not move around under my finger.

Post-production might be faster with the GFX (I lack the experience in post to say) but IMO the on-site shooting experience is far better with the WRS-IQ4-SK lens kit.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The CFV will hopefully galvanize tech cams a bit again.

10k back, 3-5k camera, one 5k 40 HR to start and you are good.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

In terms of shooting workflow, my experience is that shooting with the Cambo WRS, IQ4 and compact SK lenses is far quicker and slicker than with my Fuji GRX 50R and Canon TS-E 24mm Mk2.

I used my GFX 50R and TS-E 24mm II (pre-set to f/11) recently for a low-budget job of just-completed apartment interiors. The client wanted the shots in a hurry for his online brochure and was perfectly happy with the small jpeg files from the GFX. However, the shooting experience for me felt clumsy and slower compared to the Cambo WRS and IQ4. I missed the small square size and no-fumble simplicity of the WRS, the adjacent two-axis bubble levels, the fast and secure lens lock, the much smaller lenses together with the lens protection bars that serve as handles. Most of all, I missed the XY double geared shift and the roller shift knobs that are well-placed and rotate easily under my thumb. In addition, focusing at 100% on the IQ4 was easier than on my GFX 50R because, unlike the IQ4, the 50R’s magnified focus patch would not move under my finger.

Post-production might be faster with the GFX (I lack the experience in post to say) but IMO the on-site shooting experience is far better with the WRS-IQ4-SK lens kit.

So I wonder what's the allure of the new TS lenses vs. a fully fledged IQ4 / Hassy tech cam combo ... I am not so clear on it. Besides outlay / depreciation considerations (although SK lenses retain or appreciate in value; its primarily the digital back).

 

[diggles]

In terms of shooting workflow, my experience is that shooting with the Cambo WRS, IQ4 and compact SK lenses is far quicker and slicker than with my Fuji GRX 50R and Canon TS-E 24mm Mk2.

I used my GFX 50R and TS-E 24mm II (pre-set to f/11) recently for a low-budget job of just-completed apartment interiors. The client wanted the shots in a hurry for his online brochure and was perfectly happy with the small jpeg files from the GFX. However, the shooting experience for me felt clumsy and slower compared to the Cambo WRS and IQ4. I missed the small square size and no-fumble simplicity of the WRS, the adjacent two-axis bubble levels, the fast and secure lens lock, the much smaller lenses together with the lens protection bars that serve as handles. Most of all, I missed the XY double geared shift and the roller shift knobs that are well-placed and rotate easily under my thumb. In addition, focusing at 100% on the IQ4 was easier than on my GFX 50R because, unlike the IQ4, the 50R’s magnified focus patch would not move under my finger.

Post-production might be faster with the GFX (I lack the experience in post to say) but IMO the on-site shooting experience is far better with the WRS-IQ4-SK lens kit.

With available light, the IQ4 is a joy to use, no doubt. There are many times I need to sync with flash though and I prefer using the GFX for this. Mainly because it is rare for me to have an assistant and I like using a remote to trigger the camera as I move the strobe around the room. If I was using the Copal shutter then I'd have to go back to the camera to reset the shutter between every shot. The XT does solve this though…

 

[akaru]

I would say that's "magic 8" as SK72L, 150N, 180T and 210T are no less exceptional.

Magic Eight, Fab Four?

 

[Pemihan]

Any other 60 XL fans here?

Ohh yes, got the 60XL and 120 Aspheric new back in the day just before SK shut down the production. Still kicking myself that I didn't get a 43XL as well and am regulary looking for one. I had the 35XL but sold it for Rodie 40HR but would really like an all SK setup. Maybe I'll get a 35XL again in the meantime. Since I exclusively use an Achromatic back color cast is not an issue.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The 120 ASPH is the second most rare, but rarely comes up for sale; 120 ASPH because it came out last and then they pulled the trigger - so no time for real circulation - the 28 XL because customers started complaining the lens was unuseable as the 80 megapixel CCD backs came out at the same time (the LCC is horrible for 80mp CCD on the 28 XL, really unfixable).

So you are lucky to have a 120 ASPH!

 

[rdeloe]

OK, honest question time. There's a lot of love in this thread for the 60mm XL, but when I looked at the MTF charts published by Schneider, I was astonished by what I'm seeing. How is it possible that a lens that people think is this amazing has a chart that looks like this? In this infinity series, the sagittal (radial) lines are good at f/11, but the tangential lines are crashing. Within the area covered by my unshifted GFX sensor, I'd expect excellent image quality, but shifting would take me into a zone of increasing and dramatic softness according to Schneider's data.

MTF charts are obviously not telling the whole story, given how enthusiastic owners of the lens are. Can anyone square this circle for me?

 

[MGrayson]

OK, honest question time. There's a lot of love in this thread for the 60mm XL, but when I looked at the MTF charts published by Schneider, I was astonished by what I'm seeing. How is it possible that a lens that people think is this amazing has a chart that looks like this? In this infinity series, the sagittal (radial) lines are good at f/11, but the tangential lines are crashing. Within the area covered by my unshifted GFX sensor, I'd expect excellent image quality, but shifting would take me into a zone of increasing and dramatic softness according to Schneider's data.

MTF charts are obviously not telling the whole story, given how enthusiastic owners of the lens are. Can anyone square this circle for me?

View attachment 208336

My guess: big pixels. (The IQ140 and IQ160 had 6µ pixels.)

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I cannot see anything crashing with this lens on my IQ4 A on a Pano! This lens is the bomb. For 99% of tech cam lens users this is a holy grail lens which will stay sharp within the typical shift range of their camera, ie up to 20mm. But it goes further.

This lens, on a Rm3Di or Max is compositional liberty. You can rise and rise 25/30 and have a fully illuminated, sharp image while other moderate wide angles top out below 20mm in terms of vignetting. 120mm on 60mm focal length is huge.

And unique.

For me this lens is about the fact that I can go 20mm in each direction at a non-tele focal length and have a sharp image. That means it works in many areas, including and especially architecture. It is incredibly useful on an Rm3Di that goes up to 30mm for example – this lens lets you use this IC. 30mm is a lot of rise!

The 90 SW is too tele to be as widely useable. It is the versatility combined with sharp image reserves which make this lens so special. If you shift 20mm you still operate within its sweet spot.

If I had a magic fairy granting me a wish to pick one of the Magic Four it would be the 60, followed by the 43, followed by the 120 and then 28 XL.

 

[dchew]

OK, honest question time. There's a lot of love in this thread for the 60mm XL, but when I looked at the MTF charts published by Schneider, I was astonished by what I'm seeing. How is it possible that a lens that people think is this amazing has a chart that looks like this? In this infinity series, the sagittal (radial) lines are good at f/11, but the tangential lines are crashing. Within the area covered by my unshifted GFX sensor, I'd expect excellent image quality, but shifting would take me into a zone of increasing and dramatic softness according to Schneider's data.

MTF charts are obviously not telling the whole story, given how enthusiastic owners of the lens are. Can anyone square this circle for me?

View attachment 208336

You are absolutely right, Rob. I constantly go back to this MTF and question the same thing. I think there are a few things going on here:

• The image circle is 120mm. That is probably wider than most people see. The most I usually reach out to is 100mm.
• These are 20, 40, 60 l/mm, which is tighter than what we are used to these days where the max is usually 40mm.

I've compared this to the Rodi 50hr, which at a quick glance looks much better. But when you adjust for the image circle, they come out more on par with each other. I also think, but am not sure, that a symmetrical design like these Schneiders will have some astigmatism by choice in order to eliminate distortion.

Dave

 

[jng]

You are absolutely right, Rob. I constantly go back to this MTF and question the same thing. I think there are a few things going on here:

• The image circle is 120mm. That is probably wider than most people see. The most I usually reach out to is 100mm.
• These are 20, 40, 60 l/mm, which is tighter than what we are used to these days where the max is usually 40mm.

I've compared this to the Rodi 50hr, which at a quick glance looks much better. But when you adjust for the image circle, they come out more on par with each other. I also think, but am not sure, that a symmetrical design like these Schneiders will have some astigmatism by choice in order to eliminate distortion.

Dave

Agree with Dave - note that the x-axis on Schneider's MTF graphs are expressed as % of image circle radius whereas Rodenstock's are expressed in millimeters. Lab measurements aside, in practice the lens does quite well when shifted when stopped down a bit, albeit with a bit of light falloff and CA which are both correctable in post (I generally aim for f/11; shifting 20mm @ f/5.6 is just asking for unhappiness outside of my usual shooting parameters).

John

 

[Paul Spinnler]

SK is f11, Rodie f5.6 – don't mind it!

 

[rdeloe]

Thanks for the thoughts on that 60 XL folks. It remains a mystery to my. I've used lots of Schneider-Kreuznach lenses and have found their MTF data to be quite reliable relative to actual performance. It is good to know that this lens is much better than the data would suggest.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The 60 XL has been lauded since its release across LuLa and this forum by users and dealers alike as a sensationally sharp lens with an amazing IC.

One can search for 10-year-old posts and the feedback has always been consistent throughout the years – this is one of the sharpest and best lenses out there with an unmatched 120mm IC. I remember its arrival and the first sample images being discussed on LuLa.

Schneider 60mm F5.6 Apo Digitar and/or Rodenstock 55mm F4.5 feedback

Schneider 60mm F5.6 Apo Digitar and/or Rodenstock 55mm F4.5 feedback

forum.luminous-landscape.com

New Cambo Lenses Arriving / 60mm / 28mm

New Cambo Lenses Arriving / 60mm / 28mm

forum.luminous-landscape.com

Look at the feedback from Williamson.

I can attest that this one performs excellently on an IQ4. It is blisteringly sharp in the centre and the first 10-15mm, then still very sharp going outside. It is the ultimate lens for an Alpa Max and Rm3Di or RL3Di for that matter.

The point is that these lenses created a strong colour cast on the CCD backs of that time and as result were less popular than Rodenstock HRs. With the advent of backlight CMOS though, the late-gen SK lenses awoke again and became very sought after. IQ4 made all the Magic Four useable withouth problems, including the 28 XL.

There's barely colour cast on the 60 XL except if you shift a lot and the 43 XL can also be LCCed so that it looks stunning.

Greiner has a long waiting list for the 60, 43, 28, 120 nowadays – ie impossible to get. If it pops op on a forum you better DM.

Grab one if you find one!

 

[4x5Australian]

Thanks for the thoughts on that 60 XL folks. It remains a mystery to my. I've used lots of Schneider-Kreuznach lenses and have found their MTF data to be quite reliable relative to actual performance. It is good to know that this lens is much better than the data would suggest.

The decline towards zero of the tangential 60 lp/mm MTF curve is quite gradual.

In any case, the MTF curves of the wide-angle and normal focal length digital lenses of both Schneider and Rodenstock show the tangential MTF curves for 60 and 80 lp/mm (respectively) decreasing to zero at the edge of their image circles. Indeed, it seems the point at which those tangential curves reach zero was used by both lens makers, at least in part, to define the diameter of the image circles.

(The single exception [edit: that I had found at this point in time] to this pattern is the Apo-Digitar 47XL, the earliest digital wide angle lens introduced by Schneider and based on the earlier Super-Angulon 47mm.)

Although MTF curves are widely regarded as wholly objective, it seems to me that the MTF graphs offered by different companies are subject to each company’s particular methods and assumptions, which may be incompatible with each other and even change over time.

On this last point, Rodenstock’s MTF graphs for the Apo-Sironar digital 35mm lens are quite impressive and suggest good potential for large shifts. Indeed, the graphs were still displayed in the 2012 brochure, which includes the HR Digaron-W 32mm lens. My tests of the optically identical Apo-Grandagon 35mm lens, however, show good central sharpness but poor edge sharpness on even the unshifted frame. Others have commented similarly. The Schneider Apo-Digitar 35XL lens has a less impressive MTF graph but is decidedly better, all over and when shifted.

 

[akaru]

These are the threads that I’m here for.