3 lenses for Technical camera and Phase One IQ 180

[dougpeterson]

Thanks Doug, I will call! Or even FaceTime if you use an iphone?

We all have iPhones on our WiFi here, but we usually end up using GoToMeeting for video chatting as it's been far more stable for us and also allows sharing screens and adding multiple people.

We experimented with iChat and Skype for this purpose but nothing touches GoToMeeting. We use it now for our weekly inter-office meetings, customer support, and training.

Of course how ever you want to contact us we are happy to hear from you.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

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

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

 

[vieri]

I came from 4x5, so I already knew which focals I "had to have" since I had been through every possible focal previously with the 4x5. There I had settled on a foursome. In order of use they were the 90 (maybe 50%), 150 (about 30%), then about tied between the 65 and 270 (around 10% each). The comparable focals for LF >> MF tech >> 35mm full-frame are *approximately*

90 = 40 = 26
150 = 70 = 45
65 = 28 = 19
270 = 120 = 80

I also liked the 55 in LF, but it was getting pretty wide, and the 47 in LF was extremely wide; know that 47 in LF = about the 23 in MF tech, which in turn = about 15mm in 35 terms. Hence where I am presently sitting with my tech kit is my first 2 mandatory focals were the 40 and the 70, and I am extremely happy with both of them. The next addition was the 120, but only because I wanted that focal for the tech cam so I would not have to drag my DF body in the field with me. I also now have the 28 HR on order to round out my ideal single-camera foursome.

So for you already knowing you use your 28 and 55 a lot, I think you just need to decide 1) do you want to use your DSLR body or another camera for longer shots, and 2) if you'd prefer the tech replacement for your 55 a little wider (40HR or 43SK or the 50HR) or a little tighter (60SK), then decide how much longer than that one or wider than the 28 you want to go for your 3rd option.

Note that for me I chose the Rodenstock HR series for my 28, 40 and 70, but have shot with the similar 43 and 72 Schneiders -- basically all of the CURRENT series of tech lenses are stellar, the older generations you need to be careful. My 120 is the SK and it is excellent too.

120 and long tech lens note: 120 (or 135, 150, 180, 210) short barrel lenses have a rear extension "box" to allow for infinity focus on tech cams -- this makes the package less compact combined and slower to mount and unmount. Some of the manufacturers offer long barrel in the long lenses that add that length like a permanently attached extension tube -- this makes them less portable and efficient to pack and carry in your bag. In short, just recognize that using lenses longer than 90 on tech cams gets a little more finicky and slower to operate.

Fantastic advice, Jack! If I may, about your 120 and longer note: this is true only depending on which camera you use these lenses, and true for Cambo, Silvestri & Arca for sure. On the other hand, for me and my Techno is not so: using a Linhof camera system, all lenses are mounted on flat Linhof boards, so actually the longer focals are indeed the smallest and lighter lenses of all.

To answer the OP question, my kit is Rodie 35 Digitar, Schneider 47 XL, 90 and 180; all to be used on a Linhof Techno and with a Leaf Aptus II 12R on Hasselblad V mount.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I forgot to post this yesterday. Not a great shot but it is the Rodie 23.

 

[alan_w_george]

I use the Cambo mostly for 2x2 stitches, so I am partial to large image circles (IC). I currently have a 2 lens kit, a Rodie 55mm and an SK 90mm. I believe the Rodie 55mm has the largest advertised IC of any of the lens available of the Cambo RS. I am pretty pleased with it. I find the 55mm on par with the SK 47mm and suffers far less from LCC issues and has a bigger useable (on the IQ180) IC. Some popo the 55mm for its non-leading MTF chart, but I find it's practical application more that adequate.

There is a couple of recents for the 55mm...

This one is 20mm down/10mm up/15mm left and right.

This one is 15mm down, up, left and right.

Some 100% center detail...

 

[tashley]

So on the IQ 180 it seems that replacement candidates for my SK 35XL are the Rodie 32 and 40 and the SK 43.

The rodies are, I am told (and have noted above) prone to flare and suffer some significant distortion - I know they offer great movements and sharpness, but these do seem to be the downsides. So I am thinking about the SK 43.

Realistically, does anyone know what shifts it allows on an IQ180 and what sort of distortions it has, and whether it needs to be shot with a hood or gobo rig? I never bother with my 35XL, and it never minds!

Really appreciating the advice...

Tim

 

[micek]

By the way - I had a 28mm for a very short while and found I couldn't get any shits past 2mm and that was using the P45+.
Don

A definite downside to Rodenstock lenses: constipation.

 

[Don Libby]

A definite downside to Rodenstock lenses: constipation.

Okay - that's what I get for writing something while drinking
Surprised that Ken didn't call me on this one!

Don

 

[Jack]

So on the IQ 180 it seems that replacement candidates for my SK 35XL are the Rodie 32 and 40 and the SK 43.

The rodies are, I am told (and have noted above) prone to flare and suffer some significant distortion - I know they offer great movements and sharpness, but these do seem to be the downsides. So I am thinking about the SK 43.

Realistically, does anyone know what shifts it allows on an IQ180 and what sort of distortions it has, and whether it needs to be shot with a hood or gobo rig? I never bother with my 35XL, and it never minds!

Really appreciating the advice...

Tim

Tim,

I get irritated when simple generalizations get blown out of scale, so bear with me... to be clear, I would not refer the Rodenstock HR distortion as anything approaching extreme! It is there, but it is minor compared to any traditional MF DSLR lens from Hassy, Phase or Schneider. And yes the SK distortion is marginally less than Rodie, but it is still there in both lens designs -- ergo, if you need distortion free geometric rendering, you're going to be running the Alpa lens corrector or similar on all your images regardless of which brand of lens you're using -- in fact all lenses wider than normals distort to some degree, and in fact most every lens design period distorts to some degree! Conversely, if your subject is non-critical geometry, you'll not need to run a lens corrector with either the SK or HR. What I am saying is I cannot think of a situation where I'd need to run it on Rodie and not have to run it on the SK.

Final comment, I shot a 2-frame architectural stitch of a massive house for a customer with my 40HR, of course camera well-levelled. I assembled the pair and processed, never bothering with Alpa lens corrections and making only a few very minor corrections using PS SKEW tool. I printed it out big for the client, it looked phenomenal and I could detect no offensive distortions anywhere in the image, and neither did the client...

 

[etrump]

So on the IQ 180 it seems that replacement candidates for my SK 35XL are the Rodie 32 and 40 and the SK 43.

The rodies are, I am told (and have noted above) prone to flare and suffer some significant distortion - I know they offer great movements and sharpness, but these do seem to be the downsides. So I am thinking about the SK 43.

Realistically, does anyone know what shifts it allows on an IQ180 and what sort of distortions it has, and whether it needs to be shot with a hood or gobo rig? I never bother with my 35XL, and it never minds!

Really appreciating the advice...

Tim

Ditto on Jack's comments. Having owned both the HR32 and SK35, they are comparable without shifts. The SK35 is MUCH software with extreme shifts than the HR32. That said, I rarely have problems with flare with either one of these lens. Distortion is a little more with the HR32 but neither should be considered extreme. While I haven't tested it, IMO they don't seem to have as much distortion as 645 mfg's glass for that matter. If you are shooting architecture or interiors you probably will have to correct with any wide angle glass.

The HR23 has serious problems with flare when using the center filter primarily due to the fact that the center filter is MUCH closer to the front of the lens than the SK35 CF. Basically it reflects the color of the sensor reflecting back off the CF which is difficult but not impossible to correct in post. The CF on the SK35 is almost an inch farther away from the front of the lens but almost any filter on the SK35 CF darkens the corners. Remove the center filter and the problems go away. I don't know if the CF could be coated to reduce the flare but I would be tempted to try it if I could find a source. Regardless, I would still use the HR23 because it gives me a dramatic FOV in certain circumstances.

Just my experience, but the HR23 is basically the same FOV as the HR32 shifted about 15mm in each direction. Shifting the HR32 that much in most cases results in softer edges than the HR23 so it is a nice fit even with the color cast problems in the center of the image.

A couple of my recent HR23 images. A little unsharp mask on the edges is able to recover any lens softness. The second image is slightly softer on extreme edges of the handrails but that was a DOF tradeoff more than lens softness. Camera was less than 18" away from the handrails on either side and I wanted the trees on the islands sharp enough to show detail in the evergreens. That said, photographers might notice but normal humans would not.

 

[tashley]

That's good enough for me Jack: I had read somewhere that the 40HR had moustache distortion that was visible in architectural shots but I am happier to take your word forit than anyone's.

How do you find the flare? I do accept that this is equally likely to have been exaggerated.

Am also curious as to any experience anyone has had with the sk43.

Best
Tim

Tim,

I get irritated when simple generalizations get blown out of scale, so bear with me... to be clear, I would not refer the Rodenstock HR distortion as anything approaching extreme! It is there, but it is minor compared to any traditional MF DSLR lens from Hassy, Phase or Schneider. And yes the SK distortion is marginally less than Rodie, but it is still there in both lens designs -- ergo, if you need distortion free geometric rendering, you're going to be running the Alpa lens corrector or similar on all your images regardless of which brand of lens you're using -- in fact all lenses wider than normals distort to some degree, and in fact most every lens design period distorts to some degree! Conversely, if your subject is non-critical geometry, you'll not need to run a lens corrector with either the SK or HR. What I am saying is I cannot think of a situation where I'd need to run it on Rodie and not have to run it on the SK.

Final comment, I shot a 2-frame architectural stitch of a massive house for a customer with my 40HR, of course camera well-levelled. I assembled the pair and processed, never bothering with Alpa lens corrections and making only a few very minor corrections using PS SKEW tool. I printed it out big for the client, it looked phenomenal and I could detect no offensive distortions anywhere in the image, and neither did the client...

 

[tashley]

Thank you, that is also incredibly useful (and I remember that shot of the mill from when you first posted it, simply gorgeous!)

The 23HR would just be too wide for me: much as I'd love to have one, I am running too much gear at the moment and really need to focus on defining and fulfilling core needs. I'd be interested to know if you use a CF on the 32HR?

Ditto on Jack's comments. Having owned both the HR32 and SK35, they are comparable without shifts. The SK35 is MUCH software with extreme shifts than the HR32. That said, I rarely have problems with flare with either one of these lens. Distortion is a little more with the HR32 but neither should be considered extreme. While I haven't tested it, IMO they don't seem to have as much distortion as 645 mfg's glass for that matter. If you are shooting architecture or interiors you probably will have to correct with any wide angle glass.

The HR23 has serious problems with flare when using the center filter primarily due to the fact that the center filter is MUCH closer to the front of the lens than the SK35 CF. Basically it reflects the color of the sensor reflecting back off the CF which is difficult but not impossible to correct in post. The CF on the SK35 is almost an inch farther away from the front of the lens but almost any filter on the SK35 CF darkens the corners. Remove the center filter and the problems go away. I don't know if the CF could be coated to reduce the flare but I would be tempted to try it if I could find a source. Regardless, I would still use the HR23 because it gives me a dramatic FOV in certain circumstances.

Just my experience, but the HR23 is basically the same FOV as the HR32 shifted about 15mm in each direction. Shifting the HR32 that much in most cases results in softer edges than the HR23 so it is a nice fit even with the color cast problems in the center of the image.

A couple of my recent HR23 images. A little unsharp mask on the edges is able to recover any lens softness. The second image is slightly softer on extreme edges of the handrails but that was a DOF tradeoff more than lens softness. Camera was less than 18" away from the handrails on either side and I wanted the trees on the islands sharp enough to show detail in the evergreens. That said, photographers might notice but normal humans would not.

 

[Jack]

How do you find the flare? I do accept that this is equally likely to have been exaggerated.

Am also curious as to any experience anyone has had with the sk43.

Best
Tim

I should have mentioned that as well. Bottom line is ALL the tech lenses are more flare-prone than their DSLR counterparts simply because of the relatively larger IC's -- the same IC that allows us generous shifts, also allows bright light outside our current frame to enter the interior lightbox of the camera and bounce around. SO bottom line is if you're shooting toward a bright light source, you'll need to shade or flag.

Getting technical, the shorter HR lenses being retrofocal and thus being physically further away from the sensor plane than a similar focal SK, creates less acute angles for the light to bounce around, increasing the likelihood of flare.

However in practice as recent as Death Valley, there was one situation where I needed to mount my hood with my 40HR, and so did Terry shooting an identical camera and back from the same position with her SK43 mounted. Additionally just FWIW, in one particular situation, we both swapped to our 70's -- me the 70HR, she the 72SK -- and neither of us had a flare issue with the longer lenses since the offending lightsource -- the Sun -- was now out at the edges of the 70/73's IC.

This was the 70 version of that particular scene, the Sun is just outside the IC upper left frame:

For reference, I just processed this image out, the same location with the 40HR, no shade. This is straight off the sensor as shot, no LCC. You can clearly see the Sun is in the frame upper left, and the resulting "massive" flare spot ( ). It also shows you exactly where the Sun was in the image with the 70 above:

 

[tashley]

Thanks Jack, that's the last piece of the puzzle I need other than to ask if you use a CF with this lens?

What a truly amazing image. Really really fantastic.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Here is a SK 60mm same time but I was about 50 yards to the right of Jack and Terry and actually maybe slightly more into the sun on the left. I flagged the sun

 

[Jack]

Thanks Jack, that's the last piece of the puzzle I need other than to ask if you use a CF with this lens?

What a truly amazing image. Really really fantastic.

Tim, no CF on either lens -- what you are seeing in the 40 image is the actual total falloff for it. The 70 does not have a CF either but I did run the LCC which removes it, then added vignette back in to desired effect.

And thank you

 

[Landscapelover]

Ditto on Jack's comments. Having owned both the HR32 and SK35, they are comparable without shifts. The SK35 is MUCH software with extreme shifts than the HR32. That said, I rarely have problems with flare with either one of these lens. Distortion is a little more with the HR32 but neither should be considered extreme. While I haven't tested it, IMO they don't seem to have as much distortion as 645 mfg's glass for that matter. If you are shooting architecture or interiors you probably will have to correct with any wide angle glass.

The HR23 has serious problems with flare when using the center filter primarily due to the fact that the center filter is MUCH closer to the front of the lens than the SK35 CF. Basically it reflects the color of the sensor reflecting back off the CF which is difficult but not impossible to correct in post. The CF on the SK35 is almost an inch farther away from the front of the lens but almost any filter on the SK35 CF darkens the corners. Remove the center filter and the problems go away. I don't know if the CF could be coated to reduce the flare but I would be tempted to try it if I could find a source. Regardless, I would still use the HR23 because it gives me a dramatic FOV in certain circumstances.

Just my experience, but the HR23 is basically the same FOV as the HR32 shifted about 15mm in each direction. Shifting the HR32 that much in most cases results in softer edges than the HR23 so it is a nice fit even with the color cast problems in the center of the image.

A couple of my recent HR23 images. A little unsharp mask on the edges is able to recover any lens softness. The second image is slightly softer on extreme edges of the handrails but that was a DOF tradeoff more than lens softness. Camera was less than 18" away from the handrails on either side and I wanted the trees on the islands sharp enough to show detail in the evergreens. That said, photographers might notice but normal humans would not.

Ed
The pictures are just breathtaking!
I am glad to hear that you use HR 23. Mine will arrive soon.
Do you still use center filter with HR 23 despite the color cast?
Thanks,
Pramote

 

[etrump]

Thank you, that is also incredibly useful (and I remember that shot of the mill from when you first posted it, simply gorgeous!)

The 23HR would just be too wide for me: much as I'd love to have one, I am running too much gear at the moment and really need to focus on defining and fulfilling core needs. I'd be interested to know if you use a CF on the 32HR?

I ALWAYS shoot the HR32 with a center filter now. I was converted by an image from heaven! There was enough noise in the LCC processed edges that I ordered the way too expensive CF the next week. It's never been off since.

 

[etrump]

Here is a SK 60mm same time but I was about 50 yards to the right of Jack and Terry and actually maybe slightly more into the sun on the left. I flagged the sun

AWESOME!!!!

 

[etrump]

Ed
The pictures are just breathtaking!
I am glad to hear that you use HR 23. Mine will arrive soon.
Do you still use center filter with HR 23 despite the color cast?
Thanks,
Pramote

Thanks Pramote!

Yes I still use the CF on the HR23. Better to mess with the color cast than have 2.5 stops more noise on the edges. I wish I could come up with a better way to correct the cast automatically but no luck as of yet. It sucks trying to clean up color problems especially when your as colored blind as I am. :ROTFL: I have to crank saturation up about 50 to do almost any color correction. Fortunately I have some guys in the office who love to "share" what is wrong with my pictures.

 

[Landscapelover]

Thanks Ed!
Your insight for HR 23 and 32 is extremely helpful.
Worse comes to worse, I can just only do B&W with the HR 23.
Best regards,
Pramote