Thoughts on Schnedier 35XL vs Rodenstock 40HR on iq4 150.

[Boinger]

I have both of these lenses and I am trying to decide which one to keep.

They are so close it doesn't seem to make sense to keep both.

The 35xl is very small and light which is nice. But it does have a slight color cast on extreme movements and needs an lcc, and probably a center filter as well.

The 40 HR doesn't seem to need any lcc which is a rather large perk.

I have been shooting some tests with these two lenses but I can't seem to see which one is better.

 

[drunkenspyder]

I have both of these lenses and I am trying to decide which one to keep.

They are so close it doesn't seem to make sense to keep both.

The 35xl is very small and light which is nice. But it does have a slight color cast on extreme movements and needs an lcc, and probably a center filter as well.

The 40 HR doesn't seem to need any lcc which is a rather large perk.

I have been shooting some tests with these two lenses but I can't seem to see which one is better.

I don't have the Schneider 35, so I can't provide a comparative opinion, but I love the 40. If I can only take one lens on the Cambo, it's the 40.

 

[tcdeveau]

I have both of these lenses and I am trying to decide which one to keep.

They are so close it doesn't seem to make sense to keep both.

The 35xl is very small and light which is nice. But it does have a slight color cast on extreme movements and needs an lcc, and probably a center filter as well.

The 40 HR doesn't seem to need any lcc which is a rather large perk.

I have been shooting some tests with these two lenses but I can't seem to see which one is better.

If you don't want to keep both, sounds like the call based on your experience is do you want small and light or do you want no LCC?

 

[Aviv1887]

I have the SK 35XL which received another life on the IQ150 compared to the IQ100. However I would not recommend it as your only lens and would advice to keep the RS40. Movement is not that great even with a CF filter and resolving is getting stretched to its maximum with this combination. Still a lovely lens IMHO.

 

[dchew]

I have both too. The 40 definitely shifts better. 35 is smaller with no distortion.

I think most people would value the 40‘s advantages over the 35. I can fit the 35 in my small bag, so it usually goes with me. The are both great lenses.

Dave

 

[vsbhk]

I have both of these lenses and I am trying to decide which one to keep.

They are so close it doesn't seem to make sense to keep both.

The 35xl is very small and light which is nice. But it does have a slight color cast on extreme movements and needs an lcc, and probably a center filter as well.

The 40 HR doesn't seem to need any lcc which is a rather large perk.

I have been shooting some tests with these two lenses but I can't seem to see which one is better.

I had both and sold the 35 XL, despite being a great lens (and certainly very compact). The 40 HR is more modern and has better contrast in my experience, less prone to flare, LCC looks better too.

 

[f8orbust]

This is a bit like having to choose between a Ferrari and an Aston Martin. It's win, win whatever you decide.

Having shot with both, my preference would be the 35XL: smaller, lighter, no distortion, no flare, better bokeh and, IMHO, just renders nicer.

Jim

 

[dchew]

Also, note the 40hr is really 42mm, and the 35xl is really 36mm.

Dave

 

[Boinger]

Shot some samples.

Am I nuts or does the 35XL seem better towards the corners to anyone else?

Focus point are the bottles. And shot at the respective optimal aperture. f/11 for the 35 and f/8 for the HR 40.

Full res jpgs here. LCC's were applied to both.

15mm shift
35XL
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000602.jpg
40HR
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000620.jpg

12mm rise
35XL
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000608.jpg
40HR
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000624.jpg

 

[tashley]

Shot some samples.

Am I nuts or does the 35XL seem better towards the corners to anyone else?

Focus point are the bottles. And shot at the respective optimal aperture. f/11 for the 35 and f/8 for the HR 40.

Full res jpgs here. LCC's were applied to both.

15mm shift
35XL
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000602.jpg
40HR
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000620.jpg

12mm rise
35XL
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000608.jpg
40HR
http://pics.jewelrynexus.com/amazonpics/2018/misc/P0000624.jpg

The 40HR’s corners are great for landscape and architecture but less good for closer range.

 

[dougpeterson]

The 40HR’s corners are great for landscape and architecture but less good for closer range.

The 40HR is very sharp in the corners at close range... they are just sharp several inches in front of the plane of focus.

Like many lenses of this design type the focus "plane" becomes more like a bowl at close distances.

I only point this out because, if push comes to shove, you can focus bracket and focus stack and you'll get quite sharp images (at least, far more sharp than you'd expect from looking at the corners of a flatish object at f/8 at close distance).

 

[vjbelle]

Unless the files are mixed up I find the Rody 40 definitely sharper than the 35XL. Don't know what you are seeing.....

Victor

 

[f8orbust]

Making a comparison where the lens is focused quite closely - even a wide angle lens - is difficult as depth of field can be surprisingly shallow, and nailing the same point of focus is tricky - e.g. the ceiling lights reflected in the mirror are sharp in the 35 shifted image, not so much in the 40, making me think the 35 was focused behind the bottles (which are sharp in the 40 shifted image). Or is it the other way around (front focus) because the lights are reflected in a mirror ? Who knows.

Jim

P.S. For example, Anders Torger's Lumariver DOF app shows that a 35 focused at 2m (~6.5ft) @ f11 with an IQ150 only has 0.33m (~1ft) of 'sharp' DOF - something that soon becomes apparent when zooming to insane magnifications on a computer screen.

 

[earburner]

This cheers me up no end, I have a Schneider 35XL and not yet taken it out with my iq4 150, so looking at the sample images make me think my lens has a new lease of life

 

[dchew]

Unless the files are mixed up I find the Rody 40 definitely sharper than the 35XL. Don't know what you are seeing.....

Victor

It depends on where I look. The bottles in the shift image definitely look better on the 40hr, as does the image overall [35 left / 40 right].

But the blue fabric in the far corner is a bit better on the 35 [35 left / 40 right]:

On the rise/fall image, there is something odd going on with the 40hr. As Doug pointed out, could simply be field curvature. Given the image shift was down (either lens fall or back rise), this should not be anywhere near the edge of the image circle [35 left / 40 right]:

Regardless, they are both great lenses. Todd has my 40hr right now, but I compared them two years ago when I got the 35xl, and it was splitting hairs. I just shot another test of my 35xl, and it is good as ever, at least on the IQ3100...

Dave

35xl@f/13:

 

[vjbelle]

Dave.... I downloaded the files and looked at them 100% pixels. This would not be a test for me but it is a test and something that can be compared. The Rody, for me, always bested the 35XL at 100% Pixels regardless of where I looked. I only have the 35XL and am convinced that shifting it is limited with the 3100 sensor. Maybe the 4150 retains some sharpness in corners and edges that are compromised with the 3100 sensor. That would be a definite advantage.

These are interesting times......

Victor

 

[Boinger]

Maybe I should conduct this same test at infinity focus to see the difference?

 

[f8orbust]

I think there are areas in each image where one lens just edges the other; IMHO it's not night and day by any means.

What is truly amazing is just how well the 35 performs with the IQ150, even when shifted 15mm - which is an extreme shift for the 35; would be interesting to see how the 40 (=41.85) compares to the 43 (=44.65) with its humungous 125mm image circle.

If you do the test at infinity, remember that (if you're using a helical to focus - don't think you are come to think of it) the 35XL focuses past infinity, with the infinity mark on the lens corresponding to infinity on centre, while the hard stop of the focusing ring corresponds to infinity in the corners. Just focus between the two and stop down, or use the hyperfocal distance, or tilt if the subject works with tilt. That said, with live view some of this advice is a bit moot. Difficult keeping up with the technology these days.

 

[vjbelle]

I should maybe have added to my post above that I view images for critical evaluation 'only' on my NEC P271 with resolution of 2560 X 1440. This allows me to easily see the differences in resolution/sharpness vs using a screen with higher resolution where 'everything' seems to be in focus. It is the main reason I have not moved on to the HD monitors.

Victor

 

[Gerd]

I should maybe have added to my post above that I view images for critical evaluation 'only' on my NEC P271 with resolution of 2560 X 1440. This allows me to easily see the differences in resolution/sharpness vs using a screen with higher resolution where 'everything' seems to be in focus. It is the main reason I have not moved on to the HD monitors.

Victor

Hello Victor,

that is interesting - I also work in 2560x1440 (2 x EIZO CG277). I was thinking about going to 4K to make better use of the resolution. You say on 2560x1440 you can judge the differences in sharpness / resolution better.

Do I have a thought error if I want to go to 4K? Can you please write me your thoughts on this?

Greeting Gerd