30mm f.3.5 CFi lense

[wbulte]

I think, in general, that people tend to be overly concerned about distortion.

After all it is about the images produced, not about MTF curves etc, important as they might be for development of lenses and objective comparison between lenses.

Obviously for specialist situations, say architecture, distortion is a whole lot more important than for, say, landscape work.

As Paul can attest, I have enlargements on my walls at home of architectural subjects, taken with the 40FLE and C50. Neither of them have distortion to the extent that should worry anybody. Really, a 40FLE is not some Coke-bottom lens, I have the images to prove my point, also from architecture.

If you want almost distortion-less images go and buy a pure symmetrically built Schneider Super-Angulon. Then put it on a 8x10" technical camera. You will be stunned by the results. Added bonus: full front and back movements will allow you to correct perspective. No more 'tombstone' church towers and whatnot. And no grain either.

Wilko

 

[polypal]

With an 8x10 you do not even need an enlarger, contact prints are already large!
I second Wilko's opninion about non linear distortion.
Images from the 40 CF(E) are quite good.
It will be near impossible to point to this distortion being about 1% at the most.

The new 40 IF has 2.5% distortion which is not a problem in most cases.
That distortion can be corrected with new plug ins from Phocus.


Paul

 

[stever]

Not true.

The Distagon 40mm is a rectilinear corrected lens, just like the Biogon 38mm.

Given that no correction is ever perfect it has to be admitted that the Biogon is better corrected than the Distagon, but that does not make the Distagon not rectilinear corrected. Even the Biogon has some distortion left..

If you want to contrast rectilinear to a non-rectilinear lens you are talking about fish-eye lenses.

Wilko

Since I could not afford both the 38mm and 40mm I had to make a choice. Even though I worked at a small yellow box company in western New York, you probably never heard of it => Eastman Kodak, I never really found that MTF told enough of the story. Therefore I went with the lower distortion because I wanted it for architecture and landscape. Besides as SWC has a sexier history than 40mm.

The next step for me is to decide;

• if I want to go Flexbody or not. If so, then 40mm falls into line
• or go the 350mm or 500mm next

Somehow using the 30mm lens for shooting photographs of the tops of my shoes, we know this will happen sometimes, is expensive for the little use I would get.

Steve

 

[wbulte]

Since I could not afford both the 38mm and 40mm I had to make a choice. Even though I worked at a small yellow box company in western New York, you probably never heard of it => Eastman Kodak, I never really found that MTF told enough of the story. Therefore I went with the lower distortion because I wanted it for architecture and landscape. Besides as SWC has a sexier history than 40mm.

The next step for me is to decide;

• if I want to go Flexbody or not. If so, then 40mm falls into line
• or go the 350mm or 500mm next

Somehow using the 30mm lens for shooting photographs of the tops of my shoes, we know this will happen sometimes, is expensive for the little use I would get.

Steve

Oh, don't get me wrong: the Biogon is a lovely piece of glass. But like you, I cannot afford both a CF40 and a SWC. Or, for that matter, would I like to carry around both a V body and a SWC. So, also for practical purposes I prefer a CF40, as the 40 (or the 38) is often too wide for my taste/use case.

I need a V body to carry my favorite: the CF50FLE. If I was forced to dump everything else I would keep the 501CM, CF50FLE and 45gr metered prism.
Just because this has proven over time to be the most versatile / allround combo for me.

As for 350 or 500, I do not own anything 'longer' than a CF250. I probably would prefer the 350 over the 500 but will most likely never buy 'longer' than the 250.

What do you plan to use the 350 or 500 for?

Wilko

 

[stever]

What do you plan to use the 350 or 500 for?

Considering its weight and strength ...

self-defense

All seriousness aside with my 2X extender I would have the equivalent telephotos of 150mm, 250mm, 300mm, 350mm, 500mm, and 700mm if I got the 350mm lens or 150mm, 250mm, 300mm, 500mm, and 1,000mm if I got the 500mm lens. Either way, it would either help my fitness program or give me a hernia by carry all that serious glass.

Steve
​