OT: lenses (Was: Front Panels - PDP8 and PDP 11
healyzh at aracnet.com
Thu Mar 10 22:31:15 CST 2016
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 7:25 PM, COURYHOUSE at aol.com wrote:
> Hasselblad did not use tessar. tesar was a good lens but certainly
> not the hi end
My camera’s with Tessar’s are Rolleiflex TLR’s, not my Hasselblad’s. I got the two I have more for fun than anything, but the one can produce some very impressive results (even the Old Standard can be used to make some really great photo’s).
>> One of my all time favorite lenses is the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 Planar C
>> lens made by Zeiss. Even their low-end Tessar lenses are awesome.
> Anything made for Hasselblad could hardly be called 'low-end'. (A bit like
> a 'low-end' SGI, there was basically never such a thing... certainly not in
> terms of original cost.)
Again, Rollei, where the Tessar is on the low-end, Planar is on the high-end. And yes, even SGI had a low-end. I have two O2’s, one is low-end, one is high-end, there the difference is the CPU..
>> them. You can put almost anything on them, and they’re a full frame
>> sensor. I know that the wider lenses might have some fringing issues at
>> the edges.
> Which (affordable) lens *doesn't* have imperfect edges, especially
> completely analog lenses without any in-camera digital correction. (This
> can also be done afterwards, if one knows the possible distortion values.)
Are you familiar with colour fringing, such as you get with a Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 lens on a Leica M9? This is the type you get with something like a Leica 24mm Elmarit f/2.8 ASPH on a Sony A7. The nice thing is, fixing it’s now as simple as taking a shot with a piece of frosted glass over the lens, before taking the real shot, thanks to the latest release of Capture One.
> The Sony a7-series aren't exactly cheap. More affordable and rather good,
> too, are µ4/3 cameras, especially in conjunction with a focal reducer, if
> the crop is too much of an obstruction. I gain an extra stop of light, on
> top of reducing the crop, with my M42/Praktica thread mount lenses. My
> thorium-coated Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 1.4/50's maximum diaphragm is
> effectively widened to an impressive ƒ/1. On top of that I have in-body
> image stabilization, good high ISO handling and other features, all at the
> fraction of the cost. On top of that, I can exchange my lenses with my
> dedicated µ4/3 Super 16 digital film camera.
I like my 50’s to be 50’s, and my wides to be wide. Besides, you get a higher image quality out of a full frame sensor. If I could afford it, I’d be shooting medium format. I have a friend with a Hasselblad H3D, it’s fairly old, but blows away my much newer Nikon D800, and his Canon 1Dx.
> Nothing prevents you from using a full frame lens on a smaller (e.g. APS-C)
> sensor body. The crop isn't always a negative, sometimes it can change a
> mediocre tele-photo prime into an excellent one.
I did this in the past. I can get better results shooting my full frame in DX mode, or cropping.
>> Since I started shooting more than just Nikon, it’s a lot harder to find
>> Nikon lenses I really like. The only AF lens I really like is the Nikkor
>> 50mm f/1.4G, at f/5.6 it can compete with my 50mm Summicron.
> At ƒ/5.6 only? Well, that's rough…
Most people will be happy with the 50mm f/1.4G at any aperture. I’m after as close to perfection as I can get. I need to be able to print large if the image is going to be in a Gallery. BTW, there is one other Nikkor lens that I’m totally happy with. That’s the 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom. A truly amazing lens. I wish the same could be said of their 24-70mm f/2.8, it’s total junk, I hope the one they just released is better, but I’ve not had time to try it. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II lens is quite nice as well. It pays to know the “sweet spot” for the lenses you’re shooting with. For most lenses, that’s only 1-2 f-stops.
More information about the cctalk