I am looking into large format these days. The question came from the director I'm working with at the moment - and is the following: is there anything gained from using lenses with larger image circles then your sensor?
I was suggesting to shoot on the Leica R lenses for various reasons - he asked about the hasselblad whitepoint lenses - presuming they are better cause they cover a 65mm imager.
When thinking about this I realized two different bits of information came to mind: my instinct is; the more the lens' image circle exceeds the imager's size, the less quality will be lost towards the edges of the image - lenses perform better in their center and then gradually degrade as you move away from the center.
I have also heard people express their believe that you should match Image Circle with imager size - the argument being that this way you get to see the lens' full image, full range (from sharp center to softer edges) "nothing is lost".
Is there anyone out there that has tested different IS lenses on LF/FF formats? Did you see any pattern in terms of the relation between IS and size of the imager? Is it just a matter of taste; if you want inperfections 1=1, if you want very consistent images on which the lens is consistent from edge to edge then go 2 vs 1 or even 3 vs 1 (like a 65mm lens on a 16mm sensor?)