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!

47XL vs. 43XL

thomas

New member
Hi.

Here's a brief comparison of the 47XL vs. the new 43XL… for everyone, who is interested.
Sorry for the strange and boring images but that was in the front yard of Cambo and this is simply how it looks like in that quarter…

- both shots at f11 on P45 with 20mm lateral shift
- the 47XL with centerfilter, the 43XL without
- processed in C1; no furhter adjustments except of camera profile, WB, LCC, sharpening 200-0.8-0.8. Zero noise reduction.

Attached a screenshot of the 43XL's light falloff… which is exactly the same as the 47XL (~ 2 stops at 20mm lateral movements in horizontal compostion), a comparision of the scene (the sensor plane of the P45 in center position darked) and 100% crops from the far edge at 20mm lateral shift.

These are just my first impressions… so please take it with a grain of salt.
What I am seeing so far…
- the 43XL is a bit contrastier at the edges
- the 43XL is a bit sharper at the edges but not much
- the 47XL shows some CAs here, whereas the 43XL is pretty clean
the centerfilter on the 47XL might also play a role here, although I have never noticed a real image degradation due to the CF - not even in direct comparisons with and without CF.

The 47XL with CF shows much less noise at the edges than the 43XL without CF. So IMO there is in fact the need of an CF also on the 43XL for optimal results… otherwise you end up with at least ISO200 at the edges (if you shoot at ISO50).
Of course this is especially an issue on my P45…

No images here but the 43XL is noticeably better than the 47XL at f8.
At f5.6 it shows a similar falloff (and "glow") at the edges as the 47XL…

So… the 43XL is IMO a moderate improvement of an already very good lens.
If you miss a better performance at f8 with your 47XL, the 43XL is the better choice.
The slightly better contrast/sharpness of the 43XL at large movements is nice… matter of taste whether this justifies the higher price.

43XL falloff: http://drop.io/gbu95jz/asset/43xl-20mm-r-lcc-jpg
47XL scene: http://drop.io/gbu95jz/asset/47xl-p45-20r-jpg
43XL scene: http://drop.io/gbu95jz/asset/43xl-p45-20r-jpg
47XL edge crop: http://drop.io/gbu95jz/asset/47xl-20mm-r-jpg
43XL edge crop: http://drop.io/gbu95jz/asset/43xl-20mm-r-jpg
 
Last edited:
How come only one lens used a center filter? Doesn't the wider lens need one more so than the 47? I wonder how all of this works with an Alpa and their digital center filters - seems like a great way to shoot, not having to worry about nor purchase the hard copies.
 

thomas

New member
How come only one lens used a center filter? Doesn't the wider lens need one more so than the 47?
depends on the actual lens, not on the focal length.
Well, this was simply the test I was particularly interested in... as I would stop down to f11 anyway at large movements. The 43XL might be a bit better at large movements... but it still requires a centerfilter.

I wonder how all of this works with an Alpa and their digital center filters - seems like a great way to shoot, not having to worry about nor purchase the hard copies.
any software based boost of luminance will result in an effective increase of ISO... even an Alpa digital center filter (that is by the way not an Alpa but in fact a Schneider digital centerfilter).
 
OK, so did you use the digital center filter on either of these lenses? I guess I'm wondering because you say that the 43xl requires a center filter but you did not use one. Have you tested and compared the same lens and setup/exposure with a normal center filter and the digital center filter? I'm just wondering how this compares in real world results.
 

thomas

New member
OK, so did you use the digital center filter on either of these lenses? I guess I'm wondering because you say that the 43xl requires a center filter but you did not use one. Have you tested and compared the same lens and setup/exposure with a normal center filter and the digital center filter? I'm just wondering how this compares in real world results.
ah, okay...
the 47XL was used with a glass center filter, the 43XL without.
However both were corrected in Capture One using the built in tool for the so called "LCC based light falloff"... which is, if you want so, the digital center filter of C1. It's just more sophitisticated (as it is based on actual reference captures with a white plexi plate) and it works on the RAW file unlike Schneider's digital center filter that is a Photoshop plugin and consequently works on a pixel file (ideally a 16bit TIF, anything else simply doesn't make sense).

I've compared the 47XL with and without glass filter and with "digital center filter" (i.e. Capture One's tool). If you use a glass filter there is still some falloff but it is much less. So as to noise the captures with the glass filter are much, much better. This is why I hope Schneider will provide a glass filter for the 43XL and not just that superfluous Photohop plugin. Honestly, who will use it when you can correct the falloff already in the RAW software at a higher quality level?
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Thomas,

I realized that too, the digital center filter creates sometimes unnatural looking results and is less effective than the lcc correction of Phocus.

Hope that Schneider will produce a center filter too ...

Regards

Paul
 

thomas

New member
Hope that Schneider will produce a center filter too ...
I am just in contact with Schneider.
I'd like to have both options...
For captures without or just little movements I would probably not use the glass filter mostly but would simply correct falloff in C1.
For large movements I'd prefer to use a glass filter to get a cleaner image at the edges.
I hope Schneider understands the need of a glass filter...
 

archivue

Active member
thanks for sharing !
it looks like that at 11+ with movement, the difference won't be that big... isn't it ?
i'm using an apo siranor digital 45 with an aptus 22, and at F11-F16 is really good with really low distorsion... but with more pixels, ans with a larger aperture, i'm not shure it will be ok !


Now we are waiting for your comparison between 28mm from rodenstock HR and the new schneider ;-)
 

thomas

New member
it looks like that at 11+ with movement, the difference won't be that big... isn't it ?
that is my feeling, too. I think at f11 and f16 it's pretty much the same. Which maybe shows in retrun, how good the 47XL already was. The real improvement is at f8. But I have not done any compsrisions... just shot the 43XL at all apertures as I already know how the 47XL performs.
However I swapped the 47XL for the 43XL due to its better performance at f8 (which I would use mostly without or just with moderate movements... however of course I will check how good the 43XL@f8 is at large movements as soon as I have the time to do so).

i'm using an apo siranor digital 45 with an aptus 22, and at F11-F16 is really good with really low distorsion... but with more pixels, ans with a larger aperture, i'm not shure it will be ok !
I don't know this lens, sorry...

Now we are waiting for your comparison between 28mm from rodenstock HR and the new schneider ;-)
:) I did not compare them. I could have tried the new 32HR but as I am really not interessted in such a super heavy and highly specialized lens I did not.
But I've made a quick test with the 28XL... see here and also scroll down to post #16: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47215.msg393410#msg393410
 

thomas

New member
yes, same files, just different crops (100% crops from the edge at max. shift, i.e. 20mm on the WRS)
- the C1 version with both LCC and LCC based light falloff corrected in C1
- the "DCF" version with only LCC corrected in C1, but light falloff corrected with Schneider's Plugin
 
I guess I just don't know enough about all of this - to me a test doesn't mean anything unless you compare the exact same thing with only one variant. I can't really tell anything from these two different files since they are cropped differently, but that's OK, you didn't do this for me and I guess other people know what you have done.
 

Christopher

Active member
I'm a Little shocked about the 28mm perhaps i should again consider the Rodenstock which Sounds like the better lens. Yes it is a lot larger, but I'm pretty sure that is handles the light fall of much better and that it gives a much better shifting performance. I'll have to see if I can get my hands on both to try it.
 

thomas

New member
I guess I just don't know enough about all of this - to me a test doesn't mean anything unless you compare the exact same thing with only one variant.
this is the case here. Exactly the same captures... 1x light falloff corrected in C1, 1x light falloff corrected with Schneider's "DCF".
 
Last edited:

thomas

New member
I'm a Little shocked about the 28mm perhaps i should again consider the Rodenstock which Sounds like the better lens. Yes it is a lot larger, but I'm pretty sure that is handles the light fall of much better and that it gives a much better shifting performance. I'll have to see if I can get my hands on both to try it.
you definitely should!
I just made 1 shot at 15mm lateral shift @ f11 and centered shots at all apertures.
The lens in the shifted shot was focused to infitiny (focus checked while shooting tethered) whereas the objects in the frame at the far sides are maybe not really at "infinity". Mabye a bit closer. I think the captures tell something... as in the center of the image there are objects in the same plane of distance as the said objects on the far sides and these objects in the center are sharp... however more careful focusing might improve things, even at f11.
 

thomas

New member
some additional notes on the 43XL (in conjunction with a P45):
- in fact sharpness at the edges with large movements @f8 is almost the same as at f11 (so here the 43XL is clearly much better than the 47XL)
- whilst the improvement of sharpness at f11 (in comparision to f8) at the edges is negligible there is however less light falloff
- f8 is clearly better than f11 in the image center; it's also much sharper in the center at f8 than the 47XL at f8
- the degradation at f16 is more noticeable on the 43XL as on the 47XL... but I think this is due to the higher contrast of the 43XL so that the difference from f11 to f16 is simply more apparent. f16 does not improve sharpness at the egdes... not even with large movements (actually f11 is better). So unless you need a wider DOF f8 and f11 the way to go.
- I still think the 47XL is as about as good at the edges @ f11 and f16... so, again, the real (and really huge) improvement of the 43XL is it's fully usable from f8.
 

Christopher

Active member
Now it would be stunning to have somone compare the Schneider 43 and the Rodenstock 40. Perhaps I will do it if I get my hands on both lenses.
 
Top