>>2900406Unfortunately, a symmetrical design means that light exists the lens at roughly the same angle it enters, which with wide lenses results in a fairly steep angle of incidence. On film this didn't matter, because it registers photons coming from any angle, but sensors often have fairly deep photon wells, which means that light coming in at an angle will collide with the well's sides, or being redirected in the wrong direction by the microlenses. This results in everything from intense green/magenta discoloration around the frame edges to mosaic artifacts, many of which can't be fully gotten rid of or adversely affect image quality even if removed.
If you are shooting technical cameras with older CCD backs, which used to have fairly wide wells, you can use symmetrical lenses like those by Schneider no problem, and save a chunk of cash while getting a smaller and lighter package.
If you go for one of the higher-density 80MP or CMOS backs, you're pretty much going to need Rodenstock retrofocals if you want to have any movements at all. The downside is that they're considerably more expensive and heavy, but if you just bought a $40,000+ camera, chances are that it's the least of your concerns.
This is still a potential problem on cameras that have no movements, like the digital Leica M and Sony A7 series cameras, which exhibit edge smearing with wide-angle lenses originally intended for film use.
