Rodenstock 23mm on the CFV 100c?

[peterm1]

I haven’t seen any information about or examples from this combo and wondering what the performance would be like. I know you can barely shift on the larger Phase One sensor - wondering how much usable shift there would be on the Hassy sensor. Also what kind of color shifting / vignetting might be encountered and need for LCC and CF.

Kind of like a “poor man’s Phase One XC”

thanks

 

[dougpeterson]

Our Image Circle Visualizer answers this directly. Can’t link to it due to forum rules.

 

[4x5Australian]

Peter, here is a snip from the Rodenstock technical brochure.

On the 44x33mm sensor in landscape orientation, Rodenstock says that the RDK HR 23mm will shift 11mm in the vertical direction and 9mm in the horizontal direction.

Rod

 

[Alkibiades]

the real image circle of the 23 HR is bigger!!!
Rodenstock make very conservative declarations to their lenses.
The most Digaron-S lenses has bigger image circle than from Rodenstock decribed.
The 70 mm image circle is what Rodenstock guaranteed for best opical quality.
But in reality you can rise 14 mm on 33x44 without any issuess.
Only when you use the Center Filtter, the image circle will be cutted by it.
Therefore I used the 23 HR on the big sensor without the CF to get 7 mm of movement.
23 HR is a great option on the 100c as on all backs, but you dont get distortion correction with Phocus.
When you make architecture-stuff this could be an important point to go with Phase one and C1.
Alternativly 35HR has less distortion...but if landscape is your main focus forget the distortion,

 

[peterm1]

Thank you. I'd love to samples taken with this combo (without the CF and LCC, or even with them) - I haven't seen any samples or feedback anywhere. I don't shoot architecture for clients - sometimes I shoot buildings as part of my fine art photography practice, but having a certain amount of distortion is not a big issue for me. I mainly shoot coastal and urban landscapes.

 

[Alkibiades]

you dont need the CF on 23 hr, C1 or Phocus will clean the CC pretty good. On the 100c back the color cast will be even smaller, but the 23 hr will work well on every back. LCC correction will be needed with all back indeed. the distortion on 23 hr is small, I like the lens when rised but the optical quality goes down when you move the lens to the sides- horizontal movements.

 

[f8orbust]

Here's a link to the (very useful) DT lens visualizer tool.

BTW, I've no connection with DT.

 

[peterm1]

Thanks - I am looking at the 23mm or the 40mm HR lenses as an initial "one lens" tech camera kit for my CFV 100c. Obviously very different focal lengths. I was concerned that if I go with the 40mm it may not be wide enough for some of my landscape shooting, although I can see the 40mm has roughly twice the ability to shift than the 23mm with its larger IC, so stitched photos can help alleviate that concern (with higher resolution as well). OTOH, for shots where I only make one exposure like a long exposure shot with moving elements, the 23mm may work better for me. Decisions, decisions. 40mm is cheaper too...

 

[Alkibiades]

here some pics made with 23hr and 33x44 back ( phase one 250)- the same size like the 100c. no distortion correction needed, you can see that the 23 hr is a strong wide angle on 33x44 mm. the most used wide angle will be 35 mm ( 80% of work). extrem wide like 23 hr as the longer lenses are the last 20% ...

 

[Alkibiades]

Thanks - I am looking at the 23mm or the 40mm HR lenses as an initial "one lens" tech camera kit for my CFV 100c. Obviously very different focal lengths. I was concerned that if I go with the 40mm it may not be wide enough for some of my landscape shooting, although I can see the 40mm has roughly twice the ability to shift than the 23mm with its larger IC, so stitched photos can help alleviate that concern (with higher resolution as well). OTOH, for shots where I only make one exposure like a long exposure shot with moving elements, the 23mm may work better for me. Decisions, decisions. 40mm is cheaper too...

the 40 mm is great on big sensor- it could be too short on 33x44mm. 30-35 mm will be the most wanted wide angle. for stiching 50-70 mm will be the right solution. 23 hr is great when you need a very wide wide angle- it is not a strandart wide, for some work simply too wide. strat with 35 mm ( schneider apo digitar 35 mm as a cheap option or 35 Hr or 32 Hr- both are cheaper than the 23 mm) than start to work. than you will see if you need other lens also, a wider or longer- depents on the subject you want to visualize.

 

[diggles]

Thanks - I am looking at the 23mm or the 40mm HR lenses as an initial "one lens" tech camera kit for my CFV 100c. Obviously very different focal lengths. I was concerned that if I go with the 40mm it may not be wide enough for some of my landscape shooting, although I can see the 40mm has roughly twice the ability to shift than the 23mm with its larger IC, so stitched photos can help alleviate that concern (with higher resolution as well). OTOH, for shots where I only make one exposure like a long exposure shot with moving elements, the 23mm may work better for me. Decisions, decisions. 40mm is cheaper too...

Capture Integration rents the 23HR and 40HR for both Alpa and Cambo tech cameras.

 

[corvus]

Peter, here is a snip from the Rodenstock technical brochure.

On the 44x33mm sensor in landscape orientation, Rodenstock says that the RDK HR 23mm will shift 11mm in the vertical direction and 9mm in the horizontal direction.

Rod

View attachment 210903

I also like to look in these tables. However, I always ask myself why the first column (for movements) is there for the full-frame 24x36?
I don't know of any full-frame solution with which I could ever use this lens. In my opinion, this viewcamera lenses - whether symmetrical or retrofocus - with a focal length <47mm cannot be used for DSLR/DSLM bodies for both FF and MF due to the flange focal length/body depth. With MF (GFX or X2D) there are perhaps a few where the rear lens element still fits into the bayonet diameter - but then hardly with any movements. In FF this is usually not possible either - somehow it doesn't make sense to me ...

 

[Alkibiades]

I also like to look in these tables. However, I always ask myself why the first column (for movements) is there for the full-frame 24x36?
I don't know of any full-frame solution with which I could ever use this lens. In my opinion, this viewcamera lenses - whether symmetrical or retrofocus - with a focal length <47mm cannot be used for DSLR/DSLM bodies for both FF and MF due to the flange focal length/body depth. With MF (GFX or X2D) there are perhaps a few where the rear lens element still fits into the bayonet diameter - but then hardly with any movements. In FF this is usually not possible either - somehow it doesn't make sense to me ...

The first digital backs were in this little format. At the biginning of professional digital Photography the traditional 35 mm format was the standart.
The development goes then to bigger chips.

 

[corvus]

The first digital backs were in this little format. At the biginning of professional digital Photography the traditional 35 mm format was the standart.
The development goes then to bigger chips.

It would be cool if this was available again - something like the Sigma FP-L without a bayonet-body. It would be light and small and the view camera would fit in the shoulder bag