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!
xcd 38 experiences, and compared to 30 and 45
- Thread starter Paratom
- Start date
atanabe
Member
I owned the 30 and 45 XCD 45P (pancake) lenses when I had the X1DII and they both were very good lenses. I sold them over a year ago and now have the X2D and the 38 XCD V lens. The 45 XCD P lens is a great lens for the price and size, at a third of the cost of the 38 V, a bargain. The 38 V brings to the table faster AF, a quieter shutter and a tactile feel with control rings for aperture and a true MF distance scale. It is still compact and at a 35mm equivalent 30mm which falls right in-between the 30 (24) and 45 (36). As I am rebuilding my kit, I feel the 30 too close in FOV and the 21 too wide, so I am waiting on the sidelines to see if they are coming up with focal lengths in between.
The 38 is sharp, renders well, plays well with the 100 mpx sensor, I do not regret buying it over the 45 and 30 at this point.
X2D, XCD 38V, ISO 64 1/250 @f8
The 38 is sharp, renders well, plays well with the 100 mpx sensor, I do not regret buying it over the 45 and 30 at this point.
X2D, XCD 38V, ISO 64 1/250 @f8
24mm would be great for my taste.
I think I could like 38mm focal length - I just thing 55 is pretty close. So I wish they had a 65 or 70v lens instead of 55mm.
But I dont believe they will offer anything between 55v and 90v in the near future.
Today I use often 30 + 65, but want the smaller and faster and more quiet lenses.
So maybe I should consider 38 + 90 and try to get along without anything in between.
I think I could like 38mm focal length - I just thing 55 is pretty close. So I wish they had a 65 or 70v lens instead of 55mm.
But I dont believe they will offer anything between 55v and 90v in the near future.
Today I use often 30 + 65, but want the smaller and faster and more quiet lenses.
So maybe I should consider 38 + 90 and try to get along without anything in between.
atanabe
Member
Yes, I think a 24mm in the new V design would round out the family well. I am awaiting the arrival of the new 90V to see if that would work for me as a two lens combo. It would be interesting to see if they plan on revamping the entire lens line up with the newer designs. The improved focus motors and shutter are noticeable upgrades.
The 38mm is an interesting lens. In my case, I really like the choice of focal length as it is a bit easier to compose with than the 30mm and has nearly the same “natural” feeling perspective as the 45mm. I find it replaces both focal lengths quite well. I can imagine others disagreeing.
As to the optical quality and handling… The new “V” series XCD’s seem to compromise a bit in terms of vignetting, distortion, and corner sharpness wide open in exchange for some additional speed (f/2.5) while keeping the size and weight to a minimum. Obviously, the vignetting and distortion are automatically fixed in software, but there is a hit to dynamic range/noise in the corrected areas. On balance, I like the compromise as the 38mm and 55mm are very small and light considering their maximum aperture and imaging circle.
The focus clutch is nice. So is the depth of field scale. The lens focuses much faster than most of the first generation lenses. Also, the shutter is nearly silent which definitely wasn’t true of the Nittoh sourced lenses. Really, the biggest downside to the “V” series is the increased cost over the first gen lenses.
As to the optical quality and handling… The new “V” series XCD’s seem to compromise a bit in terms of vignetting, distortion, and corner sharpness wide open in exchange for some additional speed (f/2.5) while keeping the size and weight to a minimum. Obviously, the vignetting and distortion are automatically fixed in software, but there is a hit to dynamic range/noise in the corrected areas. On balance, I like the compromise as the 38mm and 55mm are very small and light considering their maximum aperture and imaging circle.
The focus clutch is nice. So is the depth of field scale. The lens focuses much faster than most of the first generation lenses. Also, the shutter is nearly silent which definitely wasn’t true of the Nittoh sourced lenses. Really, the biggest downside to the “V” series is the increased cost over the first gen lenses.
atanabe
Member
If you are starting fresh, the 38 is a great choice, but as mentioned, even the bargain 45 p is a great performer. As far as lens corrections go, yes the 38 does have vignetting issues but easily corrected on import to Lightroom. As to the origin of the new series of lenses, is it not being made by Nittoh?
jotloob
Subscriber Member
I have and use the XCD 30 and the XCD 45P with the 907x . I am very much tempted to get the XCD 38 . Looking at the focal length it would not really be an enrichement to my existing XCD lenses , but I think it would give me a modern SWC .
I have and love my 905SWC and with the XCD 38V I could build an equivalent "907SWC" .
Has anyone already made a comparison between the BIOGON 38mm on any SWC and the XCD 38V on 907x ?
Would surely be interesting .
I have and love my 905SWC and with the XCD 38V I could build an equivalent "907SWC" .
Has anyone already made a comparison between the BIOGON 38mm on any SWC and the XCD 38V on 907x ?
Would surely be interesting .
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
If you want a 907SWC, then use the 21mm. The 38 was a VERY wide lens on 6x6 film. The 43mm on the Mamiya 7 is a similar experience.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Oh, sorry. Carry on, then...
Photon42
Well-known member
As you may have seen elsewhere, I have traded my 45p and 30 for the 38mm. Here is the rationale:
- the 38mm focusses closer than the 30mm. In my eyes that was one of the deficiencies of the the 30mm.
- The 45p mechanically never really got me
- neither the 30 nor the 45p were particularly fast, when using AF
- the 38 for me brings back a little the Leica Q vibe. Compact and fast with exceptional quality and the possibility for manual focussing. Close range on the Q is better, though
- the 38mm is a very nice and lightweight lens. It comes very close to a 28mm in full-frame terms
- the 38mm has an f-stop of 2.5. I find that very attractive for light-gathering as well as for artistic purposes
jotloob
Subscriber Member
MGrayson
My dream , after the XCD38 V was announced was , that I could build a Successor SWC , a „907SWC“ .
Using the same back CFV II 50 c and both having a 38mm lens .
I had a more closer look to the lens details .
The CZ Biogon 38 mm has a focal length of 38,6 mm and an angle of 90/72 diagonal / horizontal .
The XCD 38 mm has a focal length of 38 mm and an angle of 70/59 diagonal / horizontal .
With a cropfactor of 0,79 for a 33x44 sensor (CFV II 50c) that gives an aquivent of 30 mm focal length in FF .
But looking at the very different angles of the two lenses , I doubt that very much .
Any ideas here ?
My dream , after the XCD38 V was announced was , that I could build a Successor SWC , a „907SWC“ .
Using the same back CFV II 50 c and both having a 38mm lens .
I had a more closer look to the lens details .
The CZ Biogon 38 mm has a focal length of 38,6 mm and an angle of 90/72 diagonal / horizontal .
The XCD 38 mm has a focal length of 38 mm and an angle of 70/59 diagonal / horizontal .
With a cropfactor of 0,79 for a 33x44 sensor (CFV II 50c) that gives an aquivent of 30 mm focal length in FF .
But looking at the very different angles of the two lenses , I doubt that very much .
Any ideas here ?
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
There's no one answer, as the SWC was for 6x6 square format (56mmx56mm, I think) and so it can't be compared in a canonical (a term from higher mathematics meaning "without having to make a choice") way to the CFV II 50c. One can compare, for example, height, width, or diagonal. Each one will give a different "equivalent" focal length.
Matching sensor height yields a 38*33/56 = 22.4 mm
Matching sensor width gives 38*44/56 = 30 mm
Matching sensor diagonals gives 38*55/( 56 sqrt[2] ) = 26.4 mm
If you want to crop square, it means matching the height, and so the 22.4mm would be the equivalent. The 21mm is a bit wider, so you'd get very slightly more coverage than the original SWC shooting 6x6 film. It's a lot of fun to use, even if you don't crop it!
Matt
Last edited:
FloatingLens
Well-known member
Matt, keep in mind that the XCD21 focal length at infinity is effectively 21.8mm
jotloob
Subscriber Member
Thank you Matt . I will do some tests next weekend with the 905SWC/BIOGON 38mm and the ALPA HRDIGARON 40m . Both with the same CFV II 50 c back .
The Biogon 38mm and the HR 40mm are at least very near in focal length and the angles are 90 and 94 .
FloatingLens
Well-known member
I recommend to pay special attention to the focussing technique with the Biogon and CFV II due to field curvature. I got best results (depth of field, equal sharpness) when putting focus 2/3 out of the image center (aperture open), then stopping down to f8-f11. This can easily be achieved with the CFV in live view. The center of the Biogon is extremely sharp even on a digital sensor. Corners seem not so good in comparison, still results can be very satisfying when the above considerations are made.
I am happy to the have this legendary lens design at my disposal: digital & analog.
I am happy to the have this legendary lens design at my disposal: digital & analog.
Photon42
Well-known member
look for the 907 thread ...
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
FoV depends on focal length AND sensor size (or better, image circle). A 90mm lens meant for an 8x10 camera will have a VERY wide field of view. A 12mm lens for a phone camera will be a telephoto. The (simplified, sorry - I don't know the real one) formula is FoV = 2 ArcTan( r / f ), where f is the focal length and r is the image circle radius. Replace with half the sensor diagonal if you want to know the FoV across the diagonal of the image.
jotloob
Subscriber Member
I can't find the thread you mean . Can you please point me right to it ? ? ? Thank you .