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!

35xl vs 40hr

dchew

Well-known member
I’ve had the 40hr for several years and just recently picked up the 35xl. After a few basic tests both in the field and in the office, I will share my general observations, all associated with an IQ3100 on an Alpa mount. Center filter on the 35xl, none on the 40hr. No movements; those experiments will come later, but I don’t expect much movements on the 35xl, and have rarely shifted more than 5mm with the 40hr. These images are overexposesd a bit on purpose. Camera position is about 2.5 feet closer for the 35xl.
40hr left, 35xl right:


40hr has the obvious benefit of not needing a center filter. Two stops of light lost with the 35xl, plus the 40hr is f/4.0 vs f/5.6. So if you are struggling with dim light I think this trumps everything else. Note the difference in exposure times.

On-center, you can get away without an LCC for the 40 in some cases. You need it for every shot with the 35xl. 40hr LCC, not much to see:


35xl LCC. Definitely there but very correctable:


In the shot set up I had, at some distances the 40hr had very bad flair. The 35xl had some, but it was standard aperture-blade stuff. The 40hr had weird dramatic orange eyebrow flair from the room lights.
40hr Flair:


Wide open the 35 has poor contrast in the corners. 40hr suffers too, but not quite as badly. Wide open the image corners are equal on the 35xl vs the 40hr. On-center the 40hr always appears sharper. I think this is mostly global contrast, because increasing the 35xl contrast slider in C1 brings them essentially back to even.

Wide open (f/4 and f/5.6 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near center of the image:


Wide open (f/4 and f/5.6 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near bottom right of the image:


Closed down two stops, the 35xl is about equal to the 40hr. The 40 always looks slightly sharper, but I think this is again more to do with global contrast than strict detail resolution. In these next two images, I've increased the global contrast +11 in Capture One for the 35xl.

2-stops down (f/8 and f/11 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near center of the image:


2-stops down (f/8 and f/11 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near bottom right of the image:


The difference in distortion is obvious to me. Looking at the global image the bottom right drawers and cabinet clearly bend down in the 40hr image.

Since I won’t be using either lens wide open, I am satisfied with the 35xl for my use.

35xl looks and feels significantly smaller and lighter even with the center filter. It does take larger filters, however: 72 vs 67mm:



The 40hr is the more versatile lens. However, I think I can easily work within the 35xl's constraints and will probably keep it as the default in the bag because of its two advantages: size and distortion. The biggest issue I will have is the lack of tilt with Alpa. But I will usually be able to get away with one or two focus brackets.

Dave
 
Last edited:

dchew

Well-known member
Here is a 35xl image shifted down (back rise) 18mm at f/8, LCC applied, focused on the area zoomed in the 100% image:


 

Jamgolf

Member
Nice comparison Dave.
It looks like Capture One v10 is cleaning up the color cast quite well for 35XL.
It's quite possible that some of the SK lenses that fell out of favor are usable with C1's improved LCC removal algorithms.
 
Can I rob your mansion please? :p

Nice comparison!

I always wanted the 35XL but eventually gave up because Schneider no longer makes new center filters for it.

Another consideration for the 35XL is the upcoming 150MP sensor next year. So far there is no guarantee that the BSI design can reduce color cast with smaller pixel pitch.
 

daf

Member
Here is a 35xl image shifted down (back rise) 18mm at f/8, LCC applied, focused on the area zoomed in the 100% image:


Digitar lenses are optimised for f11 /f13 ... so you might gain a bit by stopping down a bit more than f8
 

f8orbust

Active member
I’ve always said the 35 was a great lens - and this test once again proves it - especially when it is put up against a lens that is ~5.5mm longer (36.42mm vs 41.85mm). That 5.5mm is a big difference when you get to the wide angle end of the lens spectrum. Impressive how C1 can clean up the LCC.

A 40 x 54 150MP digital back is going to have a pixel size of <4μm. According to R/S, their current crop of HR-W wide-angle lenses are designed for ~6μm sensors, so to get the most out of a 150MP $$en$$or we're going to have to see a new set of wide-angles. Will R/S make that investment ? My uneducated guess ... doubtful.

Jim
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Digitar lenses are optimised for f11 /f13 ... so you might gain a bit by stopping down a bit more than f8
Very much agree. I would not shoot this lens at f8 or anything under f11. My copy is very sharp at that aperture and I'm able to shift easily 8 - 10mm. I have shot with and without a center filter with good results. C1 can easily take care of the light falloff without inducing noise so if I need the extra speed then the CF is off the lens. Fixing the distortion of the HR 40 in post can be very destructive..... Any shortcomings of the 35XL are mitigated by its '0' distortion.

Victor
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Shot at Crown Hall, IIT. Very little distortion, if any at all. f11, probably a wee bit of shift, can't remember. No CF. Leaf Aptus 33 back.

IIT_8_2013_015340 copy.jpg
 

archivue

Active member
really low distortion with the 35xl !

F11 best stop for mine with different DB

Most of time, i don't use the CF
 
I’ve always said the 35 was a great lens - and this test once again proves it - especially when it is put up against a lens that is ~5.5mm longer (36.42mm vs 41.85mm). That 5.5mm is a big difference when you get to the wide angle end of the lens spectrum. Impressive how C1 can clean up the LCC.

A 40 x 54 150MP digital back is going to have a pixel size of <4μm. According to R/S, their current crop of HR-W wide-angle lenses are designed for ~6μm sensors, so to get the most out of a 150MP $$en$$or we're going to have to see a new set of wide-angles. Will R/S make that investment ? My uneducated guess ... doubtful.

Jim
Many of these Rodenstock HR lenses e.g. Digaron-W are almost 10 years old since the announcement in Photokina 2008. This is an extremely specialized area of market so I doubt whether they will refresh the Digaron-SW line.
 

tjv

Active member
35xl looks ok on CMOS, but does it clean up well on 60mpx CCD? I'm an opportunist and wonder if I could pick on up second hand unit and save money on the 40mm.
 

dchew

Well-known member
35xl looks ok on CMOS, but does it clean up well on 60mpx CCD? I'm an opportunist and wonder if I could pick on up second hand unit and save money on the 40mm.
Part of this is CMOS, but part of it is Capture One's improved LCC algorithms in v10. Make sure you find people who have tested the 35xl + p65+/160/260 combo with v10.

Dave
 

dchew

Well-known member
Digitar lenses are optimised for f11 /f13 ... so you might gain a bit by stopping down a bit more than f8
Very much agree. I would not shoot this lens at f8 or anything under f11. My copy is very sharp at that aperture and I'm able to shift easily 8 - 10mm. I have shot with and without a center filter with good results. C1 can easily take care of the light falloff without inducing noise so if I need the extra speed then the CF is off the lens. Fixing the distortion of the HR 40 in post can be very destructive..... Any shortcomings of the 35XL are mitigated by its '0' distortion.

Victor
I agree about f/11. I think the only lens I routinely shoot less than that is the 90hr-sw. However, when checking a new lens I do think there are some reasons for testing at wider apertures.

It is nice to hear many of you report using this without the CF. not only are they light-robbing but they are also getting scarce. I'm home this week, and plan to post some "real" images. I will give it a go with and without as well.

Dave
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Make sure to check the lens for alignment. Mine had to go back to Schneider for repair (at no charge) which was due to the copal not being perfectly in spec, which is almost always the case. My lens was grossly skewed left near and right far.....

Victor
 

TsurTriger

New member
I have both.
I do not know which one to sell. They are both good in their way. So, for now I do keep them both in our arsenal.
I do use them on both Sony A7R2 and MF CCD sensor. I do not remember any specific issue with neither of them.
The Rodie 40mm HR it is a monster. It is the biggest in size lens we have.
 

algrove

Well-known member
I wish you guys would stop this kind of thread as I am a new HR40 user and the learning curve is so very sharp enough without this type of information.
 

JohnBrew

Active member
I wish you guys would stop this kind of thread as I am a new HR40 user and the learning curve is so very sharp enough without this type of information.
+1. I bought a new 40 HR several months ago for my RM3di. Holy cow is it sharp! At 300% it is sharp (CFV-50c). Never had a lens which would do that before. Just shooting landscapes I don't really see any distortion worth messing with.
 

vsbhk

Member
I’ve had the 40hr for several years and just recently picked up the 35xl. After a few basic tests both in the field and in the office, I will share my general observations, all associated with an IQ3100 on an Alpa mount. Center filter on the 35xl, none on the 40hr. No movements; those experiments will come later, but I don’t expect much movements on the 35xl, and have rarely shifted more than 5mm with the 40hr. These images are overexposesd a bit on purpose. Camera position is about 2.5 feet closer for the 35xl.
40hr left, 35xl right:


40hr has the obvious benefit of not needing a center filter. Two stops of light lost with the 35xl, plus the 40hr is f/4.0 vs f/5.6. So if you are struggling with dim light I think this trumps everything else. Note the difference in exposure times.

On-center, you can get away without an LCC for the 40 in some cases. You need it for every shot with the 35xl. 40hr LCC, not much to see:


35xl LCC. Definitely there but very correctable:


In the shot set up I had, at some distances the 40hr had very bad flair. The 35xl had some, but it was standard aperture-blade stuff. The 40hr had weird dramatic orange eyebrow flair from the room lights.
40hr Flair:


Wide open the 35 has poor contrast in the corners. 40hr suffers too, but not quite as badly. Wide open the image corners are equal on the 35xl vs the 40hr. On-center the 40hr always appears sharper. I think this is mostly global contrast, because increasing the 35xl contrast slider in C1 brings them essentially back to even.

Wide open (f/4 and f/5.6 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near center of the image:


Wide open (f/4 and f/5.6 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near bottom right of the image:


Closed down two stops, the 35xl is about equal to the 40hr. The 40 always looks slightly sharper, but I think this is again more to do with global contrast than strict detail resolution. In these next two images, I've increased the global contrast +11 in Capture One for the 35xl.

2-stops down (f/8 and f/11 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near center of the image:


2-stops down (f/8 and f/11 respectively); 40hr left, 35xl right. Near bottom right of the image:


The difference in distortion is obvious to me. Looking at the global image the bottom right drawers and cabinet clearly bend down in the 40hr image.

Since I won’t be using either lens wide open, I am satisfied with the 35xl for my use.

35xl looks and feels significantly smaller and lighter even with the center filter. It does take larger filters, however: 72 vs 67mm:



The 40hr is the more versatile lens. However, I think I can easily work within the 35xl's constraints and will probably keep it as the default in the bag because of its two advantages: size and distortion. The biggest issue I will have is the lack of tilt with Alpa. But I will usually be able to get away with one or two focus brackets.

Dave
I have tested both lenses and, briefly,

- 35XL: little distortion with a bit more flare. Sharp and Digital.
- 40HR: more distortion, not as much flare, good dynamic range. A bit more organic.

Both are very usable.
 

f8orbust

Active member
I have tested both lenses and, briefly,

- 35XL: little distortion with a bit more flare. Sharp and Digital.
- 40HR: more distortion, not as much flare, good dynamic range. A bit more organic.

Both are very usable.
What's that they say about 'beauty being in the eye of the beholder' ? I came to almost exactly the opposite conclusions when I compared them a few years ago, i.e.

35XL: Minimal distortion and flare. Sharp, with lovely rendering - very 'analogue' in feel (in audiophile terms);
40HR: Greater distortion (as to be expected) and flare (as to be expected). Sharper, with a clinical rendering - definitely more 'digital' in feel.

Given the advances in C1's handling of LCCs, I don't think you can go wrong with either lens on most digital backs that are out there.
 
Top