Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: 47XL vs. 43XL

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    47XL vs. 43XL

    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 by thomas; 6th October 2010 at 13:28.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Woodland View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Woodland View Post
    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).

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Woodland View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    OK, thanks for the info!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Spinnler View Post
    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...

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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 ;-)

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    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 [email protected] 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/fo...3410#msg393410

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Just tried Schneider's "Digital Center Filter":
    http://drop.io/gbu95jz/asset/43xl-dcf-adaptive-jpg-2
    (link updated)

    for comparision here is Capture One's LCC based light falloff correction again: http://drop.io/gbu95jz/asset/43xl-20mm-r-jpg

    judge for yourself.
    Last edited by thomas; 8th October 2010 at 04:13.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Are these the same file? I'm just wondering since one is cropped differently.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Woodland View Post
    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 by thomas; 8th October 2010 at 10:47.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    thank you very much !

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    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.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    thank you very much !
    you're welcome!

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher View Post
    Now it would be stunning to have somone compare the Schneider 43 and the Rodenstock 40.
    in what respect?
    I think both are sweat lenses and deliver very fine, incredibly sharp images.
    Other than that they are different...

    pros for the Digaron-W 40:
    - f4; allows less DOF and faster shutter speeds; it's also brighter on the groundglass
    - less light falloff due to the retro focus design

    pros for the 43XL:
    - much larger image circle
    - significantly smaller/lighter
    - probably less distortion
    (me personally I also like the snap-locks on Schneider's apture rings ... because you don't have to look at the indication to adjust a certain aperture on the lens)

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    - I think performance at f8 could be interesting. For example the Rodenstock is already quite good qide open compared to the Schneider.
    - Does the huge image circle of the Schneider really gives a better image when shifted?

    Well I can now say that i will soon have both lenses and certainly will do a comparsion in all aspects.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    i didn't bought the 40 digaron because i was afraid of distortion... so i went with the 35XL and the 45 apo sironar digital... i was just able to tried the 40 on an arca 69, (just looking no pictures done...) and the image was incredibly clear compare to my lenses.

    So for architecture with a technical camera, i won't go with the 40... but with a monorail for landscape it makes more sense !

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher View Post
    - Does the huge image circle of the Schneider really gives a better image when shifted?
    it depends. Sometimes you need large movements but the image-content at the outer edges is not so important re sharpness. So for instance if you shoot a building in vertical composition with a high amount of rise ... when there is sky above the building the softer edge at the top of the image doesn't matter...
    With regard to stitching I guess the higher resolution always wins over a wider field of view on a smaller format - so for instance a 4-way stitch with the 43XL (or 47XL) might be a bit soft at the edges... but as it is so much larger than a single shot with e.g. a 28mm lens it is actually sharper in the final print.... especially when you are printing large. So if you want to cover the respective field of a 35mm and 28mm lens the larger image circle comes in handy.
    I try to keep critical image-content within movements of +/- 15-17mm with the 47XL (resp. 43XL). I'd say within +/- 12mm shift the 47XL and the 43XL are very, very good... but +/-17mm is still usable. Above, i.e. at larger movements than 15-17mm it depends...*

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher View Post
    Well I can now say that i will soon have both lenses and certainly will do a comparsion in all aspects.
    great! please let us know the outcome!

    * this goes for my P45 and its 49x37mm sensor plane. But as the Dalsa Sensors are a bit more forgiving with movements the amount of movements may roughly apply to your P65+ as well... not sure though, just speculating.
    Last edited by thomas; 25th October 2010 at 04:57.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    i didn't bought the 40 digaron because i was afraid of distortion... so i went with the 35XL and the 45 apo sironar digital... i was just able to tried the 40 on an arca 69, (just looking no pictures done...) and the image was incredibly clear compare to my lenses.

    So for architecture with a technical camera, i won't go with the 40... but with a monorail for landscape it makes more sense !
    Maybe another thing to consider is the look of the lenses. I only shoot with the 47XL (resp. now with the 43XL) and the Digaron-W 70... so this is the only comparision I can talk about. From this comparision me personally I think the Schneider lenses have a nicer look... especially regarding color rendition. The 70HR is brutally sharp but it also looks totally neutral...
    The differences are subtle, though.

  26. #26
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    From this comparision me personally I think the Schneider lenses have a nicer look... especially regarding color rendition. The 70HR is brutally sharp but it also looks totally neutral...
    Good question Arch and excellent answer Thomas. When I shot LF, I found the same thing: a smoothness to Schneider lenses where the uber-sharp and contrasty Rodenstocks came off a bit harsh. And I agree, this is a pretty subtle -- yet notable -- difference between them.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Good question Arch and excellent answer Thomas. When I shot LF, I found the same thing: a smoothness to Schneider lenses where the uber-sharp and contrasty Rodenstocks came off a bit harsh. And I agree, this is a pretty subtle -- yet notable -- difference between them.
    when i was shooting 120, i've sold my 55 apo grandagon and bought a 58xl for this reason... but when i tried it with an MFDB it wasn't sharp enought... and bought a 55 apo sironar digital...

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    re distortion...

    You can check the distortion of LF lenses (and recently many MF and DSLR lenses) quite good with the Alpa Lens Corrector.
    Just make an image in the correct dimensions, add a grid with straight lines and apply the lens profile for a certain lens to see the inverted distortion of the respective lens.

    Attached the inverted distortion of the 47XL, the 43XL, the Digaron-W 40 and for comparision a 45mm MF lens (Zeiss-Contax Distagon 2.8/45 here).
    The images show the distortion for the P45 without movements... so only for the image plane of the P45 sensor. When you take the entire image circle of the lenses into account the distortion is of course more obvious.
    I think it's clear that the Schneider lenses show very little distortion whereas the distortion of the Digaron-W 40 is pretty obvious (less than a MF lens, but still...).
    (the first image is the undistorted grid)

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    actually... you can also replicate the real distortion... you just have to invert the algebraic signs of the correction values (i.e. the numeric values in K1, K2, K3) in the Alpa LC.
    Here are the 43XL and the 40hr again...

  30. #30
    Subscriber & Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    414

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Thomas - thank you for the continued flow of information.

    The MTF for the 43XL would seem to indicate that it is also slightly better in the center at f/5.6 than it is at f/8, although it falls off rather quickly.

    I think the 47XL may also be better in the center at f/8 than at f/11, but as you point out the edges are much better at f/11. I am not basing this on any keen tests I've done, just some general observations from my shooting. I have the 47XL, not the 43XL, and mostly shoot at f/11. Also, I'm shooting on a 37 x 37 sensor so it does not take much to keep me happy at the edges.

    Interesting observation about the character difference between the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, I will have to look for this in images I see (I only have two Schneider lenses). Do you notice any difference in character between the 43XL and the 47XL considering you say the 43XL has more contrast?

    Even though the 47XL has so little distortion, I find that using the Alpa Lens Corrector can make a subtle difference. Some images look fine, I really don't notice anything but I run them through the Lens Corrector and they look ever so slightly more natural - perhaps I am deluding myself because I think it is a fantastic tool.

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by cmb_ View Post
    The MTF for the 43XL would seem to indicate that it is also slightly better in the center at f/5.6 than it is at f/8, although it falls off rather quickly.
    yes, that's true. But the falloff (on my 49x37 sensor) produces that typical kind of "glow" at the edges. So for certain applications f5.6 is super... but not if your target is an even sharpness all over the image plane.

    I think the 47XL may also be better in the center at f/8 than at f/11, but as you point out the edges are much better at f/11.
    yes, I agree! However even without movements I've always preferred to shoot at f11 with the 47XL.

    Do you notice any difference in character between the 43XL and the 47XL considering you say the 43XL has more contrast?
    yes, the 43XL has more punch overall ... but still nice.

    Even though the 47XL has so little distortion, I find that using the Alpa Lens Corrector can make a subtle difference. Some images look fine, I really don't notice anything but I run them through the Lens Corrector and they look ever so slightly more natural - perhaps I am deluding myself because I think it is a fantastic tool.
    I agree. I shoot a lot of straight/rectangular objects and use the Alpa LC all the time. Although distortion is so little the corrected image looks so much better! Of course especially when you are stitching. Depending on what you shoot distortion correction has a really high impact on the image expression... IMO.
    And yes, the Alpa LC is really a great tool! The degradation due to the interpolation is really not that much. There is some... but it's almost negligible. The correction is apparently based on lens data provided by the lens makers (so it is not based on actual measurements made by Alpa)... but LF lenses seem to have little sample variation. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong... but the correction is really accurate. The same goes for my Contax 645 lenses.
    Kind of unbelievable that the Alpa LC is for free, especially as it now also supports DSLR lenses. Well, maybe the marketing effect is worth the effort...

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    BTW: Schneider told me they will make a glass centerfilter for the 43XL.
    They won't make a regular series of filters … but will make a line of samples and customers can order one (delivery time will be 8-12 weeks).
    So most likely these centerfilters will be even more expensive… but still it's great to have that option… IMO.
    Don't know when they are ready… i.e. when they start to accept orders… hopefully anytime soon.

  33. #33
    Subscriber & Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    414

    Re: 47XL vs. 43XL

    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    Kind of unbelievable that the Alpa LC is for free, especially as it now also supports DSLR lenses. Well, maybe the marketing effect is worth the effort...
    Well, when "Things are Simple at the Top" you can almost charge anything you want AND give stuff away for free too, I guess!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •