10 Mar
2016
10 Mar
'16
7:25 p.m.
Hasselblad did not use tessar. tesar was a good lens but certainly
not the hi end
ed#
In a message dated 3/10/2016 8:01:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
mgariboldi at gmail.com writes:
2016-03-10 16:59 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com>:
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.)
The only truly low-end Carl Zeiss optics are probably the *Pentacon*
series, made by the post-WW II Carl Zeiss Jena branch of the GDR.
Take a look at the Sony a7 series of bodies, people are using RTS lenses on
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Paul Anderson <useddec at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Popular or Modern Photography 20 or 30 years ago had an article on the
10
> best lens ever made. I think Zeiss made 3 of
them, and they were the
only
company with
more than one.
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.
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.)
The Sony a7-series aren't exactly cheap. More affordable and rather good,
too, are ?4/3 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 ?/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 ?4/3 Super 16 digital film camera.
I?ve started looking seriously at the a7 series, as
it would allow me to
use a lot of lenses I have, that I can currently only use on 35mm film
bodies.
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.
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 ?/5.6 only? Well, that's rough...
- MG
10 Mar
10 Mar
7:31 p.m.
2016-03-11 4:25 GMT+01:00 <COURYHOUSE at aol.com>:
Hasselblad did not use tessar. tesar was a good
lens but certainly
not the hi end
ed#
Incorrect. There were various, like the *Tele-Tessar*, which appeared for
Hasselblad.
(By the way, your messages usually end up in my spam bin. Just so you
know...)
- MG
In a message dated 3/10/2016 8:01:07 P.M. US Mountain
Standard Time,
mgariboldi at gmail.com writes:
2016-03-10 16:59 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com>:
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.)
The only truly low-end Carl Zeiss optics are probably the *Pentacon*
series, made by the post-WW II Carl Zeiss Jena branch of the GDR.
Take a look at the Sony a7 series of bodies, people are using RTS lenses
on
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Paul Anderson <useddec at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Popular or Modern Photography 20 or 30 years ago had an article on the
10
> best lens ever made. I think Zeiss made 3 of
them, and they were the
only
company
with more than one.
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.
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.)
The Sony a7-series aren't exactly cheap. More affordable and rather good,
too, are ?4/3 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 ?/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 ?4/3 Super 16 digital film camera.
I?ve started looking seriously at the a7 series,
as it would allow me
to
use a lot of lenses I have, that I can currently
only use on 35mm film
bodies.
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.
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 ?/5.6 only? Well, that's rough...
- MG
8:31 p.m.
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.) 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.) The Sony a7-series aren't exactly cheap. More
affordable and rather good,
too, are ?4/3 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 ?/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 ?4/3 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 ?/5.6 only? Well, that's rough?
11 Mar
11 Mar
3:44 a.m.
2016-03-11 5:31 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com>:
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..
Nobody in his right mind would've called a(n originally) US$ 17000~20000
costing O2 'low-end', just because it was *relatively speaking* one of the
_cheaper offerings_ of SGI. Neither did companies treat it as low-end, as
Discreet, SGO and other big names certified the O2 for turn-key usage, like
as an Effect (later: Spark) compositing turn-key system. I can assure you,
those didn't have low-end price tags either, at all!
Are you familiar with colour fringing, such as you get
with a Voigtlander
15mm f/4.5 lens on a Leica M9?
I'm not a millionaire or an pensioned old man, I haven't owned any Leica
camera bodies. But I've heard and read rather 'mixed' things about
Cosina-Voigtl?nder lenses, yes.
I like my 50?s to be 50?s, and my wides to be wide.
Your wallet better be wide, too. It comes at a considerable premium...
Besides, you get a higher image quality out of a full
frame sensor.
This is entirely subjective, it has nothing to do with the quality of
pictures. There's also an entire and growing community of ?4/3 users that
will happily disagree... and who didn't have to spend a small fortune
either, to get where they are.
If I could afford it, I?d be shooting medium format.
You'll get kicked out of most places with such a monstrosity in your hands,
being asked for journalistic credentials, permits and such. If that's no
problem for you, along with portability, I guess it might work out for
you. (Especially if money also grows on your back, unless you're doing
this professionally.)
I have a friend with a Hasselblad H3D, it?s fairly
old, but blows away my
much newer Nikon D800, and his Canon 1Dx.
I saw tests that actually showed the contrary. But I guess the average
Hasselblad chump isn't willing to admit it, after having had to sell his
car in order to be able to afford one.
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.
Can you show some of your examples? Also, what's the point of buying a
lens with a fairly wide aperture if it's only usable stopped down so much?
(Were you aware of this prior to buying it?) Most experienced
photographers would even think twice before buying such a lens at all, if
having been aware prior to purchasing it.
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.
Is that a kit lens?
- MG
3208
days inactive
3208
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
COURYHOUSE＠aol.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
mgariboldi＠gmail.com