Landscape Lenses

[supernewtent]

I think that the back will be the Leaf Aptus-II 7 33mp 48mmx36mm - budget driven as the next step up is way too far to me!

I think I'd like quite wide in between the 32 and 43.

 

[Don Libby]

Welcome to the world of tech cams and lens choices

And herein lies another pitfall --- if you do go with a crop back, your lens choices may go out the door if you decide to move to a larger back in the future...

Very true on both counts!

While I knew I was cropping w/my P45+ I never realised just how much until I traded it for the P65+.

 

[jctodd]

And, to make things one notch more confusing: I'm another recent entrant from the 35mm world to the MFDB world, and I didn't realise how much the change in sensor aspect ratio affects your perception of focal-length-equivalence. I also have a 48x36 Aptus sensor, which works out to a 4:3 aspect ratio - my full-frame Canon is 2:3. So, simply duplicating your favourite focal lengths may not give the results you expect.

 

[supernewtent]

I feel less knowledgable than I did 24 hours ago, but I know quite a bit more - if this makes any sense at all!! I guess the gap in terms of what I need to learn is larger than I thought!!

 

[Jack]

I think that the back will be the Leaf Aptus-II 7 33mp 48mmx36mm - budget driven as the next step up is way too far to me!

I think I'd like quite wide in between the 32 and 43.

The only things between 32 and 43 are the 35's and the 40 HR. With your slight crop back, I'd probably go wider -- but then the delta in cost for the 32HR over a 35 or even the 40HR is almost enough to pay for the full-frame sensor!

 

[jagsiva]

1) Rodie 40 HR-W; 1a) SK 43; but I would not argue against the 32HR-W if you want really wide.

2) Rodie 70 HR-W 2a) SK 72. Both great "normal" options. But again, if you like a loose normal, I would not argue against the new SK60.

Is there anything wider that suppors full-frame and movements?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Is there anything wider that suppors full-frame and movements?

This will be dependent on the back you are using. The biggest ones that will be problematic are obviously the Full Frame sensors and to a lessor degree of the crop sensor backs. As noted here on this forum the IQ 180 will have more restrictions here than say the IQ 160. I think it's kind of noted now for the IQ 180 that the Rodie 23,32,40 will do a good amount of movements but the 23 will of course be very little movements. As the focal length goes up more shifting is possible. For the SK lens the 43 works well. My SK 35 will have very little movement on the IQ 180 but more on the IQ 160 for example.
So best to let us know what back you have and be easy to steer you in the right direction. Now for example the IQ 140 with it's crop factor can use just about any lens with a fair amount of shift. It's a good idea to pay attention to what users are using for each back and if they are reporting certain limitations. Many threads here on a lot of this.

Also pay attention to rise and fall as well not just shifting which in many cases will be used less than rise and fall. I use rise and fall on almost every shot but shift very little. Obviously this will depend on situation. Now shift will show up faster these restrictions than rise and fall but you should still be aware of the total movements. Some shots may require a 10mm of rise than shift on top of that. Hope that helps

 

[pophoto]

I know you guys are responding with regards to techcams, but what would you guys use on the PhaseOne 645DF? Are the 28mm and 35mm any good, any wider or other choices without going techcam?

Thanks
Po

 

[dougpeterson]

I know you guys are responding with regards to techcams, but what would you guys use on the PhaseOne 645DF? Are the 28mm and 35mm any good, any wider or other choices without going techcam?

The quality of the 28/35 depend on what you're comparing them to and whether you are using a full frame or cropped sensor.

The 28D vs a Rodenstock 28mm on an IQ160 - there is no comparison.
The 28D vs a Rodenstock 28mm on an IQ140 - much closer.

Some basic information on the technical reasons behind why the lenses on a tech camera are better on the wide end:
http://www.captureintegration.com/tech-cameras/digital-view-camera/

Notably the ability for the optical designs on a tech camera to position the lens elements anywhere they want, without having to worry about a mirror box. The same reasons (among other design/quality issues) that wide angle lenses made for the M9 which has no mirror box are generally superior to Canon Wide angle lens made for a camera with a mirror box.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)

 

[pophoto]

Hey Doug,

Thank you for your reply! In general terms, would you say the IQ180 would be pushing the optics in wide angles for the 645DF unless going techcam then?

Thanks
Po

 

[Jack]

Is there anything wider that suppors full-frame and movements?

ALL of the lenses I listed in your quote will support generous movements on the IQ180 back.

 

[jagsiva]

Thanks Jack and Guy for your detailed responses. I am still debating an IQ160 or Aptus 12. Reading all this stuff is making my head spin to the point I thinking I should just get an S2 and get it over with )

 

[pophoto]

Thanks Jack and Guy for your detailed responses. I am still debating an IQ160 or Aptus 12. Reading all this stuff is making my head spin to the point I thinking I should just get an S2 and get it over with )

My head is going through the same thing, got to the S2 part and then I thought some more...doh!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Na just decide what back first. BTW I love my 160 if that helps and almost everything will work. Couple limitations and we all can certainly help you decide.

 

[GrahamWelland]

IQ160 is awesome - literally. You'd now have to prise mine from my cold dead fingers ... However, if I were JUST shooting technical cameras I'd very very seriously look at the IQ140 because all of the same UI wonderlust applies to the smaller sensor and you gain basically unlimited lens choices. I loved the flexibility of my P40+ in this respect but it was hampered by the UI for technical camera use (image review). The Leaf backs are much better in this area too and a great option. I still have a lot of love for my Aptus 65 and the newer backs have a brighter and clearer UI.

The newer 5.2 micron sensors seem to be outstanding based on the feedback of those using them but you do seem to need to be hyper careful about what lenses and overall workflow you use with them. That would apply to both the IQ180 & Aptus II 12. I could have stepped up to the IQ180 but decided to play it safe with the IQ160 (I know I'm not alone in that choice btw). That was in part because of the need to basically dump my technical camera lens collection if I'd gone that way - something that would have cost much more than the IQ160--> IQ180 price difference.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If you folks are looking for IQ 140's two of our sponsor dealers each have one ready to ship which is pretty rare. Brand new

Let me know

 

[wentbackward]

I think that the back will be the Leaf Aptus-II 7 33mp 48mmx36mm - budget driven as the next step up is way too far to me!

I think I'd like quite wide in between the 32 and 43.

The Rodie HR 40 and SK43 are both excellent on this back. Puts you at about 28mm equivalent on a 35mm camera.

The comments on being confused, from practical experience ... a good dealer will help more than anything else. Try things out. Absolutely do not rush into this.

 

[supernewtent]

Thank you all for those suggestions, very much appreciated - is there a lens you would recommend that is slightly wider, around the 24mm equivalent?

I'm a bit stuck dealer wide as very few sell the arca kit, and my dealer is 200 miles away - I spent over 2 hours in the store a few days ago, but I genuinely think you folk have more knowledge.. but I'm slightly aware that I don't want to abuse you all with questions for help....

 

[Jack]

The 40 is a 26/27 on full frame and will set you back about $4000. The 32HR is the gold standard in that arena right now (about a 20 on FF), and it will set you back about $8,000. The 35 is a 22 equivalent for full-frame MF, but they are older designs -- not bad, just older and so have more falloff. In 35's, the SK is the one I would pick, but as mentioned earlier, you'll want to add the Center Filter and leave it on for most shots. You can probably find a used one for under $3,000, but add $400 or so for the CF.

If you go with a crop sensor, then you need to look at a SK 28 for your 24 equivalent. The downside is a really small IC so not much movement (a little on the crop sensor). But mostly that if you ever upgrade your back (and you will) it will just barely cover full-frame, and has heavy lens cast even on the P65+/IQ160, and so much cast on the IQ180 it won't correct.

The 28 is the current "no man's land" of tech lenses. Many of us (ME) really want a good 28 solution and there simply isn't one. The 32 HR is a phenomenal lens, but not quite wide enough for my needs. It appears I am going to have to settle for going more wide than I really want and get the 23, OR do what I do now and save $8 grand by stitching the 40...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The 40 is a 26/27 on full frame and will set you back about $4000. The 32HR is the gold standard in that arena right now (about a 20 on FF), and it will set you back about $8,000. The 35 is a 22 equivalent for full-frame MF, but they are older designs -- not bad, just older and so have more falloff. In 35's, the SK is the one I would pick, but as mentioned earlier, you'll want to add the Center Filter and leave it on for most shots. You can probably find a used one for under $3,000, but add $400 or so for the CF.

If you go with a crop sensor, then you need to look at a SK 28 for your 24 equivalent. The downside is a really small IC so not much movement (a little on the crop sensor). But mostly that if you ever upgrade your back (and you will) it will just barely cover full-frame, and has heavy lens cast even on the P65+/IQ160, and so much cast on the IQ180 it won't correct.

The 28 is the current "no man's land" of tech lenses. Many of us (ME) really
want a good 28 solution and there simply isn't one. The 32 HR is a phenomenal lens, but not quite wide enough for my needs. It appears I am going to have to settle for going more wide than I really want and get the 23, OR do what I do now and save $8 grand by stitching the 40...

And this is exactly where some of us sit for the IQ 160 and IQ 180 users. Now the SK 28 is a guess on the 160 and will try it next week myself. See if I can get some movements out of it but like Jack said it could be a no go.
The 160 we get a little more leeway but still a challenge.

Well said Jack pretty much summed up my thoughts exactly. I shot the Rodie 32 and it was very nice and you can get away without the CF but it is big, heavy and expensive.