diggles
Well-known member
interesting, I didn't realize you can do that with Flickr. I'll give it a try.
Yeah, the 24 is very sharp. There is an improvement on center at f/11, but the edges are sharper at f/16.
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!
Schneider Apo Digitar 24mm 5.6 XL with centre filter with the CFV 100C
- Thread starter caminada
- Start date
Yeah, the 24 is very sharp. There is an improvement on center at f/11, but the edges are sharper at f/16.
Hello,
@diggles - I am curious if you have also compared the Image Quality from the Schneider 24mm XL against the Canon 24mm TS lens?
I realize the Canon's Image Circle is bigger. But I am mainly interested in the Image Quality of the Canon against the Schneider.
Also, any thoughts on the distortion present in the Canon 24mm TS?
The Schneider remains interesting to me as I can use it with studio flash lighting, whereas I cannot with the Canon.
Current thought is to use Rm3di + CFV 100c + 24mm Schneider Digitar rather than the Canon.
Thank you,
John
@diggles - I am curious if you have also compared the Image Quality from the Schneider 24mm XL against the Canon 24mm TS lens?
I realize the Canon's Image Circle is bigger. But I am mainly interested in the Image Quality of the Canon against the Schneider.
Also, any thoughts on the distortion present in the Canon 24mm TS?
The Schneider remains interesting to me as I can use it with studio flash lighting, whereas I cannot with the Canon.
Current thought is to use Rm3di + CFV 100c + 24mm Schneider Digitar rather than the Canon.
Thank you,
John
diggles
Well-known member
Hi John,
While I haven’t done a direct comparison between the 24XL and the Canon 24 TS, I’ve used both on the GFX 102MP sensor. I sold my Canon 24 a while ago, so I can’t run any tests now, but I did go back through some images made with both to make sure I’m giving you solid info!
From my experience, they’re quite comparable on the GFX. Both lenses are plenty sharp in the center and allow around 5mm of shift before the edges start to soften up.
What I really like about the Schneider is the size. It’s small and easy to carry, even if you’re not planning to use it much on a shoot. The Canon, on the other hand, is much larger, and if you’re using it with an Arca Swiss, you’ll also need to carry the EF adapter (and maybe a spacer? I can’t recall for sure). The 24XL does benefit from a center filter, but you’ll still notice some vignetting and color shifts, especially when trying to keep the sky consistent across an image. An LCC is necessary.
The big plus with the Canon is that it doesn’t suffer from as much color cast or vignetting as the Schneider.
Warren,
Thank you for taking the time to go back through some images! That was unexpected, but very much appreciated.
I do already have the EF adapter, etc.. But like you, I prefer the smaller size of the Schneider. Plus the ability to use strobes with it, if needed. Now I just need to get one in R-mount...
Thank you very much for you input,
Thank you for taking the time to go back through some images! That was unexpected, but very much appreciated.
I do already have the EF adapter, etc.. But like you, I prefer the smaller size of the Schneider. Plus the ability to use strobes with it, if needed. Now I just need to get one in R-mount...
Thank you very much for you input,
shutterbug
New member
I've found that the image circle isn't large enough for the Hassy sensor, causing severe vignetting. However, the lens is remarkably sharp.
Shot wide open with no cropping. (first image)
I stopped to f16 and made a slight crop with negative vignetting applied. Still, it's unacceptable; the image circle is too small (second image)—no movements were made with the Cambo camera.
If anyone has any suggestions on how to use the lens better, I'm all ears.
mristuccia
Well-known member
Was the CF mounted? Have you applied an LCC?
diggles
Well-known member
LCC is pretty much mandatory with the 24XL and CFV100C. You will still have work to do on the resulting file, but it will make a big difference.
shutterbug
New member
What is LCC?
Better to simply google it....
LCC - Capture One Cultural Heritage Manual
LCC stands for Lens Cast Calibration. Capture One CH offers this tool to help correcting uneven exposures and achieving uniform light in the capture area. It is very important to set up
caponech.dslab.digitalscholar.rochester.edu
shutterbug
New member
I did google it and nothing came up, thanks for the information.
Well, LOL, then your google is broken. I literally typed your question "what is LCC in photography?" and had endless sources.
shutterbug
New member
I guess you can call me a big dummy then. I just typed LCC, LCC profile, etc. I'm not smart enough to type "What is LCC in photography?" Sigh.
I found a way in PS to eliminate the color cast; however, the vignetting problem remains.
mristuccia
Well-known member
Taking an LCC is the best way, it usually fixes both vignetting and color casts.
It is just a matter of taking an extra shot by putting a piece of 2-3mm thick white plexiglass in front of the lens. This LCC shot must be taken in the very exact conditions of the original picture in terms of lens, aperture, shifts and focus (the LCC shot should and will be out of focus, so do keep the original image focus). You can even hold the plexiglass with your hand in front of the lens while taking the LCC shot if it is bigger enough to keep your fingers outside the framed area. Hand/camera shacking is not a problem, it is even better in order to get a uniform result.
Applying the LCC with C1, Phocus or LR is a fast and straightforward task. Way faster than guesstimating color cast corrections and/or the right amount and shape of the vignetting correction. Of course, you cannot apply LCC to your archive images, unless you noted down the lens, the aperture and the shift amount you used. In that second case you can take an LCC anywhere by using the very same parameters and apply it to your archive image. It should work.
In fact you could even think of keeping a set of pre-made LCCs for every lens/aperture/shift combination and apply them after the fact.
Edit (added):
Another important consideration is that the LCC image exposure should be such that it keeps the resulting image in the upper part of the histogram and avoid highlight clipping at the same time. So, since the aperture must be kept the same as the original subject's image, longer exposure times are needed in order to take the LCC.
Last edited:
Well, now you know to get creative with the googling ;- ) I wasn't trying to be mean but I wasn't being as compassionate either, so, I apologize for my wording.
I search for many things and find "how to change coils audi s4 v8" will bring up several youtube and forum results. Or like "using canon EF 200-400mm f4 on canon R5" for example will bring up exactly that kind of comparison or testing by people.
John Leathwick
Well-known member
I wish it was always that straight forward, as I for one find Adobe's implementation of LCCs quite clunky. In fact last night I emailed a friend describing my experience of trying to use LCC's to correct some images of a uniform subject that I had taken to check out the coverage of my Digitar 47mm. Despite being taken as you describe, LCR spat the dummy, making no change to the target images, and reporting nothing helpful by way of feedback. I (correctly) concluded that this was caused by the uniformity of the target image (house cladding) so repeated the test on a more variable target (schist stonework). The LCC's were then applied without any problem. I find this sort of behaviour pretty inadequate, and wish that Adobe would lift their game on this particular software feature. But most of you probably all know this already - sigh...
-John
mristuccia
Well-known member
Since I have Hasselblad gears, I mainly use Phocus to apply LCC and I had no issues up until now. I've also tried LR just out of curiosity and it worked without problems with my images.
An important factor which I did not mention in my original post, and that I'm confident you already know, is that the LCC exposure should be such that it keeps the LCC image in the upper part of the histogram and avoid highlight clipping at the same time. So, since the aperture must be kept the same as the original image, longer exposure times are needed in order to take the LCC.
I don't have a digital back yet but I have been using digital since about 2003 or whenever the Canon 1Ds came out. Even back then it was supplemented by 4x5 film when needed.
My work is commercial architectural so for a long time, simply due to lens and resolutions, digital simply couldn't equal the 4x5 results for commercial reproduction but more importantly, for the actual image capture because 4x5 lenses had such wide views. For example 45,55,75, 90, 120, and 180, etc were my standard on most shoots and nearly all shots required shift, often massive.
So when canon made a 24tse, that was the first day digital was even marginally viable but when they finally made the 17tse, it was game on and also by then we had higher Mp such as the 5D line.
A while back of course Fuji came out with the 100Mp 33x44 in easy workflow package allowing use of the now even wider effective lenses made my canon. Even better their new 30mm TS is the sweet spot for most used lens in my experience. Combined with the canon 50 and 90 tse, and for the rare instance, Laowa 15 and 20 Shift, the work flow is fast and with a wider range of view angle than any of the digitar type lenses. Also no more stitching ever needed due to starting with 100Mp. Most of the time I stitched on the Canon 5DsR 50Mp was because I needed a final in 5:4 ratio which cut the 50Mp down too much while simple adding on some sky or ground was relatively painless and gave me a decent 70Mp final.
Medium format digital never really did catch up or match the angle of view + movements so the fast workflow and lens options just made 35mm/full frame to easy to continue. Now, with a 100Mp back being only $8200, the lenses are STILL a limitation which is frustrating, even the $9000 lenses, which is laughable anyway when you all are having to deal with LCC nonsense in the work flow. I can see doing this for personal work, but never 10-40 view shoots which will have their own added workflow complexities such as multiple shots of same scene purely for layering in people here and there or changes in the sky, lighting of my own, stitching for wide or taller compositions. Adding on an LCC capture for a twilight scene is also going to compete with getting the shot at the right moment.
I was excited about the new CFV100C but then what? I'm supposed to buy a set of lenses that still don't have enough movement for the cost of a Land Rover and then mess around with LCC captures in between capturing the right scene but now the light has changed ?
I have all my 4x5 lenses but from what I've read, they're really only good enough for art stuff on digital backs. 38xl, 47xl, 58xl, 72xl, Nikkor 90 & 120 SW, Rodenstock 180-S
Maybe I'm missing something ???
Last edited:
rdeloe
Well-known member
John and I are using similar outfits based on the Arca-Swiss F-Universalis and GFX 100S cameras. The only lenses I'm using that needs an LCC frame is the S-K APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6. And it only needs it for light falloff because colour cast is not something I'm seeing due to the BSI sensor in the GFX 100S. When I forget to use an LCC frame, I can fix light falloff if necessary in Lightroom.
You can spend a Land Rover's worth of money on this if you want to use digital view cameras and technical cameras, but that's a choice. There are reasonably priced options galore.