The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Schneider Alpa Apo-Helvetar 5.6/48 Pros and Cons

Pelorus

Member
Taking my first trepidatious step into Dante's Inferno...

I'm interested in hearing about the pros and cons of the Apo-Helvetar 5.6/48mm. I'm planning to use it with a Leaf Aptus II 7...at least until I sell my house to fund anything better. As the likelihood of selling my house is also linked to a threat of divorce I'm likely to be using the 33MP back for some time. Likely body is the STC. Uses are landscape, urban-scapes, architecture and perhaps unusually people.

I'm interested in your experience of using this lens with that or similar backs...sharpness, colour casts, ability to shift...

Thanks for any input.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
This is the same as the Schneider 47XL, so in your research any comments you find about that apply equally.

Basic stats are on our Tech Camera Overview Page. Make sure not to miss the note under the charts "Image Circle (mm): the projection size inside of which you can shift/tilt/swing and stitch. All else being equal, a larger image circle is better. These are the "stated IC" reported by the manufacturers not the "usable IC". Rodenstock tends to be conservative; Schneider tends to exaggerate."

Best wishes with the house/wife/divorce situation.

In general the 47/48 lens is excellent on the 33mp backs. Most of its limitations versus, e.g., the Rodenstock 40HR are more manifest on higher resolution backs with smaller pixels. If you'll be using that back for a good while the 47/48 is an excellent choice for performance vs cost. If you think you'll be upgrading to a higher res back in the future I'd suggest sticking with Rodenstock for anything wider than 60mm.

Best advice of course, if at all possible, get your hands on one from a dealer, a fellow forum member, or a workshop to give it your own go and make up your own mind.
 

Pelorus

Member
Doug,

thanks for taking the time to reply and for the confirmation that this is indeed the same as the 47XL - that broadens the information out there.

My wife as it happens is very supportive of this step into the Inferno, however there are always limits :)

I'd dearly love the Rodie 40HR but you've hit the nail on the head about price/performance and I don't see a major back upgrade in the near future.
 

thrice

Active member
Why not the 43xl if you're looking to do architecture? I sometimes find the 35 either too wide or too long with an STC and the same chip size as you.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'm a big fan of the 43XL. Probably because a) it was the first lens I used on a tech cam, b) I particularly like that FoV, and c) I've never used the Rodie 40HR ;) . But it did, together with an IQ160, produce my favorite landscape to date. It is stupidly scarily sharp out to the corners, due in part to its large image circle.

I smile at the demonstrations of resolution on the new Canon and Sony bodies. We forget that it's the lenses that do most of the work, and there are very few wide angle lenses remotely competitive with the tech cam Schneiders and Rodies. I'd be curious to see the Leica S 30 or 35 directly compared, but that stuff also opens up much wider.

Best,

Matt
 
If budget does become a concern, it's good to keep in mind that low resolution backs play very well with some analog wides, so long as you can stomach being limited to shooting between f/8 and f/16. The APO-Grandagon/APO-Sironar Digital 45 and 55 and the Schneider SA 38 and 47 XL's are all well-regarded for sharpness, color correction, and generous IC's.

Just something to keep in mind in case shooting with the latest and greatest or shooting with yesterday's latest and greatest makes the difference between a happy or unhappy wife.
 

Pelorus

Member
Thanks freaklikeme, and to the other members who have replied.

That's a good thought about not necessarily the latest and greatest. There are some great "bargains" out there in older lenses.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
It may not be the latest and greatest but trust me it's still a phenomenal lens. With the Aptus II 7 it'll be great and as mentioned this lens has a lot of image circle and can be stopped down to f/16 or beyond in real life.

i used this lens and the 35Xl for many years with my Aptus 65, P25+ and P40+ and was never disappointed. It was only when I moved to the iq160/260 did I really change up to a Rodenstock 40HR.

if you are on a budget with an older back I think that it's a fine lens. Are the 43xl and 40hr better? Sure, but a lot more expensive too.
 

cuida1991

Member
I'm a big fan of the 43XL. Probably because a) it was the first lens I used on a tech cam, b) I particularly like that FoV, and c) I've never used the Rodie 40HR ;) . But it did, together with an IQ160, produce my favorite landscape to date. It is stupidly scarily sharp out to the corners, due in part to its large image circle.

I smile at the demonstrations of resolution on the new Canon and Sony bodies. We forget that it's the lenses that do most of the work, and there are very few wide angle lenses remotely competitive with the tech cam Schneiders and Rodies. I'd be curious to see the Leica S 30 or 35 directly compared, but that stuff also opens up much wider.

Best,

Matt
Hi Matt,
Greetings from six years after your reply! May I ask more about your experience with 43XL? What back are you currently using now?
---Da
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Hi Matt,
Greetings from six years after your reply! May I ask more about your experience with 43XL? What back are you currently using now?
---Da
Hi Da,

I haven't used the 43XL since that one trip. I used a tech camera just a bit more, but moved to the Leica S for the AF and wider f-stops. I've stayed with the S system, even after trying the Hassy and Fuji medium format systems for about a year each. I just like the S. On a photo workshop, I'd prefer a tech cam, but I'm almost always not on a photo workshop :) I also moved wider. The 35mm on the S was one of my first lenses (I got the Contax version, too), but I've moved to the S-24, which would be like a 28 or 30 on a IQ4-150 size digital back.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Am using the 43mm on a Credo 60 back (= IQ160). Like it a lot. Compact, sharp, and good to the corners. Yes the 40 is magical, clearly better (have a friend w one on same back) but at a very different price point. Use with center filter tho, and take LCCs if shifting. Am able to stitch two shits readily for a view similar to a 35mm lens.
 

f8orbust

Active member
Yes the 40 is magical, clearly better...
I don't want to be a pedant, but statements like this are so problematic. What does 'better' mean? Does the 40 play nice with a wider range of DBs? Yup. Greater resolving power wide open? Yup. Stopped down? Nope. Has it less distortion than the 43? Nope. Is it lighter than the 43? Nope. Does it have a bigger IC than the 43? Nope. Does it flare more than the 43? Yup. And so on, and so on. For some people the 40 will be 'better', for others the 43 will be the lens of choice. One size doesn't fit all (and never has, thankfully).
 

Geoff

Well-known member
I don't want to be a pedant, but statements like this are so problematic.
Yes, you are right. Its a problem when you write in the middle of the night! However, there is something to the 40mm lens that is different - when looking at images taken with it, forgive the subjectivity here, but one just wants to dive into them. There is just something compelling about them, and don't know what it is. I have the same feeling about the Schneider 60XL - magical things happen with that lens. Flat light become richly nuanced.
OTOH, the 43 is, as you say, more compact, and is a most workable lens. Your points are well taken.
 
Top