OT: lenses (Was: Front Panels - PDP8 and PDP 11

Zane Healy 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 
> ed#

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 mailing list