ultimate MF landscape lens - digital or film

[trioderob]

just to clear up the OP

right now I have the D800E

I have used a 4x 5 film camera and have some experiencing scanning film
as I also own a pentax 6X 7 with wide angle lens.

I understand that these cameras use a compromise lens design because there needs to be a distance from the mirror in comparison to a biogon lens.

as talked about here:

diglloyd: Biogon vs Distagon

so I was wondering what it takes to get into the upper echelon of lens for doing mostly seascapes. ......?

probably would go the film route as it cost much less - but also this thread can be a ref for me years down the road - I will print it out and put it in a drawer for later ref

 

[danlindberg]

One lens only going tech = Schneider 60 XL. Full stop.

 

[Stefan Steib]

The best Lens for Landscape.....
Is the one you have in your Photobag with you when you need it.



Regards
Stefan

 

[Shashin]

I understand that these cameras use a compromise lens design because there needs to be a distance from the mirror in comparison to a biogon lens.

That statement would simply be false. In fact, a reverse telephoto or rear telecentric design can be better than a symmetrical lens simply because they can minimize the effects of rays hitting an image plane at an oblique angle. What you need to find out is the performance of a particular lens, rather than working on some abstract generalizations about lens design. For sensors, a tele-centric design is far better than a symmetrical one with corner resolution and sharpness.

But if you are now thinking of film, then there are a whole different set of choices. I am not sure this post is worth "filing" as better lenses will always be made.

 

[vjbelle]

I use the widest lenses quite seldom. When you can shift I think one can often get away with a little bit less wide angle. My shooting style has more of intimiate "crops" than grand landscapes and then I use 90-120 and even 180mm more often than the wides.

Couldn't agree more.... I don't use wides very often and if I do I actually consider my 60XL Wide! I much prefer the more intimate and slightly compressed approach of my 100 or 150.... just suites my style. This is not to mean that the wide approach isn't just as acceptable....

Victor

 

[trioderob]

That statement would simply be false. In fact, a reverse telephoto or rear telecentric design can be better than a symmetrical lens simply because they can minimize the effects of rays hitting an image plane at an oblique angle. What you need to find out is the performance of a particular lens, rather than working on some abstract generalizations about lens design. For sensors, a tele-centric design is far better than a symmetrical one with corner resolution and sharpness.

But if you are now thinking of film, then there are a whole different set of choices. I am not sure this post is worth "filing" as better lenses will always be made.

if its false than why are the Hassy SWC and Mamiya 43 considered so highly ?

 

[trioderob]

ok looks like a complex subject but this explains it.

one better for film the other for digital

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf

 

[Ken_R]

That statement would simply be false. In fact, a reverse telephoto or rear telecentric design can be better than a symmetrical lens simply because they can minimize the effects of rays hitting an image plane at an oblique angle. What you need to find out is the performance of a particular lens, rather than working on some abstract generalizations about lens design. For sensors, a tele-centric design is far better than a symmetrical one with corner resolution and sharpness.

But if you are now thinking of film, then there are a whole different set of choices. I am not sure this post is worth "filing" as better lenses will always be made.

That is correct. The problem is that while very high quality reverse telephoto or rear telecentric designed rectilinear wide angles can be made I think very very few (very high quality ones) are actually made or exist for Medium Format Digital SLR or Roll Film SLR use. I am talking of wider lenses than say 40-45mm on a 645 camera (equivalent) or say the equivalent of a 28mm (or wider) on a 35mm camera.

Hasselblad/Fuji had to make some compromises with their 24 and 28mm H mount wide angles and chose to leave some of the corrections to the software. And even so, those lenses do not cover the full 645 frame. They are good performers in the end though.

The new Leica S 24mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses are supposedly superb but I have not seen RAW files made using those lenses and just do not have enough info on them.

The Pentax 645 25mm is an ok lens and the 35mm FA and A are just so so, good, not great.

The same can be said of the Phase/Mamiya wide angles, the 28mm and the 35mm.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I have to say that I've never heard any complaints about the 38/4.5 Biogon on any camera system. In my case it's the aspirational Alpa lens for use with my 44x66mm film back. For most folks it's the Hasselblad SWC.

Other film greats are the Mamiya 43mm as mentioned earlier and in my own case it's probably the Hasselblad/Fuji 30/5.6 for the XPAN too.

On a personal note, one of the most shockingly sharp lenses that I've ever used on film was the Schneider 47XL APO-Digitar on my Alpa. Even my film lab guys were asking me what the heck I'd been shooting with!

 

[Don Libby]

It has been my understanding that trying to use an older lens developed for film on a digital back is problematic to say the lest. While the film type lens might be great for film it might not have the required resolving power for today's modern digital back. In case you're looking for a specific "look" that can't be done in post then a film lens might suit your purposes.

Regarding which lens is better for landscape the answer for me is simple - the one either on my camera if not in my bag. I've got 3-lenses for my WRS that are as wide as the Rodenstock 40t/s and 2-Schneiders; 72 and the 120. I'm constantly amazed at how large the IC of the 120 is. The best lens for me is the one that will help me capture what I want to convey and I've never once wished I had another lens with me. There really isn't much more to add without more information as to the task at hand.

Just my 2¢ that you can take or leave...

Don

 

[Shashin]

if its false than why are the Hassy SWC and Mamiya 43 considered so highly ?

As film cameras? Sure. And there are medium format wides that are not symmetrical that are also great--Hasselblad made quite a few for their reflex cameras.

 

[Shashin]

That is correct. The problem is that while very high quality reverse telephoto or rear telecentric designed rectilinear wide angles can be made I think very very few (very high quality ones) are actually made or exist for Medium Format Digital SLR or Roll Film SLR use. I am talking of wider lenses than say 40-45mm on a 645 camera (equivalent) or say the equivalent of a 28mm (or wider) on a 35mm camera.

Hasselblad/Fuji had to make some compromises with their 24 and 28mm H mount wide angles and chose to leave some of the corrections to the software. And even so, those lenses do not cover the full 645 frame. They are good performers in the end though.

The new Leica S 24mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses are supposedly superb but I have not seen RAW files made using those lenses and just do not have enough info on them.

The Pentax 645 25mm is an ok lens and the 35mm FA and A are just so so, good, not great.

The same can be said of the Phase/Mamiya wide angles, the 28mm and the 35mm.

Well, I don't agree. I have seen great Hasselblad V lenses wider than a 28mm 35mm equivalent, like their 40mm. I doubt many people would agree with your assessment of the Pentax 25mm. My A 35mm is very sharp, not just so-so--and that is an old lens.

But the same problem exists. The lens design does not mean that a particular lens is better or worse. I shoot with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses as well. Fine lenses. And you need to correct those symmetrical lenses as well--that is what an LCC is. In fact, the highest performing Rodenstock and Schnieder wides are, in fact, tele-centric. So even they recognize the benefits of those designs. And certainly Zeiss and Sigma (their Art series) are making some fine 35mm lenses today that are tele-centric.

 

[Shashin]

It has been my understanding that trying to use an older lens developed for film on a digital back is problematic to say the lest.

That is a bit of a myth. Lots of film-era lenses will out resolve a sensor. Lots work well. But you can always make a better lens.

 

[RVB]

That is correct. The problem is that while very high quality reverse telephoto or rear telecentric designed rectilinear wide angles can be made I think very very few (very high quality ones) are actually made or exist for Medium Format Digital SLR or Roll Film SLR use. I am talking of wider lenses than say 40-45mm on a 645 camera (equivalent) or say the equivalent of a 28mm (or wider) on a 35mm camera.

Hasselblad/Fuji had to make some compromises with their 24 and 28mm H mount wide angles and chose to leave some of the corrections to the software. And even so, those lenses do not cover the full 645 frame. They are good performers in the end though.

The new Leica S 24mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses are supposedly superb but I have not seen RAW files made using those lenses and just do not have enough info on them.

The Pentax 645 25mm is an ok lens and the 35mm FA and A are just so so, good, not great.

The same can be said of the Phase/Mamiya wide angles, the 28mm and the 35mm.

Ken,I have the S24,30 and 35mm ..theyre superb.. here is a DNG set shot from the 24mm if you curious..
https://www.hightail.com/download/UlRRdFdSZEtrUm52WnRVag

I did have the HCD -28mm and although pretty good it had colour cast issues at the edges.. cyan in the blacks.

Rob

 

[Ken_R]

Well, I don't agree. I have seen great Hasselblad V lenses wider than a 28mm 35mm equivalent, like their 40mm. I doubt many people would agree with your assessment of the Pentax 25mm. My A 35mm is very sharp, not just so-so--and that is an old lens.

But the same problem exists. The lens design does not mean that a particular lens is better or worse. I shoot with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses as well. Fine lenses. And you need to correct those symmetrical lenses as well--that is what an LCC is. In fact, the highest performing Rodenstock and Schnieder wides are, in fact, tele-centric. So even they recognize the benefits of those designs. And certainly Zeiss and Sigma (their Art series) are making some fine 35mm lenses today that are tele-centric.

The Hasselblad 40mm (latest one) is the only one in the Hassy V line.

The Pentax 25mm seems to suffer from sample variation (I mean all lenses do but I guess more than normal) since I have seen a range of results from different samples. None I have seen are horrible by any means so all are pretty good.

I actually have a Pentax 645 35mm A lens. Had the 35mm FA and sold it since the A was sharper (at least the one I have) even so the Rodenstock 40mm HR-W I have completely obliterates it. Not even close not in the same galaxy.

I agree with the Sigma and Zeiss. Great examples of exploiting the tele-centric design to get maximum performance (per dollar even in the case of the Sigmas). Can't wait for wide ange lenses in the Zeiss Otus line. Love it if they make a Otus 24mm tilt / shift. Dream lens.

 

[Shashin]

I actually have a Pentax 645 35mm A lens. Had the 35mm FA and sold it since the A was sharper (at least the one I have) even so the Rodenstock 40mm HR-W I have completely obliterates it. Not even close not in the same galaxy.

You mean the very new $5K Rodenstock telecentric design? My point is that telecentric designs can be better than symmetrical. The fact that it is also a really new design, I would hope it is better than my old Pentax A 35mm reverse telephoto.

 

[jagsiva]

I have a bunch of Rodies, they hurt my eyes. I just ordered a Petzval

So what are we talking about here?

Best landscape lens....

For me, with an IQ 180;

Wide - I have the 23/32/40HR, and the 32HR would be my choice of the 3 if I had to pick one. it as sharp or better than the other two, max movements for focal length, and most importantly, the 23HR flares terribly, and the 40HR does so too, but to a much lesser degree - the 32 HR does not. I may see the occasional sunspot, but not the garish internal flare that I see in the 23HR and sometimes in the 40HR. With the 32HR, there are less variables. If I do it right, the image is more often than not what I intended. Drawbacks are size and filtering. One other negative you may hear is that it is big and delicate. Big is correct, delicate - not so much. NB- I had the 35XL and 43XL, no comparison to the 32HR except for size.

Mid-range - 60XL - Small, sharp (as sharp as anything out there). The huge plus for me on this lens is a huge IC with movements right to the edge. I use a CF and it is just brilliant. Negatives - I find it a little warm on the colors, and for whatever reason the sync post on the SK is always flimsy and I've always replaced them with something more robust (couple hundred bucks).

Beyond mid - Not sure there is much to pick at here, they are all good. I do like the SK 120ASPH, mostly for it humongous 150mm IC. The Rodie 90HRSW is also very nice with a 125mm IC (I just got this lens, so need to spend some more time with it). Drawback with both lenses is either a long barrel or an extension box. The Rodie is also somewhat large.

If I had to pick one lens for my purposes, its hands down 32HR.

 

[ondebanks]

I like shortish telephotos for picking out landscape details. And for framing interesting regions of the Milky Way and smaller constellations.

One lens that has astounded me is the old Mamiya 120mm A macro - wide open, at infinity! Focused carefully using live view on a Canon 5DII, it is needle sharp over the entire frame of a rich starfield. I detect no coma, no astigmatism, no field curvature, no lateral CA, just very mild longitudinal CA on the brighter stars; and vignetting which is stronger than normal for a lens of this focal length, but easily corrected. It's thrilling to get astrograph-level performance from such a bargain lens (mine was $265 at KEH), but to get it from a 1:1 macro lens is really unexpected. It may not be the "best" ever lens at this focal length, but it sure delivers quality with versatility.

Ray

 

[synn]

Dear all,

On a Credo 40, which lens would you recommend for going wide for a single shot with movements? (Landscape, not architecture. Filter use is a must)

I like the perspective of my 35mm Mamiya lens, so the Schneider 35 XL is one I have in mind, but something wider would be nice too. Out of the 28mm lenses, which do you think works nicer with my back? The Schneider or the Rodenstock?

The Schneider 24mm is a lens that I was looking at too, but it seems like it can offer next to no movements and also, is discontinued. Any point in pursuing this lens?

Any help is much appreciated .

P.S. Most probably, my platform of choice would be the RM3Di.

 

[torger]

Dear all,

On a Credo 40, which lens would you recommend for going wide for a single shot with movements? (Landscape, not architecture. Filter use is a must)

I like the perspective of my 35mm Mamiya lens, so the Schneider 35 XL is one I have in mind, but something wider would be nice too. Out of the 28mm lenses, which do you think works nicer with my back? The Schneider or the Rodenstock?

The Schneider 24mm is a lens that I was looking at too, but it seems like it can offer next to no movements and also, is discontinued. Any point in pursuing this lens?

Any help is much appreciated .

P.S. Most probably, my platform of choice would be the RM3Di.

the SK24 has a very small image circle so it was not good for movements anyway. With the SK28 you will get limited movements due to it's symmetric design (you get crosstalk and desaturation), if you don't shift much it will be fine anyway. In fact it might be a better choice than the Rodenstock 28 as the Rodie has only 70mm image circle which is hard-limited. There's a good Rodie vs SK 28 test on this forum.

Rodenstock has got some criticism for their sharp hard-limits on their image circles, if you have a sky in the top of the image (common) you don't really need the utmost sharpness there. One problem with the hard limit disc is that you can get a reflection from it too which may give a visible penumbra that require some cleanup in post-processing if you have a really clear blue sky. I've noted that this phenomenom can happen also when you have center filters (which you generally have on ultra-wides) as that gives a sharper end to the image circle. A good idea is simply to have a large enough image circle so you don't need to move to the edge most of the time. The 70mm of the Digaron-S series might feel a bit tight even with the 44x33mm sensor. The Digaron-W (and SK wides) has 90mm and that is plenty for a 44x33mm sensor.

The SK35 will be somewhat limited by crosstalk too on this sensor, but less so than the 28. If you want to find examples of real-world results you don't need to search for a Credo 40 specifically, anything with the 6um Dalsa technology will do (IQ160, IQ140, P65+, P40+, Aptus-II 8, Aptus-II 10 etc) will do, if you compare with a full-frame sensor you need to compensate for that of course and crop away a bit. As the Credo 40 is only 44x33mm you will feel less limited than you would do with a full-frame sensor as you can shift it more relative to the sensor size.

All the Rodenstock Digarons work well with your sensor and if you want a combination that is "designed for" your sensor Digarons it is. With the SK wides and shifting it's about pushing past the design limits of the sensor and evaluate if you think the real-world results are good enough, which is a very subjective decision. You will of course always need to apply LCC, and if you happen to do high contrast post-processing work like Peter M you might run into the tiling even with the Digarons which also a known issue with this sensor type. Tech wides are simply demanding for the sensors, but the results you get is fantastic.

"My dealer" Linhof Studio stopped selling the SK28 because of its limitations with the Dalsa 6um sensors, but there are still users that use them, Dan Lindberg on this forum use it with his Credo 60, you could possibly ask him about shooting techniques. I would guess not shifting too much is the key.

The most impressive lens of the really wide angles is of course the Rodenstock Digaron-W 32mm. While you may need to consider some compromises when you go down to 28mm and shorter, the 32mm is the widest "no compromise" lens. Oh well, if you have the mindset of an old-school large format architecture photographer you won't like that it's retrofocus and have a little distortion and would prefer the SK35 anyway, but few worry about distortion these days and it's not exactly large.