Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 54

Thread: 23mm HR guidance

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    23mm HR guidance

    Hi-

    I'm planning on getting a Rodenstock 23mm HR for use with my Alpa STC and IQ180. I'd like to here some experiences, guidance, and limitations for this lens on a tech camera. I currently have the 40mm and 70mm HR Wides. My other option is to get the 32mm but it's so close to the 40mm which I find to be exceptional.

    Any help is appreciated.

    jim

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    The 23 is an excellent optic, however very limited on shifts due to the small 70mm image circle. On the 180, you will get about 5mm max shift before you hit the disc which shows the edge of the image circle (this is horizontal shifts). Your 40 HR-W is 90mm circle which makes a huge difference on shifts.

    There is a CF for this lens @ 1K or so, same for the 23 and 28 (same filter works on both lenses). This takes you from 72mm to 95mm.

    The 23 is flare prone, and it's a very destructive flare, in that recovery is hard in post. A hood of some type is a good idea. If you use a Lee hood, then use of the CF is not possible, since the Lee ring that is 95mm, actually a Schneider ring is not a "wide" angle style ring and you will vignette with just the ring and hood. Working with the Lee 72mm wide ring is much easier, but then you have the issue of greater noise towards the edge of the frame. So it's a trade off. This also true with the 28mm.

    I briefly tried the 23, but quickly moved to the 28mm. I did not need the super wide and the 28mm is less flare prone. I use the CF on mine 90% of my shots.


    Paul
    Last edited by Paul2660; 31st August 2014 at 11:40. Reason: Error
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    As Paul mentioned, the 23mm is basically a zero movement lens on the Alpa with a full frame MFDB. In fact I leave mine in a dedicated TC body although obviously it does work just as well on any of the Alpa bodies.

    It does have a tendency to red central flare if any stray bright light hits the front element and I've also had some other strange demon flare elements in images when something like a street light had shone into the frame. The central flare can be eliminated generally with a hood - I use the LEE wide hood with no filter slots. Alternatively, if you have the luxury of time you can shoot two images with one for the full scene and the second with potentially an extreme lens shield to prevent centre flare (and potentially your shielding being in the frame). You then combine the images in post with the second one used to blend into the centre if there is a flare spot. It sounds onerous but actually very easy to do in the field and no worse than shooting the LCC which with this lens is absolutely mandatory.

    I don't use the centre filter myself as it's big and expensive and precludes using any lens hoods at all. The LCC can be pretty extreme though and hence shadow noise when applied if the corners are dark already or if you're dealing with a low light scene.

    The above sounds like the lens is a pain to use but in reality it just means that as a super wide lens it takes care and attention. The results though are pretty spectacular and worth the effort. Like any super wide lens I also avoid tilting the camera with it and endeavor to keep it level and crop if necessary.
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 31st August 2014 at 19:40.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post

    Now with all this said, you might want to also consider whether the range of movement with the 40HR on the STC will allow you to shoot a stitched pair of images equivalent to the coverage of the 23mm horizontally or vertically at least (strictly speaking 22mm on one dimension and 27mm on the other equivalent according to the Alpa shift calculator & 54x40mm sensor).
    No. The image circle of the 40HR is 90mm, whereas the image circle of the 23HR is 70mm. Stitching with the 40HR shifted to the extreme in different directions could only give you an angle of view equivalent as 40mm/90*70=31mm, which is even less than that of the 32HR.

    Similarly, by stitching with the 32HR (90mm image circle), you could achieve an angle of view equivalent as 32mm/90*70=25mm, which is still slightly less than that of the 23HR. Also, the center filter of the 32HR is too huge and I have no idea how to accommodate a filter holder.

    For long exposure shots, I believe the 23HR with the center filter and Lee push-on filter holder is the best solution. I have some pictures posted at 500px
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    For the OP's reference, here are the LCC shots of the 23HR with center filter mounted on an ALPA 12 SWA and a Phase One IQ280. The color cast is acceptable and fully correctable but an LCC shot is strongly recommended for every picture.



    I am quite satisfied with the results I get from the 23HR (with an IQ260, which is very similar as the IQ280 in terms of color cast etc). It is still the widest angle of view you can get from 645 lenses. In tricky situations you can still shift the lens out of the image circle and tilt your camera up a bit so that after you correct the vertical perspectives in post processing with keystones you just crop off the black circle and retain as much effective pixels as possible. If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.

    Last edited by voidshatter; 31st August 2014 at 23:13.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    No. The image circle of the 40HR is 90mm, whereas the image circle of the 23HR is 70mm. Stitching with the 40HR shifted to the extreme in different directions could only give you an angle of view equivalent as 40mm/90*70=31mm, which is even less than that of the 32HR.

    Similarly, by stitching with the 32HR (90mm image circle), you could achieve an angle of view equivalent as 32mm/90*70=25mm, which is still slightly less than that of the 23HR. Also, the center filter of the 32HR is too huge and I have no idea how to accommodate a filter holder.

    For long exposure shots, I believe the 23HR with the center filter and Lee push-on filter holder is the best solution. I have some pictures posted at 500px
    Quite right - my bad, I miscalculated the theoretical max coverage of 90mm vs the 70mm max of the sensor with shift 15mm each way.

    Nice job with the 23HR long exposures too btw!
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    . If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.
    Canon 24 TS-E provides more shift, 17 TS-E far wider.

    (on Alpa FPS or Hartblei H-Cam)

    Kind regards,

    Gerald.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    Canon 24 TS-E provides more shift, 17 TS-E far wider.

    (on Alpa FPS or Hartblei H-Cam)

    Kind regards,

    Gerald.
    Here are the test pictures by chrismuc on luminous-landscape:

    Canon 24 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-upperhalf.jpg

    Canon 17 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-upperhalf.jpg

    The resolution in the corners (even without shift) looks nothing comparative against what you can get from the 23HR. You also lose the ability to use the Lee 100 filter systems if you don't want hard vignetting on the 17 TS-E. (Instead the monstrous Fotodiox 145 system is taking up too much room and causing inconvenience.)
    Last edited by voidshatter; 31st August 2014 at 20:26.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    That's a good point on the 23mm and Lee 95 to 105mm adapter. With that installed you can use both 1 Lee 2mm slot and the 105mm CLPL in front. Can't shift with this solution as you instantly vignette.


    Paul

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    Here are the test pictures by chrismuc on luminous-landscape:

    Canon 24 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-upperhalf.jpg

    Canon 17 TS-E + IQ180 via ALPA FPS:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-upperhalf.jpg

    The resolution in the corners (even without shift) looks nothing comparative against what you can get from the 23HR. You also lose the ability to use the Lee 100 filter systems if you don't want hard vignetting on the 17 TS-E. (Instead the monstrous Fotodiox 145 system is taking up too much room and causing inconvenience.)
    There's no point comparing the 17 on a FF MFDB with anything. No other combination of lens and sensor - on any format - can do this out-of-camera:

    The Burj Khalifa Collection

    Here's a test of the 23 vs the 24 at various apertures. You need to shoot the Canon at between f/11 and f/16, then there is not as big a difference in the corners as many would have you believe.

    http://08.ae/panos/24TSEvs23HR/HRTSE.html

    I was specifically addressing your comment -

    If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.
    That statement is demonstrably false.

    If the image circle of the 23HR isn't big enough, consider the 24 TS-E.
    If it's not wide enough, consider the 17 TS-E.

    Is the 23HR a better optic than both of them if the shot you want fits in its field of view and you don't need to shift? Absolutely. That's why I own all of them.

    Kind regards,

    Gerald.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    ..........
    Similarly, by stitching with the 32HR (90mm image circle), you could achieve an angle of view equivalent as 32mm/90*70=25mm, which is still slightly less than that of the 23HR. Also, the center filter of the 32HR is too huge and I have no idea how to accommodate a filter holder.
    ..........
    Why don't you take a look at the filter holder made by LinholfStudio Lee Filters SW150 XXL Filter Holder which i believe they can solve the problem.

    Michael

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    There's no point comparing the 17 on a FF MFDB with anything. No other combination of lens and sensor - on any format - can do this out-of-camera:

    The Burj Khalifa Collection
    You deliberately chose such a scene so the dark out-of-IC area blend into the dark sky. In such case yes the 17mm TS-E has the advantage here. You don't need any corner sharpness or filter here. If argued, (just a guess) I might even be able to do a better job with the Schneider 47mm XL (for film) on a 4x5 large format camera if I deliberately shift the lens out of its image circle. Alternatively I could (possibly) try to shift the Sigma 12-24mm lens or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 lens on a Sony A7R camera with custom made parts (Or just IQ250 via ALPA FPS).

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    If the image circle of the 23HR isn't big enough, consider the 24 TS-E.
    Disagreed. See both the test shots I linked, and your test shots as well. The useful image circle of the 24mm TS-E is less than that of the 23HR.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    I was specifically addressing your comment -

    If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough, then there is no other MFDB lens that can do it, even with a shift on a larger image circle.
    That statement is demonstrably false.
    If you must argue, then please read carefully, that my statement used the wording "MFDB lens". The 17mm TS-E is not an MFDB lens but an FF lens, so it does not fall into such category.

    My apologies for not being careful enough while I try to make my point - I take filters into consideration, but I forgot to explicitly state it in the post. I do long exposure shots during daylight.
    Last edited by voidshatter; 1st September 2014 at 00:34.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by mike6272 View Post
    Why don't you take a look at the filter holder made by LinholfStudio Lee Filters SW150 XXL Filter Holder which i believe they can solve the problem.

    Michael
    It shares the same disadvantage as the Fotodiox 145 system for the Canon 17mm TS-E lens - the filters are too bulky to carry. Also, there is no confirmation that the Lee Filters SW150 XXL Filter Holder is free of light leakage issues when coupled with the Singh-Ray 10/15-stop Mor Slo filters (150x150mm). Lastly, for long exposure shots, it is almost impossible to stitch images together to achieve a wider angle of view - the clouds are moving! After all, the 32HR is not suitable for my long exposure shots.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    You deliberately chose such a scene so the dark out-of-IC area blend into the dark sky. In such case yes the 17mm TS-E has the advantage here. You don't need any corner sharpness or filter here. If argued, (just a guess) I might even be able to do a better job with the Schneider 47mm XL (for film) on a 4x5 large format camera if I deliberately shift the lens out of its image circle. Alternatively I could (possibly) try to shift the Sigma 12-24mm lens or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 lens on a Sony A7R camera with custom made parts (Or just IQ250 via ALPA FPS).
    Seriously? You're accusing me of deliberately choosing that scene because of the dark sky, because I'm trying to hide the fact that it goes beyond the image circle of the lens, and I'm just trying to win an argument for the sake of it?

    You should get some manners before chucking around allegations such as that.

    There is NOTHING in that shot that is out of the image circle. In fact, it's cropped ever so slightly on the right hand side of the image due to a light-leak in the H-Cam (I had removed the rail it's supplied with and remounted it, without realizing that you had to cover the screw hole otherwise light would leak in).

    Here's another one from a different building. Canon 17 TS-E on the ALPA FPS:



    (I only have access to the Instagram version right now. Ignore the borders, that's the full frame of an IQ180.)

    edit -

    100% corner crop.


    You can choose to make whatever assessment you want - objective or subjective - as regards the "quality" of that crop or indeed the entire image. I like it, it's good enough for me, and frankly what anyone else thinks is of little interest. My choice is to be able to create the image, not walk away because there's no "MFDB" lens that can do it.

    /edit

    There is no other rectilinear lens/sensor combination on the planet that can get that shot without nodal stitching. None.

    I really am quite perplexed as to where your attitude is coming from.

    I bought the H-Cam and the 17 TS-E specifically for that fireworks shot. No other lens on no other format has ever been demonstrated to have sufficient field of view required to get the Burj Khalifa straight on in landscape orientation from that distance.

    None.

    You want to try the 47 on 4x5? Be my guest. It won't come close. Nor does the 72 on 5x7 (I have it. I tried it).

    12mm on FF DSLR? Doesn't have the required field of view, regardless of shifting.

    IQ250 with its 1.3 crop sensor, using the Sigma 12-24 (are you serious - that lens is junk on FF DSLR), or the Nikon 13mm? Yeah sure - give it a go and let's see how well you get on.

    There are unsubstantiated claims out there that the Nikon 14-24 at 14 will just cover the IQ250 sensor if you shave the lens hood. That's possibly the only other option that could come close, but it's yet to be proven. IF it can be demonstrated, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat because of the CMOS benefits the IQ250 sensor provides.

    Disagreed. See both the test shots I linked, and your test shots as well. The useful image circle of the 24mm TS-E is less than that of the 23HR.
    You can disagree all you like. It doesn't make it a fact.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the 23HR hard vignettes well before the 24TSE runs out of usable image circle. Ergo, the 24 is capable of taking shots that the 23HR can't deal with. As I very clearly stated - does that mean the 24 is as good as the 23HR if you don't shift? No. It's not. But the simple fact of the matter is that if you only have the 23, then it won't be able to do things that the 24 (and 17) can. Why would you limit your capabilities?

    If you must argue, then please read carefully, that my statement used the wording "MFDB lens". The 17mm TS-E is not an MFDB lens but an FF lens, so it does not fall into such category.
    No. If YOU must argue, then do so in a civil manner, and base your claims on facts rather than wild speculation that you are incapable of backing up, and tantamount accuse me of cheating with my images.

    Both the 17 and 24 are lenses that can be used with considerable degree of success on MFDB. Want to have a semantic argument about what makes a MFDB lens an MFDB lens? Go have one somewhere else, because I won't entertain one.

    The usable image circle of both lenses more than covers a FF MFDB back sensor, and they open up opportunities that would otherwise be impossible to shoot.
    Last edited by gerald.d; 1st September 2014 at 05:44.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    Seriously? You're accusing me of deliberately choosing that scene because of the dark sky, because I'm trying to hide the fact that it goes beyond the image circle of the lens, and I'm just trying to win an argument for the sake of it?

    You should get some manners before chucking around allegations such as that.
    I think you are over-reacting. No hard feeling please. If anything I said would make you upset you have my apologies.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    There is NOTHING in that shot that is out of the image circle. In fact, it's cropped ever so slightly on the right hand side of the image due to a light-leak in the H-Cam (I had removed the rail it's supplied with and remounted it, without realizing that you had to cover the screw hole otherwise light would leak in).

    Here's another one from a different building. Canon 17 TS-E on the ALPA FPS:

    (I only have access to the Instagram version right now. Ignore the borders, that's the full frame of an IQ180.)

    edit -

    100% corner crop.

    You can choose to make whatever assessment you want - objective or subjective - as regards the "quality" of that crop or indeed the entire image. I like it, it's good enough for me, and frankly what anyone else thinks is of little interest. My choice is to be able to create the image, not walk away because there's no "MFDB" lens that can do it.
    Again, you put the sky in the corners so it could be that the softness blend into the sky and no one cares about upper corner sharpness. You might have shifted the lens upwards a bit so the bottom corner sharpness doesn't look bad at all. I admit that for such situation the 17 TS-E is a nice choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post

    There is no other rectilinear lens/sensor combination on the planet that can get that shot without nodal stitching. None.

    I really am quite perplexed as to where your attitude is coming from.

    I bought the H-Cam and the 17 TS-E specifically for that fireworks shot. No other lens on no other format has ever been demonstrated to have sufficient field of view required to get the Burj Khalifa straight on in landscape orientation from that distance.

    None.
    I take it that you are quite confident when making this blowing statement. So you have tried the Sigma 12-24mm and Nikon 13mm f5.6 on an IQ250 already, and confirmed that they would not work? I assume that you are talking about facts that you could back up right?

    If all you care about is just the angle of view, then let's compute the diagonal fullframe-equivalent focal length assuming that the speculated lenses can cover the corresponding sensors:

    17mm on IQ280: 17/(53.7^2+40.4^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.95mm
    12mm on IQ250: 12/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 9.44mm
    13mm on IQ250: 13/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.23mm
    14mm on IQ250: 14/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 11.01mm

    If either the Sigma 12-24mm or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 works, then your blowing statement is rendered false. I am unable to validate these.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    IQ250 with its 1.3 crop sensor, using the Sigma 12-24 (are you serious - that lens is junk on FF DSLR),
    If you could call the Sigma 12-24 as junk, I could also call the 17 TS-E as junk. It's just a different degree of tolerance. These are not designed for 645 sensors after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    There are unsubstantiated claims out there that the Nikon 14-24 at 14 will just cover the IQ250 sensor if you shave the lens hood. That's possibly the only other option that could come close, but it's yet to be proven. IF it can be demonstrated, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat because of the CMOS benefits the IQ250 sensor provides.
    Unfortunately this will not work. See the calculations above. This will not be wider than the 17mm + IQ280 combo, if all you care about is the angle of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    You can disagree all you like. It doesn't make it a fact.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the 23HR hard vignettes well before the 24TSE runs out of usable image circle. Ergo, the 24 is capable of taking shots that the 23HR can't deal with. As I very clearly stated - does that mean the 24 is as good as the 23HR if you don't shift? No. It's not. But the simple fact of the matter is that if you only have the 23, then it won't be able to do things that the 24 (and 17) can. Why would you limit your capabilities?


    From what I have seen, I can't figure out why the 23HR hard vignettes before the 24 TS-E. Unless one of us have made a mistake recording the amount of movement. Could you please clarify this with your test shots? I could be wrong about this when I just look into pictures not taken for the same scene, so it could help if you could correct me. But nevertheless, I would not consider the 24 TS-E for that softness in the corners which can be seen in chrismuc's test shot.

    100% corner crop of 24 TS-E on IQ180 with no shift:


    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    No. If YOU must argue, then do so in a civil manner, and base your claims on facts rather than wild speculation that you are incapable of backing up, and tantamount accuse me of cheating with my images.

    Both the 17 and 24 are lenses that can be used with considerable degree of success on MFDB. Want to have a semantic argument about what makes a MFDB lens an MFDB lens? Go have one somewhere else, because I won't entertain one.

    The usable image circle of both lenses more than covers a FF MFDB back sensor, and they open up opportunities that would otherwise be impossible to shoot.
    Just calm down. When I wrote my statement I didn't even think about the Canon lenses, just like you would never consider the Sigma 12-24 lens. I agree that they meet your expectations, and I agree that they perform well for your work.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    I think you are over-reacting. No hard feeling please. If anything I said would make you upset you have my apologies.



    Again, you put the sky in the corners so it could be that the softness blend into the sky and no one cares about upper corner sharpness. You might have shifted the lens upwards a bit so the bottom corner sharpness doesn't look bad at all. I admit that for such situation the 17 TS-E is a nice choice.
    Oh, so right after your "apology", you go right ahead and accuse me of doing a similar thing again.

    After this post, you can say what you like, because I won't be giving you another moment of my time.

    But here's a handy little hint - that 100% crop isn't in the sky, and if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you'd know that you could calculate the exact amount of shift in that image from the position of the horizon.

    I take it that you are quite confident when making this blowing statement. So you have tried the Sigma 12-24mm and Nikon 13mm f5.6 on an IQ250 already, and confirmed that they would not work? I assume that you are talking about facts that you could back up right?
    I went through 3 copies of the Sigma 12-24 back in the days when I was shooting full frame DSLR. Compared to every other lens being discussed, it's a piece of junk on 35mm DSLR. Guess what - it's not going to suddenly turn into a great optic on a larger sensor.

    If all you care about is just the angle of view,
    Hold your horses. The reason why angle of view is being discussed is because YOU came out with this statement -

    "If the 23HR cannot handle a situation due to not being wide enough or image circle not big enough..."

    We're addressing your stated limitations of the 23HR, and the ability of other lenses to address them.

    Carry on...

    then let's compute the diagonal fullframe-equivalent focal length assuming that the speculated lenses can cover the corresponding sensors:

    17mm on IQ280: 17/(53.7^2+40.4^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.95mm
    12mm on IQ250: 12/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 9.44mm
    13mm on IQ250: 13/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 10.23mm
    14mm on IQ250: 14/(44^2+33^2)^.5*(36^2+24^2)^.5 = 11.01mm

    If either the Sigma 12-24mm or the Nikon 13mm f5.6 works, then your blowing statement is rendered false. I am unable to validate these.
    Yes thank you for that, I can do the maths too.

    The Sigma doesn't. End of conversation on that one. I've owned three.

    The Nikon is a ridiculously tough lens to get hold of, very expensive, and if you even wanted to attempt to use it on a sensor larger than 35mm, the first thing you're going to have to do is shave the hood off because it will vignette on any larger format.

    The chances of it covering 44x33? As close to zero as makes it absolutely pointless to even consider given its cost and rarity and the fact you'd have to butcher it to even test.

    If you could call the Sigma 12-24 as junk, I could also call the 17 TS-E as junk. It's just a different degree of tolerance. These are not designed for 645 sensors after all.
    No. Compared to the Sigma 12-24, the 17 is an astonishingly good lens - even on FF MFDB. I'd put the 17mm on a FF MFDB up against the Sigma at 12mm on any 35mm camera you want, and it will trounce it.

    Unfortunately this will not work. See the calculations above. This will not be wider than the 17mm + IQ280 combo, if all you care about is the angle of view.
    I don't have to look at your calculations. I've already done them. Did you even bother to read what I said? Here - let me repeat it for you and I'll even help you out by bolding the relevant bits:

    "That's possibly the only other option that could come close, but it's yet to be proven. IF it can be demonstrated, then I'll buy it in a heartbeat because of the CMOS benefits the IQ250 sensor provides.

    Frankly, if I told you what I thought about your "argument", I'd probably get a long ban from this place, and you're not worth it. 10.95mm against 11.01. Are you fricking kidding me?

    From what I have seen, I can't figure out why the 23HR hard vignettes before the 24 TS-E. Unless one of us have made a mistake recording the amount of movement. Could you please clarify this with your test shots?
    If you think I'm going to expend any more effort whatsoever in helping clarify something for you, you are very much mistaken.

    My apologies to the OP for the way this has gone.

    Disengaging.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Thumbs up Re: 23mm HR guidance

    We see this too often. Someone joins the Forum and treats long standing, respected contributors as if they're trolls. I have no experience with these lenses, but do have experience with Gerald.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Hi-

    Thanks to everyone, Paul, Graham, Gerald, Michael, voidshatter. for your insights. Sorry for the brouhaha but the comments are a great help. Now all I need to do is pry open my wallet.

    jim

    BTW I've used the FPS with the IQ180 and 17mm & 24mm TS-E lenses but found them to be too soft after about 60mm IC. I think the combination with the IQ250 would be better. YMV

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    For long exposure shots, I believe the 23HR with the center filter and Lee push-on filter holder is the best solution. I have some pictures posted at 500px
    May I please ask if anyone uses a solid ND (not graduated) filter in this combination and if so which one(s) ? As far as I understand it the Lee Series 100 3, 6 and 10 stop filters are too small (100x100mm) and the Series 150 filters are too big (with no solid ND filters in that range). Series 100 Graduated ND's are of course not a problem.

    Any suggestions/ideas ? Or am I barking up the wrong tree ?

    There's also the wide angle lens hood as explained by Graham but this has to be CF-less and likely noisy in darker areas when the LLC is applied.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    A bit more on the hard vignette of the Rodenstock.

    As I understand it the 23mm and 28mm Rodenstocks hard vignette by design. Rodenstock places some form of an image circle marker in the lens so to let the photographer know they are at the edge of the image circle. This is true on on all if the HR and on up lenses. As these lenses only have a 70mm image circle you hit the disk after about 6mm of shift on a full frame back. The 50MP back most likely would allow just a bit more due to the crop factor 1:3.

    It's most unfortunate they do this as most of the lenses would work a bit pars this hard point determined by Rodenstock.

    Back in Guys detailed review of the 28HR vs the 28XL Schneider there is discussion if this issue.

    Paul

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Jim,

    I use the 23HR and 32HR on an Arca RM3Di. Mostly used with an IQ180, but also used it on a 260 Achromat.

    23HR - much smaller. Can mange a couple of degrees of tilt and a couple of mm of shift. Shift is useful purely for composition, not really an option for stitching. You can get some nasty flare in the middle of the image in the form of a red blob. When care is taken to avoid this, the lens is fantastic. It is very sharp and of course, as wide as you can go short of the 17 TSE. CPL vignettes a little when used with the CF. Alone is OK.

    32HR - A real monster and even bigger with the 105mm CF. Some have complained about lenses getting decentered on transport or in the bag, but I have not experienced this. Supports shifts of +/- 15mm. I love the perspective, and gives a horizontal FoV close to the 23HR when stitched. Works fine with CPL (upto 10mm +/-) and ND filters. This could be my all time favorite lens in any format. It is also super sharp.

    I also have the 40HR, but use the 32HR far more. Only times I take the 40HR is if I want something a little more compact than the 32HR.

    I think the 32HR is much more versatile than the 23HR. This may be too much of a change than you're looking for, but you could replace both your lenses with a 32HR and SK60XL. Adding an SK120ASPH or Rodie 90HR-SW would give you 3 lenses with huge image circles. As for sharpness all 3 are as good as I have seen.

    Let me know if you want some RAW files, just PM me a drop site.

    23HR


    32HR +/- 15mm LR stitched




    IQ180|32HR|CF|2-frame flat-stitch, 15mm L/R shift in Landscape|6mm fall|All processing in C1, Stitching in PS CC[/QUOTE]

    Cheers...
    Last edited by jagsiva; 1st September 2014 at 10:54.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by MILESF View Post
    May I please ask if anyone uses a solid ND (not graduated) filter in this combination and if so which one(s) ? As far as I understand it the Lee Series 100 3, 6 and 10 stop filters are too small (100x100mm) and the Series 150 filters are too big (with no solid ND filters in that range). Series 100 Graduated ND's are of course not a problem.

    Any suggestions/ideas ? Or am I barking up the wrong tree ?

    There's also the wide angle lens hood as explained by Graham but this has to be CF-less and likely noisy in darker areas when the LLC is applied.
    I have tested vignetting of two types of 100x100mm ND filters, i.e. the Lee Big Stopper (10-stop) and the Singh-Ray 15-stop Mor Slo.



    With the practical dynamic range of the IQ260, the center filter (CF) is a must for me to have when I do long exposure shots during day time, otherwise the vignetting is beyond repair.

    The center filter of the 23HR is 95mm in diameter, which is fully compatible with the Lee push-on filter holder.

    Unfortunately if the sun is above or behind the camera, both the Lee Big Stopper and the Singh-Ray 15-stop Mor Slo suffer from light leakage issues. For such reason, a screw-in 95mm ND filter is a lot more reliable. I use a Heliopan 95mm ND 3.0 (10-stop) under the sun. Singh-Ray now also makes 5/10/15-stop screw-in ND filters of 95mm (available in thin mount). Stacking the Lee push-on filter holder outside a screw-in ND filter (thin mount) outside the center filter of 23HR would cause a darkened band on one side of the picture unless one layer of the filter holder is removed (i.e. only one layer remains), which would suffice in accommodating one ND Grad (such like the Lee 0.9 ND Grad, or the Singh-Ray 0.9 reversed).

    Luckily, for sunrise and sunset, with the Lee Little Stopper (6-stop) + 0.9 ND Grad + center filter I am usually able to get exposure time to about 2-4 minutes at f8-11, without going past the diffraction limit at the cost of loss of sharpness. As far as I am aware, this setup has no issue of light leakage. It is recommended that you take an LCC shot with the ND grad so that life is easier correcting the color cast of the ND grad.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    And on the issue of filters, here is the 32HR and what it behaves like with CF/ND/CPL

    32HR on ARCA RM3Di
    IQ180 in landscape orientation
    CF - 105mm Rodenstock CF for 32HR
    CP - 105mm Heliopan multi-coated Slim (used with 86mm step up ring when used without CF)
    ND - 105mm Heliopan 3 stop multi-coated slim (used with 86mm step up ring when used without CF)

    Imported into C1 adjusted exposure to match and just a simple screen capture to show here.

    1. *No filters - 15mm L/R Shift




    2. *CF Only - 15mm L/R Shift




    3. *CF + ND - 10mm L/R Shift




    4. *CF + ND - 15mm L/R Shift



    5. *CF+ CP - 15mm L/R Shift




    6. *ND Only - 15mm L/R Shift




    7. *CP Only - 15mm L/R Shift

    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Now with LCC and WB corrections in C1:

    1. *No filters - 15mm L/R Shift




    2. *CF Only - 15mm L/R Shift




    3. *CF + ND - 10mm L/R Shift




    4. *CF + ND - 15mm L/R Shift



    5. *CF+ CP - 15mm L/R Shift




    6. *ND Only - 15mm L/R Shift




    7. *CP Only - 15mm L/R Shift

    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Jagsiva:

    Thanks for the posts with the LCC's.

    As much as I would love the 32mm, your posts point out just how limited it is on shifts with the CF installed and a CLPL, which I use a lot around water.

    As I recall the 32CF outer is 112mm? or 105mm, I can't remember now, but with either a CLPL is not very "slim".

    Have you shot the 32mm much without the CF or are the shifted sides, just too dark and noisy to recover with an LCC.

    The weight and delicate nature of the 32 also has kept me away, did I mention the price?

    I love the 40mm for what it can do, and more than likely would save a bit more for a 32mm if it was a bit more filter friendly. On your shots where you show the CF and CP you are losing about 5mm or of image on the 15mm shift due to the hard vignetting.

    I have noticed that even the 40 on 15mm shifts can be a bit noisy, even at iso 50 with a IQ260 or 160, especially in the summer with outdoor temps at around 95 degrees and 99% humidity, not the best conditions for a CCD back.

    Paul

  26. #26
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Just when I thought I was done with spending money on my Alpa outfit for a while ... time to bite the bullet I fear and get that CF for the 23HR after all. The vignette drop off without it is ok in most well lit scenarios but it is seriously limiting at times in post when the light levels are low.

    Oh well. There goes more $$
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Paul,

    The 32HR CF is 105mm on the outside. The CPL I have is a slimmest MC Heliopan, and yes it does vignette with the CF + CPL. Without the CF you can make it work, but as you say, the corners will be a little darker, or you pay with a little noise in the corners.

    Having said that, I do find the 32HR quite usable without the CF.

    With the CPL + CF, I would say you do lose about 5mm of shift. So you can go +/- 10mm.

    An interesting note on C1 and LCC -- I find that if you hit the hard vignette on a shift, you are prone to banding when you apply the LCC. So still best to stay within the limit.

    On the issue of price, I think mine has only appreciated in value, especially when you compare it to the bath you take on a MFDB At the very least, it is a good story for my wife.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Just when I thought I was done with spending money on my Alpa outfit for a while ... time to bite the bullet I fear and get that CF for the 23HR after all. The vignette drop off without it is ok in most well lit scenarios but it is seriously limiting at times in post when the light levels are low.

    Oh well. There goes more $$
    Graham, I'd try one out first, it could just be me, but I find the lens even more finicky with flaring with the CF. Again this is highly context dependent on where the light is coming from.

    On a positive note, the same filter goes on the Rodie 28mm so you can dollar-cost-average your CF if you get that lens as well

  29. #29
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Dollar cost average.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by MILESF View Post
    May I please ask if anyone uses a solid ND (not graduated) filter in this combination and if so which one(s) ? As far as I understand it the Lee Series 100 3, 6 and 10 stop filters are too small (100x100mm) and the Series 150 filters are too big (with no solid ND filters in that range). Series 100 Graduated ND's are of course not a problem.

    Any suggestions/ideas ? Or am I barking up the wrong tree ?

    There's also the wide angle lens hood as explained by Graham but this has to be CF-less and likely noisy in darker areas when the LLC is applied.
    Take a look at at these guys. Not cheap, but are supposed to be high-quality glass filters. Come in 100x100, 127x127 and other sizes.

    Hitech ProStop IRND Glass Filter Kits

    I looked into them initially, but ended up going with 105mm screw-in filters in the end, just a little more idiot proof for my use cases.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member stngoldberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    newport, RI
    Posts
    800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Cool Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Jagsiva:

    Thanks for the posts with the LCC's.

    As much as I would love the 32mm, your posts point out just how limited it is on shifts with the CF installed and a CLPL, which I use a lot around water.

    As I recall the 32CF outer is 112mm? or 105mm, I can't remember now, but with either a CLPL is not very "slim".

    Have you shot the 32mm much without the CF or are the shifted sides, just too dark and noisy to recover with an LCC.

    The weight and delicate nature of the 32 also has kept me away, did I mention the price?

    I love the 40mm for what it can do, and more than likely would save a bit more for a 32mm if it was a bit more filter friendly. On your shots where you show the CF and CP you are losing about 5mm or of image on the 15mm shift due to the hard vignetting.

    I have noticed that even the 40 on 15mm shifts can be a bit noisy, even at iso 50 with a IQ260 or 160, especially in the summer with outdoor temps at around 95 degrees and 99% humidity, not the best conditions for a CCD back.

    Paul
    I have not found the 32mm Rodie to be delicate, although I handle it carefully like any other lens. I always use Cf and take an LCC.
    Stanley

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    I have found that the Lee 6 stop (little stopper) works very well with my shooting, at times it does tend to a cast to the image, but it does help to hold the light down.

    Schneider now is shipping an excellent series of ND 100 x 100 glass filters, that are 4mm, instead of the 2mm of the Lee's.

    I have the 6 stop Schneider and so far it's showing to be an excellent solution. This is the Schneider 4 x 4 Platinum IRND filter.

    You will have light leak issues as pointed out by other posters, but I have found I can get around most of this with a cover over the rig.

    The Schneider fits in a standard Lee holder, with a 4mm slot. I have a Lee standard holder that takes a 2mm and 4mm slot. This works OK so far.

    The Schneider filters do have an IR coating, Lee states they have an IR reduction but many folks seem to feel that quite a bit of IR pollution gets through on the longer shots.

    Lee also has a glass 0.9 and 0.6 2mm series of ND filters that I use in my work, for shorter exposures that do an excellent job, but scratch very easily.

    Paul

  33. #33
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    I have found that the Lee 6 stop (little stopper) works very well with my shooting, at times it does tend to a cast to the image, but it does help to hold the light down.
    . . . .
    Paul
    Paul
    What digital back do you use ? ? ?
    I use the CFV-39 and CFV-50 and get a strong blue cast on both backs , when using the LEE 6 stop , little stopper . This cast can not be satisfactorily corrected .
    I now have the equivalent filter from HAIDA , 100x100 glas , and the HELIOPAN screw in filter and both filters give an almost neutral image . The remaining cast is corrected by LCC processing .

    I found this to be true for my HR DIGARON-S 28mm , HR DIGARON-W 40mm as well as for HASSELBLAD lenses .

    If someone should be interested in the LEE ND 1.8 (little stopper) and a LEE ND 0.9 ( both glas 100x100 , as new ) send me a PM . I will give these away for a song before I throw them away .
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    I have used the Lee 6 stop on the IQ260 and the big stopper on the IQ160. I should qualify my longest exposures with either have been 20 to 30 second shots.

    I see a bit of a blue cast on the shots taken with the Lee stoppers but so far nothing I can't correct.

    Paul

  35. #35
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Thank you Paul .
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  36. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Take a look at at these guys. Not cheap, but are supposed to be high-quality glass filters. Come in 100x100, 127x127 and other sizes.

    Hitech ProStop IRND Glass Filter Kits

    I looked into them initially, but ended up going with 105mm screw-in filters in the end, just a little more idiot proof for my use cases.
    Jagsiva, I think I'm heading in the same direction. Thanks for the suggestion though.

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Heliopan 5 stop ND 'slim' 95mm filter ordered and in the post.

  38. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Hi-

    Again, thanks for your help. Thanks Jag and voidshatter for the examples and LCCs.

    jim

  39. #39
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Take a look at at these guys. Not cheap, but are supposed to be high-quality glass filters. Come in 100x100, 127x127 and other sizes.

    Hitech ProStop IRND Glass Filter Kits

    I looked into them initially, but ended up going with 105mm screw-in filters in the end, just a little more idiot proof for my use cases.
    The glas Hitech ProStop IRND uses , seems to be the very same glas Schneider uses for their ND filters . It is SCHOTT glas 4mm .
    They also have very similar prices .
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  40. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Hi, just wanted to show how I use the HR23 with CF and Lee WA lens hood. I can extend the hood about 30 mm before it starts vignetting. Off topic a little hint how to fix a Surface tablet totally secure to the tripod.

    Kind regards

    Wolfgang
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Problem with the Lee hood is that you can't use the center filter and the Lee wide angle rings. I use a similar setup to yours when the scene permits. You can mount a wide angle hood to the Lee 95mm to 105mm adapter which I have done occasionally in the field.

    I am curious what clamp are you using for the Surface Pro?

    Thanks

    Paul

  42. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Paul, just posted some pics about the clamp on Kens Surface Pro thread (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...edo-mfdbs.html) that should answer your question. What is for you the advantage of using the WA rings over fixing the hood directly to the lens?

    Thanks

    Wolfgang
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    163
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    Hi, just wanted to show how I use the HR23 with CF and Lee WA lens hood. I can extend the hood about 30 mm before it starts vignetting. Off topic a little hint how to fix a Surface tablet totally secure to the tripod.

    Kind regards

    Wolfgang
    Dear Wolfgang, does the hood help to eliminate the orange/red blob center flare issue of the 23mm? or it will still happen and I better off in always shoot 2 shots (one normal and one with cup/extreme hood movement that has no flare) and blend them in PS later on?

    Thanks in advance.

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    Paul, just posted some pics about the clamp on Kens Surface Pro thread (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...edo-mfdbs.html) that should answer your question. What is for you the advantage of using the WA rings over fixing the hood directly to the lens?

    Thanks

    Wolfgang
    Hello Wolfgang: I missed this question.

    BTW, many thanks again for the images of your solution on the Surface 2/3. Now in use for me and I love it.

    On the 28mm I have worked it both ways. My first attempt was to use a 72mm Lee wide angle ring, which works fine. However I prefer to use the CF on my 28mm and the outer threading of the CF is 95mm that complicates things a bit.

    Lee doesn't make a wide angle ring in 95mm, at one time Schneider did and it was called a wide angle ring and sold that way by B&H. I purchased it, but it was not a wide angle ring, instead just a normal ring, i.e. it pushed out from the lens, and didn't wrap around the lens barrel like the wide angle rings do, thus preventing vignetting. Schneider at one time may have made this ring in true wide angle design, as some on this forum believe they did, but it's no longer made that way. B&H even pulled the description off their site and modified it after I pointed this out to them. So, net unless you send the lens off to SK Grimes, and have a ring custom made, I don't know of a way to get the Lee hood to work on a 23/28 with the CF installed.

    Lee makes a 95mm to 105mm adapter and I have that now. I installed a wide angle hood to it to see if I could get that to work. The 95mm to 105mm has 1 filter slot and the hood takes a 105mm adapter. I also just purchased the new Lee 105mm CL-PL and that is considerable less thicker than my B+W 105mm CLPL that I had been using. This should work, but it means that I will have to either carry 2 hoods, 1 optimized for the 28 and 1 optimized for all my other lenses, or unscrew the 95mm to 105mm adapter in the field and use the normal one that ships with the wide angle hood.

    The hood I have found will stop a lot of the flare issues, but you really can't use any of the Rodenstock glass directly into the sun as the flare is just terrible. It's reminiscent of my Nikon 14-24 which also creates a terrible destructive non recoverable flare anywhere near the sun or moon. This is one reason I kept my old 35SK as the Schneiders are a lot more forgiving when pointed at the sun or near it, at least to my findings.

    Paul

  45. #45
    Member AreBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Highlands, Scotland
    Posts
    171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Paul,

    ...you really can't use any of the Rodenstock glass directly into the sun as the flare is just terrible.
    Just so that I understand correctly, do you refer only to the 23HR, or all Rodenstock lenses?

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Hello Rob.

    I have used the 23 and its not a lens I would shoot at the sun or angled towards it. Flare is very harsh.

    The 28 Rodie I own and it's also not what I call a sunset lens. It doesn't get a center flare but creates a harsh magenta band opposite the source of light which is very hard to remove.

    The 40 Rodie I own and I don't find it usable at all shooting into the sun. I get a hard orange band in or towards the center.

    The 90 HR will flare when shot into the sun and can ghost ( which can be even worse) in certain shooting situations. I still may replace my 90 HR with the Schneider 90mm

    I briefly owned the Rodie 105mm and it exhibited the ghosting issue I see with the 90HR.

    I have read reports that the 32mm is less flare prone and the newest 90HR-SW is less prone to the ghosting issue.

    This is all with a rm3di which has been checked for internal reflection issues. And a Phase 160 or 260 back.

    Paul
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  47. #47
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    40 HR (2 shot stitch) into sunset. Had to correct a small amount of flare



    In my case, the majority of sunsets do not actually include the sun, so I haven’t thought much about it. I had the 23 and decided it was just too wide for my taste, so I traded for the 28 and do like it for occasions where I can’t stitch a longer lens.
    Last edited by Wayne Fox; 12th February 2015 at 15:05.
    wayne
    My gallery
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    How do you perform the calculation to determine the new effective focal length with shift? I would like to compare my current 55mm Rodenstock HR lens to the same Rodenstock in 40mm and 32mm focal lengths. Thanks for your help.

    John

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    No. The image circle of the 40HR is 90mm, whereas the image circle of the 23HR is 70mm. Stitching with the 40HR shifted to the extreme in different directions could only give you an angle of view equivalent as 40mm/90*70=31mm, which is even less than that of the 32HR.

    Similarly, by stitching with the 32HR (90mm image circle), you could achieve an angle of view equivalent as 32mm/90*70=25mm, which is still slightly less than that of the 23HR. Also, the center filter of the 32HR is too huge and I have no idea how to accommodate a filter holder.

    For long exposure shots, I believe the 23HR with the center filter and Lee push-on filter holder is the best solution. I have some pictures posted at 500px

  49. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Does anyone know the mathematical formula for calculating the new effective focal length when stitching?
    I wanted to compare the effective focal length of the Rodenstock 50mm, 40mm, and 32mm HR lenses when stitching horizonatally.

    Thanks,
    John

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 23mm HR guidance

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothjazz View Post
    Does anyone know the mathematical formula for calculating the new effective focal length when stitching?
    I wanted to compare the effective focal length of the Rodenstock 50mm, 40mm, and 32mm HR lenses when stitching horizonatally.

    Thanks,
    John
    Just use this tool from DT: http://digitaltransitions.com/suppor...ualizer-tools/

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
  •