New RS 40mm HR W, any tips?

[tjv]

Hi all,

Maybe seems a little bit of redundant question considering it's a lens and not some kind of newfangled body, but thought I'd reach out as I have a new RS 40mm lens on it's way to me – via the factory to get mounted in a new copal shutter – and wondered if anyone could share some insight with regards to it's use / limitations / etc. while I wait. It may actually be quite a long wait, what with the Covid-19 virus causing havoc with global travel and trade...

Anyway, Linhof and Studio have been awesome in arranging the mounting of the lens cells in the Copal 0 shutter. I use a Credo 60 on a Linhof Techno, so this is essential for me.

I'm wondering what information people can offer on the following:

1: I know there is a hard vignette / disk in the lens to limit movements past a certain point. In practice, if focusing in the middle distances, at what point does this show up? I've never once seen the disk when using my 70mm HR W lens, even when dropping the back a good 8mm and shifting +/- 17mm to create panoramic images. Different spec'd IC I know, but still...

2: Distortion. How are people correcting the complex moustache distortion the lens exhibits? Any tips on this front?

3: Diffraction. On the 60mpx FF sensor, how does diffraction look comparing f11 to f16?

4: How fragile have people found the lens? I've heard reports that it requires somewhat special care when packing because of the stress the large lens cells puts on the shutter unit. Is this true?

Anymore up to the minute info to share would be great, too. It's a well known, loved and tested lens at this point and I know a lot of people have reported on its performance, but maybe new versions of C1 etc have improved / changed things a bit over time?

Anyway, looking forward to receiving mine. It has been a much missed FoV in my kit, and now my perfect three lens kit is complete – save for the fact that I'd like to replace my RS APO-SD with the Schneider 60mm XL...

T

 

[Alkibiades]

I own two of the 40 HR lenses on different systems, one on Cambo WRS and one in copal shutter only for use on my Techno or Arca Swiss m-2.
From my practically experiance the 40 HR is the lens that you can use so easy as no other rodenstock or schneider lens. The lens is very good at 8 and perfect at 11. Also at 16 there is bid issue used on 80 and 100MP backs. On your 60MP all these apertures will work great. I find the 40 HR better to work even with big movements as my 50 and 32 HR. the sharpness even at the end of the image circle is simply great and I never seen a lens that can do that.
The Schneider Apo D. xl 60 mm is the sharpest schneider lens. I love the lens also, but it is not so easy to use, when you use bigger movements. Live view makes it easier, or you need the super bright screen from Linhof with Silvestri loup, to focus right on techno. A.D needs 11-16, at bigger movements 16 and it is not so easy to see and control the performents at the corners. But I amsure you would be happy with both lenses.

 

[jng]

Congratulations on your new lens acquisition! The 40HR will render beautifully on your Credo 60. I previously used this lens on an IQ160, which has the same Dalsa CCD sensor as your Credo. In terms of lens cast, the files are much cleaner than they are on my IQ3100, which replaced the IQ160. Unshifted, an LCC correction is almost optional on the Dalsa sensor. Typically I limit shifts to +/- 10mm which gives great results edge-to-edge. There's some lens cast when shifting on the IQ160 that I would always correct in post with an LCC file, but there are situations where one can get away without an LCC that wouldn't hold with the IQ3100. Capture One does a great job in cleaning things up in both cases but even after corrections I think the IQ160 files are a bit cleaner out at the edges.

Here's an example image I made of my trusty test subject (a terra cotta lion that guards our garden) soon after picking up my 40HR and Cambo + IQ160, shot at f/11 or f/11.5 (forgot to write this down at the time), shifted +/- 10mm and stitched. The tonality and sharpness just blew me away.

https://flic.kr/p/VNF9di

The 70HR as you mention has a larger image circle - for that lens I find that I can shift out to +/- 15mm without issue (and with much less lens cast than the 40).

The diameter of the Airy disc at f/11 is 14.7 microns (see https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm), which puts this in the sweet spot in terms of Nyquist frequency of the 60 Mp sensor (6 micron pixel pitch, IIRC). I typically use the lens at f/11 but don't hesitate to stop down further if I need the extra depth of field as I find few things more frustrating than coming back to a sharp, out of focus image. Capture One does a pretty good job with diffraction correction, although I think this requires having the f/stop embedded in the metadata which can't easily be done post hoc. Others can chime in on this point.

Perhaps I'm just not critical enough but I never really worried myself with correcting distortion on the 40HR, even when making the occasional architectural image.

There have been differing points of view expressed in other threads here about how to handle and transport tech cam lenses - vertical vs horizontal, pointing up vs pointing down if vertical, etc. My take away from all this is to try to support the entire lens assembly to avoid placing torque on the front lens group. So far, I haven't had any issues with the 40 (knock on wood).

Hope this helps and you're soon enjoying your new lens!

John

 

[tjv]

Thanks guys!

I’m thinking by now that it’ll be a miracle if I see the lens within 6 weeks to a month. Things are grinding to a halt world over. Not much I can do now except wait I guess...

I’m heartened by so many positive comments on the lens performance, I think it’s going to be something of a magic bullet for my work.

Having mostly shot 8x10” over the last two years it’ll also be nice to work more quickly again with freedom of ongoing materials costs- although I did just panic order 5 boxes of HP5 and some PMK!

 

[Pemihan]

The 40HR is a really great lens! I have been using mine for about six years, first with a IQ160/IQ280 and now with IQ3100 Achromatic and Trichromatic.

With the IQ160 and IQ280 I found it needed LLC on all shots - also with no shift. Obviously on the 100 Achromatic there's no color cast but only some vignetting. On the Trichromatic there's more color cast than on the 60/80 but it cleans up very nicely with LCC but I don't use a lot of shift.

I mainly shoot landscapes and have never found distortion to be an issue, not even with the occasional buildings or light poles etc. in the frame.

Regarding being fragile I usually have it mounted on my Cambo WRS with the back also mounted. I have made a foam cradle that supports the lens and carry it in an F-Stop ICU together with my other lenses and batteries etc..

Enjoy the lens, hope it will get to you quickly despite the world being locked down.

 

[dchew]

My only reservation with that lens is the focal length at 42mm. Ends up closer to a 28mm eq vs 24mm. I migrated to the sk35, but only for focal length reasons. The 40hr is the better lens in most other respects except distortion and size.

The Alpa lens corrector is available for download here if you want to try it:
http://www.alpa.ch/en/site/member-area

I think you have to create an account to get there, but it is a simple, free process. Although I have not tried it, it should correct for the mustache distortion.

Dave

 

[Paul2660]

Can’t add much to the material already added, but have a few thoughts.

I moved from the SK43 to the Rodenstock 40mm while I was shooting the IQ260. The 43mm needed a CF for all shots, really and the 40mm did not.

From my use, the 40mm is very sharp on center, but mine starts to fall off on shifting much past 10mm, as other note better shifting I will and have assumed I just received a bad copy. I found the lens would shift to just around 12mm/14mm before it hit the disc that is to show you the edge of the IC. But note as you approach this disc, you see other optical aberrations and the hard vignette created by the disk causes issues.

My biggest issues on the 40mm are the same as the 32mm, in that once you shift it around 2mm, you will start to see issues due to the retro focus design, in that subjects to the edge become elongated an flattened. Both lenses do this the same amount for me, in that enough that I would not really want to shift the 40mm or 32mm past 10mm for a subject with known dimensions. There is no correction for this BTW in post by any software. But just shift it against a car, or building and you will see the effect immediately. My lenses are 2016 and 2014 copies, so with new glass Rodenstock may have fixed this, but when I sent images to Rodenstock via Arca, on the 32mm I was told “this is normal”.

The 40mm I have shows a lot of chromatic aberration and when shifted this becomes worse. Can be fixed in post, CI does not do as good a job on it as LR.

No problems with carrying it, and I believe the issues the OP mentioned are for the 32mm, which even Rodenstock as stated, should not be carried on camera/tripod etc in the field as it’s too easy to dislodge the front part of the lens and then the lens is no longer aligned. 40mm is much smaller and lighter. Also, the 32mm might benefit from a CF, depending on the shot being taken.

So for the 40mm, great lens, very sharp, distortion on shifts towards edge of frame (elongation and flattening), and note all wides in the retro focus design do this to some extent. F8 to F11 quite useable, even F16 (on 4150 shows effects of diffraction, but IMO can be corrected). NO CF needs, and has shift ability up to 12mm for sure maybe 15mm in certain situations.

Paul C

 

[tjv]

Thanks all for your comments regarding the lens, it's all helpful.

As luck would have it, Paula at Linhof Studio emailed to say the lens was delivered to her from Rodenstock early – factory mounted in copal – and will be shipped to me on Monday. Unless of course the world has shut down by that point... I'm always amazed at Linhof Studio's service. I wish I could be a local 'walk in' customer, but alas I live in New Zealand. Anyway, I highly recommend them and hope and pray they will weather this economic storm. It's going to be hard for a lot of people in the coming year, that's for sure.

But the lens! I'm really looking forward to seeing what its limits are myself and contributing to the knowledge pool in due course. I'll be using it on my recently fine-tuned Linhof Techno for an ongoing project / commission. It's the final piece of the puzzle for my ideal kit, so fingers crossed it's all smooth sailing from here...

 

[med]

But the lens! I'm really looking forward to seeing what its limits are myself and contributing to the knowledge pool in due course. I'll be using it on my recently fine-tuned Linhof Techno for an ongoing project / commission. It's the final piece of the puzzle for my ideal kit, so fingers crossed it's all smooth sailing from here...

So, can we get a report?

I am also considering acquiring this lens currently (to replace my fairly good but not exceedingly excellent 43 XL). I feel like the 32 Rodie may make more sense as I could keep the 43 XL for when a smaller size is desired but the cost, weight, and durability issues with the 32 are giving me pause.

Would love to hear a report from someone acquiring the 40 now as a lot of the threads I can find on the forum are fairly old.

 

[Pemihan]

So, can we get a report?

I am also considering acquiring this lens currently (to replace my fairly good but not exceedingly excellent 43 XL). I feel like the 32 Rodie may make more sense as I could keep the 43 XL for when a smaller size is desired but the cost, weight, and durability issues with the 32 are giving me pause.

Would love to hear a report from someone acquiring the 40 now as a lot of the threads I can find on the forum are fairly old.

Just buy it and then get the 32 as well in a month or two:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Seriously it is a great lens! I probably use it for around 90 % of my shots.

 

[tcdeveau]

So, can we get a report?

I am also considering acquiring this lens currently (to replace my fairly good but not exceedingly excellent 43 XL). I feel like the 32 Rodie may make more sense as I could keep the 43 XL for when a smaller size is desired but the cost, weight, and durability issues with the 32 are giving me pause.

Would love to hear a report from someone acquiring the 40 now as a lot of the threads I can find on the forum are fairly old.

I happily gave Dave's (dchew) 40 HR a home a year or two ago. I haven't used it extensively yet but my observations mirror what has already been said here. I went for the 40 over the 32 for the same considerations you have....cost, size/weight, and durability.

Now that the aperture mount is readily available, and possibility the X-shutter in the future, my impression is durability of the 32mm may be less of an issue in non-copal 0 mounts these days. But then there's still the size and cost factors (cost even more so now with the tariffs on german optics in the US if purchasing new from a dealer).

Haven't had much time to shoot the past 10-12 months but am hoping to get out and use it more this summer/fall (even if only in my neighborhood) and happy to share more when I do

 

[med]

Now that the aperture mount is readily available, and possibility the X-shutter in the future, my impression is durability of the 32mm may be less of an issue in non-copal 0 mounts these days.

I did not realize the Aperture mount was more durable than the Copal 0 mount. That is good news! The x-shutter is also exciting but not if it can only be controlled from an IQ4150.

I could get over the price of the 32 eventually, but the size/weight means that I would still want to have the 40 or the 43 around anyways. I may have an opportunity to acquire both the 32 and 40 used from the same seller (Hi Dante!!) but it’s a real stretch of my budget currently.

Probably makes the most sense to get the 40 now, sell the 43, and save my ducats for the 32.

 

[anyone]

It would be nice to see a comparison between the SK43XL and the Rodenstock 40mm HR. So far, I'm rather pleased with the results I get with the Schneider lenses on my IQ1 60, but particularly with the 35mm the image circle is too small, that's why I am thinking of the 43 XL.

 

[Mexecutioner]

I did not realize the Aperture mount was more durable than the Copal 0 mount. That is good news! The x-shutter is also exciting but not if it can only be controlled from an IQ4150.

I could get over the price of the 32 eventually, but the size/weight means that I would still want to have the 40 or the 43 around anyways. I may have an opportunity to acquire both the 32 and 40 used from the same seller (Hi Dante!!) but it’s a real stretch of my budget currently.

Probably makes the most sense to get the 40 now, sell the 43, and save my ducats for the 32.

The order doesn't matter as long as you get them all

 

[tcdeveau]

I did not realize the Aperture mount was more durable than the Copal 0 mount. That is good news! The x-shutter is also exciting but not if it can only be controlled from an IQ4150.

I could get over the price of the 32 eventually, but the size/weight means that I would still want to have the 40 or the 43 around anyways. I may have an opportunity to acquire both the 32 and 40 used from the same seller (Hi Dante!!) but it’s a real stretch of my budget currently.

Probably makes the most sense to get the 40 now, sell the 43, and save my ducats for the 32.

I'm not sure if it's established fact that that the aperture mount is more durable than the Copal mount, but this is just my impression based on some posts here (can't find them at the moment but some searching may turn them up). I think I do remember seeing one post suggesting a new 32mm AU had to go back to the factory for adjustment, so I don't the AU is bullet-proof either.

Just throwing this out there - if you have the opportunity to buy both the 32 and 40 from the same seller, you could buy both, test them out, keep one and sell the other.

The downside is, well, you may end up keeping both (and your 43)

Good luck!

 

[Mexecutioner]

I'm not sure if it's established fact that that the aperture mount is more durable than the Copal mount, but this is just my impression based on some posts here (can't find them at the moment but some searching may turn them up). I think I do remember seeing one post suggesting a new 32mm AU had to go back to the factory for adjustment, so I don't the AU is bullet-proof either.

Just throwing this out there - if you have the opportunity to buy both the 32 and 40 from the same seller, you could buy both, test them out, keep one and sell the other.

The downside is, well, you may end up keeping both (and your 43)

Good luck!

It is a good idea to test them side by side for a few weeks and decide on the keeper, assuming the risk of expanding the collection quicker than expected, of course.

 

[med]

Just throwing this out there - if you have the opportunity to buy both the 32 and 40 from the same seller, you could buy both, test them out, keep one and sell the other.

The downside is, well, you may end up keeping both (and your 43)

Good luck!

It is a good idea to test them side by side for a few weeks and decide on the keeper, assuming the risk of expanding the collection quicker than expected, of course.

As hard as this may be on my pocket book, I think this is sound advice.... the seller has been very generous with providing test files but there is no substitute for hands on experience. From what I can ascertain from the test files, the 32 and 40 are as sharp (or maybe even sharper!) and better corrected wide open at f4 than the 43XL is at f8. Those two stops could be huge in some situations for avoiding motion blur or (gasp!) hand held shooting, which I do on occasion.

I can’t judge differences in colour cast between the two lenses as the test images I received from the seller were done on an IQ4150, but it can only get better compared to the 43XL. As it is with my IQ250, a lot of the huge image circle of the 43XL is unusable due to colour cast that I can’t remove with an LCC. The amount of movement the IQ4150 can take before any sort of image quality degradation begins is amazing, and there is virtually no colour cast to speak of.

One big reason I may keep the 43XL is the image circle covers my 6x8 film back with room to spare for some movements. The 32 and 40 look like they tap out just beyond 6x7 so definitely no room for movements, and I will have to do some testing to see if the dreaded Rodenstock image circle marker makes its way into the images.

 

[tjv]

Sorry for the radio silence, the Covid situation has put me in a weird space!

Anyway, testing the RS40mm was complicated because my Linhof camera was found to be out of alignment again – parallelism is tough on on these more traditional view cameras. Anyway, Linhof Studio have looked after me and send a loaner Techno which is perfect PLUS a second copy of the RS40mm lens to test, just in case one is better than the other. I can' recommend Paula's service highly enough, she truely is the best. I live all the way in New Zealand, and her commitment to getting all things right is truly astounding.

Anyway...

The 40mm on her Techno is brilliant. I've done tests pushing the IC right out to 13mm and while there is some degradation in the corners, it really is quite amazing performance. I'm using a Credo 60 and LCC is of course mandatory even straight on IMHO, but should be a lot better for colour cast with the new 150mpx back I suppose. Not sure about vignetting, of that there's quite a bit on my Credo. Is that improved with the 150mpx, or is it more optical vignetting?

Like any lens, it's not a magic bullet but if it fits your focal length requirements and budget it seems a real no-brainer purchase to me.

It's not small, but not large either – certainly a lot smaller than I was expecting after all the comments. My RS55mm APO-SD is about a little bit smaller when I have the CF mounted, although the rear cell protrudes a lot less. That gives some context to the size issue?

Speaking of my 55mm, it's out to alignment... Used to be a stellar performer, but is now a real dog. Maybe it's taken a knock and the copal is out as per the discussion above, I don't know. I'll send it back to Paula too, who I guess will send it on to the RS factory.

One post note: I do wish the 40mm had a little extra room for movement so I could stitch 1:2 panos with it, but beggars can't be choosers....

 

[Geoff]

Glad you are finding some satisfaction. Its been a long haul....The images from the 40mm just look wonderful. I've got the economy model - the 43XL, which is quite nice enough, but the 40mm is another step up. Something about those images just looks superb.

 

[f8orbust]

Having shot with both, I think the 43XL is a step sideways, not down. Both have various things going for them but in terms of size, weight, rendering, lack of distortion and a huge image circle (~113mm vs 90mm), the 43XL is hard to beat on a DB like the IQ4-150 where you can shift it a long way without crazy color casts etc.

Either way, it's win win.