Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

  1. #1
    New Member Stephan S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Hey gang!

    I’m sketching out a lens plan and I’m getting stuck on wides… Any advice?

    I’ve got an Alpa MAX and TC on order with Rodenstock 90HR-W SB and 50HR SB lenses.
    I own a DF+ 80mm and 55mm on IQ160

    I’m biased toward the Rodies over Schneider because of their sharpness using wide apertures, large image circles for movements and stitching on the Max.
    Half my shots are 3-4frame stitch and half single shot hand-held.


    Obviously 90 and 50 are my two go-to focal lengths, but they’ve left me in a bind choosing a 3rd lens. As “good spacing” is usually 40HR -60XL -90HR or 32HR - 50HR - 90HR.

    The elephant in the room is the 32HR. But, this lens is too big, too heavy, too wide and too costly for a lens I only use for a hand full of shots. Never mind the smell!

    I love the no compromises 40HR. But I think even Dante would roll his eyes if I packed a 3 lens kit 40 - 50 - 90. The 40 is just a few mm too tight overall and especially next to a 50? Right?

    I think a 36mm would be my perfect wide if you could talk me into Schneider:

    Has anyone worked with the Schneider 36XL?
    -It’s compact, has same 90 degree IC.
    -But I would assume that only minimal movements would be useable
    -It’s only available in LB (long barrel) so another compromise there.
    ALPA of Switzerland - Manufacturers of remarkable cameras - Schneider/ALPA Apo-Switar 5.6/36 mm XL, LB

    Is this comparable to the 35XL I see so many of you gleefully using?
    I don’t see the 35XL listed on the alpa website as useable though?

    Long time reader, first time posting here... Thanks!!
    Last edited by Stephan S; 27th January 2015 at 14:11.

  2. #2
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    HR40.

    Forum recommended. Dante Approved.


  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    219
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    I have also the 50mm and 90mm on an IQ160. As a wide, I got the 32mm. It's big, it's expensive, but it's gooooood. 'nuf said :-)
    Oh yes, it is Dante approved also.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    I agree with Ken.

    You mentioned stitching and the 40mm will go to about 18mm before the inner disc creates too harsh a vignette. No CF is needed on the 40mm.

    The 35xl will go to about 8mm of shift on your back possibly 10mm if you don't have a lot of solid blue sky. It will need the CF and as you point out is really the best between F8 and F11.

    The Rod can flare and really can't be shot at or nearly at the sun. The 35xl does very well in bright light.

    Paul
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    New Member Stephan S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Ah I see, Thanks Doug. To clear it up... I see there is a Rodi 35mm APO. And the Schneider 35mm-36mm XL.

    The The 35 APO Rodie has a 105 degree IC, which sounds good on paper. But I think that's an older lens probably outperformed by the 40 or the 32.

  6. #6
    New Member Stephan S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Great point about the center filters Paul, I'd much prefer to work without them if at all possible.

    18mm would be nice on the 40HR for rise/fall. Is the 40 much for stitching? or is it so wide that there isn't much need for it?

  7. #7
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    HR40 stitches just fine---just depends on the subject matter.



    Three image stitch with Cambo WRS, HR40 t/s, and IQ180.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    I stitch the 40 most of the time I take it out. It's a stitching dream lens tack sharp out to around 15mm past that unless you are at f11 I feel the last 3mm is a bit soft. But it may be my lens.

    I have a older heliopan CF I on the 40 whe I am in low light. This is due to lack of shadow recovery with the Phase One 60mp CCD chips. They love light. In the field I often shot in very mixed lighting when working the smaller streams I like to hike.

    I feel the the LCC correction by Phase One could be better on the 40mm as my shots still hold some red cast on shifts when I have a lot of solid blue sky. C1 with the ability to do WB adjustments on local layers helps out a lot here.


    I also forgot to mention that you will see more microlens ripple with the SK35 on shifts and the LCC many times can't correct all of it.

    Paul
    Last edited by Paul2660; 27th January 2015 at 13:55.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Jamgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    By all accounts 40mm is a superb lens so you can't go wrong there. For me personally though, 40mm + 50mm would be too close together. You could divest yourself of the 50mm and get a 40mm and SK60mm. That would get you to the 40/60/90 kit. But that 60mm is a Schneider not a Rodenstock (you mention your preference for Rodenstock).


    Adding 32mm would give you what I consider a perfect 32/50/90 kit.
    Last edited by Jamgolf; 27th January 2015 at 14:01.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    The SK35XL (Alpa 36) is nice, I have it, but I would not recommend it for large movements on the IQ160, too much cast issues. I've had the old Rodie Sironar 35 too, but it's not as sharp as the SK35. The Rodie40 is a bit sharper when shifted than the SK35.

    There's the Digaron-S 35mm too, should be very sharp but only 70mm IC.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    IF I already had the 50, I'd go for the 32 and not bother with the 40.

    That said, my favorite 3-lens formula has always been and even in film days was:
    Normal at roughly the diagonal of the capture frame rounded to closest focal available; Wide at the short edge length of the capture frame rounded to nearest available; Tele at 2x the long edge side of the capture frame, but here I'd always round up to available focal.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  12. #12
    New Member Stephan S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Interesting Jack, I'm not familiar with this formula. What is the "short edge length of the capture frame? Could you list one lens selection as an example?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Wide at the short edge length of the capture frame rounded to nearest available; Tele at 2x the long edge side of the capture frame,..
    Stephan

  13. #13
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    HR 32. Dante approved. Nuff said.
    Alpa FPS MAX TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com

  14. #14
    Senior Member Jamgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephan S View Post
    Interesting Jack, I'm not familiar with this formula. What is the "short edge length of the capture frame? Could you list one lens selection as an example?

    I am not Jack, but I believe this is what he is referring to...

    Example for a 40x54mm sensor

    Normal
    at roughly the diagonal of the capture frame => 67.2mm
    rounded to closest focal available => ~70mm

    Wide
    at the short edge length of the capture frame => 40mm
    rounded to nearest available => 40mm

    Tele
    at 2x the long edge side of the capture frame => 108mm
    but here I'd always round up to available focal => 120mm
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    32HR for a no compromise solution.

    40HR if you plan on replacing the 50 at some point with the 60XL. The 60XL is a great lens, up there with the latest Rodies, as is the new SK 120ASPH.

    I don't thing the 35XL in the same league any of the lenses above.

    Between the 32HR and 40HR, leaving out price/weight/size, I always reach for the 32HR. I find it flares less and is marginally better overall than the 40HR.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Ok, it's settled then.

    Stephan---you need to buy the 32HR, 40HR, and SK60.

    That'll make a really nice 32/40/50/60/90 kit.

    Next....



    32HR with CF is pricey---and the right lens in the line-up. But *ouch*
    40HR is much easier to use (no CF) and a somewhat more palatable price. I bet the price of the 32HR with CF is pretty darn close to the price of the 40HR and SK60 combined....and certainly more palatable if you part with the 50mm....

  17. #17
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    I started out close to Jack's formula: 40, 70, 100 and 150 (I gapped around the 2x long edge).

    What got me to change to the 40, 60, 90 and 150 was the need to sometimes take only one or two lenses. The 60xl is wide enough and shifts a little better for a 1-lens solution, and for me the 60/90 combo is a great 2-lens kit. Taking fewer lenses at times may not be a consideration for some, but it was important to me.

    So I'm obviously in the 40/60 camp. But ooh that 32! If you like shooting that wide then by all means... (See how I did that Sir Dante?)

    Check out Dan's recent posts in the tech cam thread. He is obviously enjoying the 32!

    Dave
    How glorious a greeting the sun gives the mountains! - John Muir

    davechewphotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by dchew View Post

    Check out Dan's recent posts in the tech cam thread. He is obviously enjoying the 32!

    Dave
    Love it!

    Alpa FPS MAX TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Hi Stephan -

    I hear you on the 32mm - it is really large, heavy, high maintenance (care must be taken due to the high contrast ratio of lens size to shutter size). And you may not use it that often. But it is one of the most rewarding lenses you can ever shoot with. It would potentially have the added advantage of capturing the same scene in fewer shots than the 40mm in many instances. The 40 is also great, and you'll have the savings on size/weight, and a couple grand in your pocket.

    Just a note on the Alpa versions of the Schneider Digitars, since you mentioned it - the Alpa 36XL Helvetar is indeed based on the Schneider 35mm APO Digitar lens, but Alpa typically labels closer to the actual focal length (hence the 47mm is 48mm, the 72mm is 75mm, etc). They also in some cases adjust the filter size. The 36mm Helvetar is a very good lens for a cropped sensor P45+, for example, but not a lens that is easy to grow with (as one would upgrade to larger sensors) for shifting out into the edge of the available image circle.


    Steve Hendrix
    Capture Integration
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar Authorized Reseller
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    No doubt the 32mm is an excellent optic.

    Things to consider with it:

    1. As already mentioned, it has a huge weight in front of the Copal shutter and thus you really have to be careful when placing a camera on the ground with the lens mounted. Rodenstock even mentions that this is not recommended due to possible shock. Net you can dislodge the front of the lens from the shutter enough to get it misaligned.

    2. Should you use the CF or not. I have shot this lens 2x, and once it had the CF and the other did not. I felt the images I took benefited from the CF on shifts. NOTE, if you are using a CMOS back, then I don't feel that the CF would be a requirement due to the huge amount of shadow recovery that is possible.

    2A, If you have the CF installed, you now are at 105mm. You can probably mount 1 thin filter in front before you see serious vignetting. So if you use filters (I do) then this needs to be taken into consideration

    3. If you add a Lee hood or other style hood to the front of the 32mm, you are adding even more weight to the front of the lens. Thus more possible strain is being placed on the front. Adding a filter slot to the Lee hood would contribute more to this.

    4. Lee's hood allows for the 105mm ring to be added to the front of the hood, so you can place a CL-PL or other filter, (note Lee now has a slim CL-PL to fit this ring). I think if you add the ring to your hood on a 32mm Rod, it's going to instantly vignette as the diameters are both 105mm. But others may have experience with this.

    5. The 32mm is said to have less flare issues than the 40mm, so a hood may not be as important. Both times I shot the 32mm on my rm3di, I was positioned with the sun behind me and had no issues with flare or ghosting.

    I have been up and down on this lens way too many times. The extra care issues I can handle and the weight, since I could cut out my 40mm and 28mm. But the filter issues are a problem for me as I am an outdoor landscape shooter, I often need ND filters and a CL-PL combination.

    Best solution would be to try to demo it.

    Paul

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Reasons I gave up the 32mm:

    a) I do long exposure so center filter is a must. The center filter for the 32 is too large and causes a problem for my filter system. The 40 does not require a CF and the filter system is very mature.

    b) The 32 is susceptible to mazing artifacts / demosaicing failure issues on the IQ250, which suggests that it may become obsolete like the Schneider 28XL when the next generation of fullframe digital backs move to the Sony CMOS sensor. The 32 may be a risky investment at this stage. On the other side, the 40 is a safer bet.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member Jamgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    b) The 32 is susceptible to mazing artifacts / demosaicing failure issues on the IQ250
    Can you please elaborate?
    I plead ignorance to knowing anything about "mazing artifacts" and "demosaicing failure issues".
    Would be helpful to see an example if you can share .

    Thanks

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamgolf View Post
    Can you please elaborate?
    I plead ignorance to knowing anything about "mazing artifacts" and "demosaicing failure issues".
    Would be helpful to see an example if you can share .

    Thanks
    If you are considering (as of what is available today) CMOS back, then investing in WA tech lenses is likely not the sharpest thing to do. I think some of the tests that Doug has done, even with the 32HR, show this. The 70mm IC lenses like the 28HR and 23HR appear to fair better than the 90mm IC lenses like the 32HR. As the focal length gets longer into the 40HR and up, things do get better. The SK43XL also looks like a non-starter.

    I see this as a limitation of the current crop of CMOS sensors and not with the tech lenses themselves. However you do need to find a system that works for you.

    This is thread is now getting into philosophy and religion. the OP has an IQ160. If the argument is future proofing, I would say this has to happen as much in the CMOS back technology vs. lens technology.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamgolf View Post
    Can you please elaborate?
    I plead ignorance to knowing anything about "mazing artifacts" and "demosaicing failure issues".
    Would be helpful to see an example if you can share .

    Thanks
    Hi, mazing artifact is a demosaicing failure issue when there are excessive crosstalk issues going on, i.e. green channel leakage between pixel lightwells when a wide angle is shifted and the ray angle is too extreme for the sensor. In such case interior shots may suffer from mazing artifacts on high key textures. Please refer to below the test shots of the 32HR 35XL and 40HR on the IQ250, where the 32HR and the 35XL showed prominent susceptibility while the 40HR held strong:



    Mr Anders Torger has detailed technical comments on that and his software can compensate with this regard. However I would still assume that the 40HR to be a safer bet as we don't know what would happen when we shift into the CMOS era in the near future.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    One note on the shot from Voidshatter the lower circled spot on the 32mm is not mazing but a error in the stitching. Follow it across the image. The upper circled example does show what might be mazing but I really don't think it would show up on a print unless you used a loup.

    You really can see the mazing in the 35XL example.

    Edit,

    I also did want to note, that as far as I know of the Digital Transitions testing, is the only testing that was done, and put out in detail, where you could pull down the files and see the raw images. I have never seen any formal comparison from Phase One, just action shots taken with the 250.

    In this same testing, some other issues came out pretty quickly.

    1. The IQ260 at 6 seconds had tons of stuck pixels, in the thousands. and that was at 6 seconds. These did not correct with the dark frame that would have been taken.
    2. The difference in the DR in the shadows was 100% impressive for the 250, in that it was totally possible to pull up areas on shifts that were 85% dark, and see wood grain when the exposure was corrected
    3. Many forget that in the main shots there were a series of metal bars that covered a row of the books, in the 260 and 180 shots these had so much aliasing (Christmas Tree light effect) to render this part of the image worthless, as it distracted terribly. The 250 had none of this.

    My point being, I feel that based on the testing I saw from Guy on the Credo 50, that if you can live with 12mm of shifting and the 1:3 crop , the 250 is the better overall solution. I still want to max out shifts to even 18mm or 20mm which will really make it hard to correct with a 250, even though the sensor is cropped. The crop of 30% does have a big issue for me, it's 30% that's a lot. If you shoot wides which I do there are a lot of shots I couldn't just back up a few steps to take.

    My opinion may have changed for the 250 after talking to another US dealer and realizing that there might be a more aggressive trade in for my 260, however before I would ever consider a move, I need to shoot the back and this just is not easy to do as rentals are not covered by my current insurance, so I need to somehow meet up with a dealer in person and shoot. Something I still hope to do later this year.

    Paul

    Paul
    Last edited by Paul2660; 29th January 2015 at 05:27. Reason: more detailed information

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    One note on the shot from Voidshatter the lower circled spot on the 32mm is not mazing but a error in the stitching. Follow it across the image. The upper circled example does show what might be mazing but I really don't think it would show up on a print unless you used a loup.

    You really can see the mazing in the 35XL example.

    Paul
    The forum does not display my screenshot at the native resolution. Try to view it at 100% and you'll see the mazing artifact on the 32

  27. #27
    Senior Member Dogs857's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Thursday Island - Australia
    Posts
    307
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    I'm sorry but this is really starting to annoy me.

    This thread had nothing to do with the 250, or any CMOS back for that matter. The OP is asking for advice on his IQ160. Void I know you love your CMOS sensor, but you are hijacking so many threads I am starting to wonder if you work for Sony.
    I am sure there are many people on this forum who are more than happy with their current backs. I looked at the CMOS backs, especially after the Hassy release, but decided it wasn't for me because it doesn't play with my wide lenses. I probably won't ever buy a CMOS back for that reason. This decision doesn't make my current back and lenses obsolete, nor make me crazy or stupid.
    If you want to spruik the CMOS sensor then start a new thread and go for your life, I am very happy for you that you found something that fits your photography so well. Just stop hijacking other threads that have nothing to do with the new sensors.

    As for the OP, it seems to me that you want the 35mm but need a bit of a push. So here it is, the 35mm is an awesome lens, as are most tech lenses. Buy it, use it and never look back. You will save a bundle not getting the 32 and if you only use it rarely then you will never know the difference.

    My two cents (Australian, so probably 1.6 cents US)
    Stop chasing gear, start chasing photos instead.

    Jeff, but my friends call me Dogs
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogs857 View Post
    I'm sorry but this is really starting to annoy me.

    This thread had nothing to do with the 250, or any CMOS back for that matter. The OP is asking for advice on his IQ160. Void I know you love your CMOS sensor, but you are hijacking so many threads I am starting to wonder if you work for Sony.
    I am sure there are many people on this forum who are more than happy with their current backs. I looked at the CMOS backs, especially after the Hassy release, but decided it wasn't for me because it doesn't play with my wide lenses. I probably won't ever buy a CMOS back for that reason. This decision doesn't make my current back and lenses obsolete, nor make me crazy or stupid.
    If you want to spruik the CMOS sensor then start a new thread and go for your life, I am very happy for you that you found something that fits your photography so well. Just stop hijacking other threads that have nothing to do with the new sensors.

    As for the OP, it seems to me that you want the 35mm but need a bit of a push. So here it is, the 35mm is an awesome lens, as are most tech lenses. Buy it, use it and never look back. You will save a bundle not getting the 32 and if you only use it rarely then you will never know the difference.

    My two cents (Australian, so probably 1.6 cents US)
    Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to persuade the OP to buy CMOS. I'm just pointing out that when technology advances, if an existing gear is no longer compatible with the latest gear, then there is a risk that the existing gear will depreciate. History taught me something - see how the 28XL, ZM15, VM12 etc lost value over the development of new sensors. I know that the 32HR fits the OP's IQ160 well, and if the OP chooses to stick with the IQ160 then there is no way that the 32HR will stop working on the IQ160. I am just saying that if there is a fullframe 645 CMOS out in the near future and if the 32HR is not compatible with it then the 32HR may depreciate. What can be too wrong if you choose a product that could be more futureproof so that it could retain more residual value and more flexibility should you decide to sell it in the future? The OP started such a thread because obviously the 32HR is not a small investment for him. Of course if I didn't need to worry about money I would also just go for the 32HR and wouldn't care about any possible depreciation in the future. The money and choice are all yours, not mine. Add me to ignore list if you find my comments annoying

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Even if you do worry about money you don't need to worry that much. You can sell the IQ160 and 32HR to users like me that use MF gear one step below the highest end. Even if there will come new even more retrofocus lenses there will be a market for the old lenses, just like there is for Schneider Digitar today.

    And additionally, I don't exclude the possibility that future CMOS sensors actually will have light shields or surface mounted photo diodes and then wide angle compatibility will again be as good as or even better than the Kodak CCDs. My current plan is to hold on to the Schneider Digitar lenses until that happen, and skip over Dalsa and current Sony CMOS... I'm happy with what the lenses can do, but not happy how they are treated with the most recent sensors. Although I can't deny the excellent sharpness of the Rodie wides, they're not designed the way I think a "large format" style lens should be, ie small simple light symmetrical and distortion free, so I hold on to the Digitars for as long as it's possible.

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The not-so-wide 3rd lens: A tech cam setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Even if you do worry about money you don't need to worry that much. You can sell the IQ160 and 32HR to users like me that use MF gear one step below the highest end. Even if there will come new even more retrofocus lenses there will be a market for the old lenses, just like there is for Schneider Digitar today.

    And additionally, I don't exclude the possibility that future CMOS sensors actually will have light shields or surface mounted photo diodes and then wide angle compatibility will again be as good as or even better than the Kodak CCDs. My current plan is to hold on to the Schneider Digitar lenses until that happen, and skip over Dalsa and current Sony CMOS... I'm happy with what the lenses can do, but not happy how they are treated with the most recent sensors. Although I can't deny the excellent sharpness of the Rodie wides, they're not designed the way I think a "large format" style lens should be, ie small simple light symmetrical and distortion free, so I hold on to the Digitars for as long as it's possible.
    The inductive price of an IQ260 could be around 20,000. Now a private trading price to sell it could be around 10,000 if one decides to bash it and make some direct comparisons against other products to reveal its weakness. That means 10,000 is instantly lost.

    If you buy a 32HR (alpa mount) as new, with an HPF ring, a T-S adaptor and a CF, it costs about 8,000. However if it is incompatible with the future fullframe CMOS back, you would sell it for only around 4,000 (take the Schneider 28XL as reference when the Dalsa 80 MP back made it obsolete).

    Even if you only buy second hand, you still lose a fair amount of money, unless everyone is as smart as you are to pick the Kodak CCD with the Schneider lenses. Who can guarantee that the pricing can be so stabilized?

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
  •