Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
150 or 180 for portraits
- Thread starter meggers
- Start date
simonpg
Active Member
Kommini, a couple of things to add.
1.we all have "preferred" portrait lenses for dedicated portrait purposes. Some swear by 150mm, others like me swear by 180mm. Others even prefer 120mm or even more extreme 250mm focal lengths. It simply depends upon what style of portrait shooting you prefer - tight head / shoulders from a distance may take you to a 180mm like me and Knox. But if you are happy to work closer to the subject for tighter images and/or work not so close and show more of the person then 150mm or even 120mm is better for you.
2. None of the hassy/zeiss lenses is a poor choice. These are all superlative lenses. But it is worth understanding their attributes. The 180mm has amazing sharpness so some shooters find tight shots of women need a softar to avoid highlighting every fine blemish in the skin (not an issue for me). It is all down to stle of shooting and working with a subject and personal preference. I just felt 150 was not enough.
3. another consideration is then how the preferred focal length will fit among your lens kit and how you may use the focal length for other shooting. The 180 was part of my lens kit plan overall and offered a significantly different angle of view I would get much use from say in landscape shooting.
So even though you may only add one lens today, you may be in a different situation in the future, so be sure it has a "logical place" overall.
When I only had the 50, 80 and 180mm lenses, the gap between 80 and 180 never worried me as I knew that one day I would nicely fill the gap with a 120mm leaving nice gaps among 80, 120 and 180. If I had bought the 150, it may have bothered me.
By the way, like Richard I find the 120mm great for portraits too - just different portraits than those I take with the 180. The out of focus image from both the 120 and 180 lenses is quite "beautiful" - ideal for portraits.
1.we all have "preferred" portrait lenses for dedicated portrait purposes. Some swear by 150mm, others like me swear by 180mm. Others even prefer 120mm or even more extreme 250mm focal lengths. It simply depends upon what style of portrait shooting you prefer - tight head / shoulders from a distance may take you to a 180mm like me and Knox. But if you are happy to work closer to the subject for tighter images and/or work not so close and show more of the person then 150mm or even 120mm is better for you.
2. None of the hassy/zeiss lenses is a poor choice. These are all superlative lenses. But it is worth understanding their attributes. The 180mm has amazing sharpness so some shooters find tight shots of women need a softar to avoid highlighting every fine blemish in the skin (not an issue for me). It is all down to stle of shooting and working with a subject and personal preference. I just felt 150 was not enough.
3. another consideration is then how the preferred focal length will fit among your lens kit and how you may use the focal length for other shooting. The 180 was part of my lens kit plan overall and offered a significantly different angle of view I would get much use from say in landscape shooting.
So even though you may only add one lens today, you may be in a different situation in the future, so be sure it has a "logical place" overall.
When I only had the 50, 80 and 180mm lenses, the gap between 80 and 180 never worried me as I knew that one day I would nicely fill the gap with a 120mm leaving nice gaps among 80, 120 and 180. If I had bought the 150, it may have bothered me.
By the way, like Richard I find the 120mm great for portraits too - just different portraits than those I take with the 180. The out of focus image from both the 120 and 180 lenses is quite "beautiful" - ideal for portraits.
I find it interesting that the discussion, for the most part, has centered around the photographer's tastes, or the attributes of the gear, while leaving out the subjects themselves ; -)
Focal length, angle of approach and lighting has a great effect on how a face is drawn as an image. I really realized this early on when shooting portraits of everyone in a company. A myriad of different shapes and bone structures. The human face is really quite amazing.
Shooting with the wrong focal length can make a circular face look even more so, and a fat face even fatter. The no,no of using a shorter focal length suddenly becomes a blessing when used slightly higher, shooting downward on a heavy person's face ... especially a woman with beautiful eyes.
In NYC, the 250/4F is a highly prized lens for head shots, but they are primarily concerned with wafer thin models sporting bone structure that was a gift straight from God. Unfortunately, us mere mortals are not so blessed.
Over the years I've added almost every Hasselblad lens to my kit,
not to collect gear, but to flatter every portrait client with just the right lens draw for their uniquely beautiful face. If a gun were put to my head and I was told to pick one lens for portraits,
I'd tell the gunman to pull the trigger ; -)
Focal length, angle of approach and lighting has a great effect on how a face is drawn as an image. I really realized this early on when shooting portraits of everyone in a company. A myriad of different shapes and bone structures. The human face is really quite amazing.
Shooting with the wrong focal length can make a circular face look even more so, and a fat face even fatter. The no,no of using a shorter focal length suddenly becomes a blessing when used slightly higher, shooting downward on a heavy person's face ... especially a woman with beautiful eyes.
In NYC, the 250/4F is a highly prized lens for head shots, but they are primarily concerned with wafer thin models sporting bone structure that was a gift straight from God. Unfortunately, us mere mortals are not so blessed.
Over the years I've added almost every Hasselblad lens to my kit,
not to collect gear, but to flatter every portrait client with just the right lens draw for their uniquely beautiful face. If a gun were put to my head and I was told to pick one lens for portraits,
I'd tell the gunman to pull the trigger ; -)
Hi again!
You guys are amazing ! Thank you Ruben, Simon, Richard, Knox and Marc. It is comforting to know that I can't go wrong with any of those lenses. However.....
I am an amateur photographer shooting just for the pleasure of shooting. I may, if time permits, ( I am a 50 year old coot) acquire all those lenses mentioned in your replies. At this point, I would like to buy a lens which is not 'specialist' in nature. For ex&le, I hear that 120 Makro is of a design optimised for close focusing and that 100 planar is optimised for infinity focus.
Can anyone here tell me what the 180 and 150 are optimised for ? Ideally I would like my next lens to be sharp at all focusing distances and yet be greater than 80mm.
Thanx
Kommini
You guys are amazing ! Thank you Ruben, Simon, Richard, Knox and Marc. It is comforting to know that I can't go wrong with any of those lenses. However.....
I am an amateur photographer shooting just for the pleasure of shooting. I may, if time permits, ( I am a 50 year old coot) acquire all those lenses mentioned in your replies. At this point, I would like to buy a lens which is not 'specialist' in nature. For ex&le, I hear that 120 Makro is of a design optimised for close focusing and that 100 planar is optimised for infinity focus.
Can anyone here tell me what the 180 and 150 are optimised for ? Ideally I would like my next lens to be sharp at all focusing distances and yet be greater than 80mm.
Thanx
Kommini
Can anyone here tell me what the 180 and 150 are optimised for ? Ideally I would like my next lens to be sharp at all focusing distances and yet be greater than 80mm. >
Zeiss information states that the Sonnar 180mm CFE is optimized for infinity and with attention paid to for close ups. They don't mentioned either for the 150mm CFi.
Regards:
Gilbert
Zeiss information states that the Sonnar 180mm CFE is optimized for infinity and with attention paid to for close ups. They don't mentioned either for the 150mm CFi.
Regards:
Gilbert
simonpg
Active Member
Kommini, some caution about these expressions used such as "optimised for...".
Specifically, while the 120mm as a "macro" lens is described as being "optimised for close focusing", it is NOT in any way "soft" at long distance / infinity. That allegation is just downright wrong as far as any practical noticeable difference. It's images of landscapes etc are as sharp as any you will see. This is a much overstated/used term that misleads buyers about its full capabilities. This is one SUPERB lens all round. I know because I use it and when I interrogated those who make that statement, they could not back it up in any meaningful way.
Unlike some macro lenses in the 135 format you may be accustomed to, the 120mm Makro-Planar does require extension tubes or an auto-bellows to achieve TRUE macro images of 1:1 etc imaging. But, becuase of its design it is optimised to give wonderful true macro images when set up to do so. This does not mean that there is any weaker performance used as a "normal" 120mm lens at all distances.
So, if you really like the angle of view for your planned types of portraits, go ahead and buy it. I have loved mine and use it for a range of shooting and subjects and in every respect its performance is superlative!
As we become more and more experienced and learn more about optical design, we risk becoming prescious with our language and (IMHO) over-analysis of performance.
Now with regard to 150 or 180 - my preference is for the 180mm because that is what I chose and what I use (we all risk defending our choices) and know - a truly great Zeiss lens with a reputation befitting its performance.
However, only you know if its angle of view suits you best - either way 150 or 180 will give great results. But if you want some more (flatter) compression; shallower DOF; work from a little more distance; want to achieve tighter framing etc the 180 is the way to go. If not then the 150 is the way to go. In regard to optical performance, the 180 is regarded as one of Hassy/Zeiss' sharpest (if not the sharpest) lens.
On the down size, yes it is bigger and a bit heavier, but not all that much and made no difference to me.
Using a 135 format AOV comparison (horizontal) the 150mm = 90mm equivalent; the 180 = 108mm equivalent and I preferred the latter. For me it would also be more useful in other shooting. Maybe not for you.
If absolutely sharpness is your final decision criteria, then it's an easy choice - 180mm super sharp.
What are the 150 and 180 optimised for? Like all non-specialist lenses they are optimised for infinity. AGAIN, that does not mean they have any weakness at other distances or at their closest focusing distance.
Go to Hasselbladusa.com and check the specs of both and use the AOV display to see the different coverage. You can judge weight and size differences. Both have f4 maximum apertures. I think (?) the 180 has its optimal performance at an f stop closer to wide open (but will stand corrected).
Finally, all these lenses are sharp at all focusing distances - only a prescious nerd would bother to make a theoretical test to determine otherwise and the result will be meaningless when it comes to even the biggest practical print.
Specifically, while the 120mm as a "macro" lens is described as being "optimised for close focusing", it is NOT in any way "soft" at long distance / infinity. That allegation is just downright wrong as far as any practical noticeable difference. It's images of landscapes etc are as sharp as any you will see. This is a much overstated/used term that misleads buyers about its full capabilities. This is one SUPERB lens all round. I know because I use it and when I interrogated those who make that statement, they could not back it up in any meaningful way.
Unlike some macro lenses in the 135 format you may be accustomed to, the 120mm Makro-Planar does require extension tubes or an auto-bellows to achieve TRUE macro images of 1:1 etc imaging. But, becuase of its design it is optimised to give wonderful true macro images when set up to do so. This does not mean that there is any weaker performance used as a "normal" 120mm lens at all distances.
So, if you really like the angle of view for your planned types of portraits, go ahead and buy it. I have loved mine and use it for a range of shooting and subjects and in every respect its performance is superlative!
As we become more and more experienced and learn more about optical design, we risk becoming prescious with our language and (IMHO) over-analysis of performance.
Now with regard to 150 or 180 - my preference is for the 180mm because that is what I chose and what I use (we all risk defending our choices) and know - a truly great Zeiss lens with a reputation befitting its performance.
However, only you know if its angle of view suits you best - either way 150 or 180 will give great results. But if you want some more (flatter) compression; shallower DOF; work from a little more distance; want to achieve tighter framing etc the 180 is the way to go. If not then the 150 is the way to go. In regard to optical performance, the 180 is regarded as one of Hassy/Zeiss' sharpest (if not the sharpest) lens.
On the down size, yes it is bigger and a bit heavier, but not all that much and made no difference to me.
Using a 135 format AOV comparison (horizontal) the 150mm = 90mm equivalent; the 180 = 108mm equivalent and I preferred the latter. For me it would also be more useful in other shooting. Maybe not for you.
If absolutely sharpness is your final decision criteria, then it's an easy choice - 180mm super sharp.
What are the 150 and 180 optimised for? Like all non-specialist lenses they are optimised for infinity. AGAIN, that does not mean they have any weakness at other distances or at their closest focusing distance.
Go to Hasselbladusa.com and check the specs of both and use the AOV display to see the different coverage. You can judge weight and size differences. Both have f4 maximum apertures. I think (?) the 180 has its optimal performance at an f stop closer to wide open (but will stand corrected).
Finally, all these lenses are sharp at all focusing distances - only a prescious nerd would bother to make a theoretical test to determine otherwise and the result will be meaningless when it comes to even the biggest practical print.
Simon,
Please take the following as it was meant, as a lighthearted poke at language, a tease.
On the subject of expressions...
It is indeed common to say that longer lenses provide shallower DOF. But they do not.
So while the expression 'optimized for' may lead to some misunderstanding, that thing about DOF is a misunderstanding. (this, by the way, is a serious bit)
But you also mentioned "tighter framing". Now that's a thing that will affect DOF!
So take both 150 mm and 180 mm lenses, frame a head the exact same way, and DOF will be the same too.
Use the longer lens to achieve tighter framing (i.e. increase magnification), and DOF will be shallower, compared to a less tightly framed shot of the same subject taken with whatever focal length lens.
I can't help but feel a strange tension running through your post, between expressions like (for instance) "If absolutely sharpness is [etc.]" and your final "Finally, [etc.]".
The 120 mm is indeed optimized for close focussing. That, in practice means that it produces higher quality images close-up than it does at infinity focus.
That you confirm too, saying "becuase of its design it is optimised to give wonderful true macro images".
That is, of course, comparing the 120 mm to itself.
And of course that doesn't automatically mean that it is soft when used like a 'normal' lens, compared to other 'normal' lenses.
And it indeed isn't (at least not enough to be readily noticable). We agree.
But then you say something about the 180 mm and absolute sharpness...
Please take the following as it was meant, as a lighthearted poke at language, a tease.
On the subject of expressions...
It is indeed common to say that longer lenses provide shallower DOF. But they do not.
So while the expression 'optimized for' may lead to some misunderstanding, that thing about DOF is a misunderstanding. (this, by the way, is a serious bit)
But you also mentioned "tighter framing". Now that's a thing that will affect DOF!
So take both 150 mm and 180 mm lenses, frame a head the exact same way, and DOF will be the same too.
Use the longer lens to achieve tighter framing (i.e. increase magnification), and DOF will be shallower, compared to a less tightly framed shot of the same subject taken with whatever focal length lens.
I can't help but feel a strange tension running through your post, between expressions like (for instance) "If absolutely sharpness is [etc.]" and your final "Finally, [etc.]".
The 120 mm is indeed optimized for close focussing. That, in practice means that it produces higher quality images close-up than it does at infinity focus.
That you confirm too, saying "becuase of its design it is optimised to give wonderful true macro images".
That is, of course, comparing the 120 mm to itself.
And of course that doesn't automatically mean that it is soft when used like a 'normal' lens, compared to other 'normal' lenses.
And it indeed isn't (at least not enough to be readily noticable). We agree.
But then you say something about the 180 mm and absolute sharpness...
simonpg
Active Member
Hi Qnu. Don't worry, I'm with you. Yes, we are in total agreement all round. I understand your point of distinction about "tight framing" and DOF.
My points were very specific to differentiate some of the language that may be taken the wrong way by someone first reading some of the posts about lens performance. What I tried to do was to put the comments about "optimised" into a realistic and practical context - just like you said.
You see, when I was considering the 120mm, I too read comments about "optimised" and "quite soft" and feared truly poor performance at the longer end of focusing, which is just not the case. Moreover blunt expressions risk misleading a reader. So my comments were to put it all in a perspective.
My reference to "absolute sharpness" were to pick up on his own reference to a performance attribute he said he'd use to separate one lens from another in his decision making. So picking up on that, IMHO then the 180mm may fit that point of difference better than the 150mm (and that says nothing bad about the 150mm), since by wide reputation it is considered so sharp that some portrait users watch out for picking up subtle blemishes in a subject's skin.
I suppose that these debates often risk readers forming a view that some of these lenses may have "undesirable" or "bad" performance characteristics, when one should keep in mind that it must be nearly impossible to find a bad Hassy/Zeiss lens. Just different horses for different courses.
My points were very specific to differentiate some of the language that may be taken the wrong way by someone first reading some of the posts about lens performance. What I tried to do was to put the comments about "optimised" into a realistic and practical context - just like you said.
You see, when I was considering the 120mm, I too read comments about "optimised" and "quite soft" and feared truly poor performance at the longer end of focusing, which is just not the case. Moreover blunt expressions risk misleading a reader. So my comments were to put it all in a perspective.
My reference to "absolute sharpness" were to pick up on his own reference to a performance attribute he said he'd use to separate one lens from another in his decision making. So picking up on that, IMHO then the 180mm may fit that point of difference better than the 150mm (and that says nothing bad about the 150mm), since by wide reputation it is considered so sharp that some portrait users watch out for picking up subtle blemishes in a subject's skin.
I suppose that these debates often risk readers forming a view that some of these lenses may have "undesirable" or "bad" performance characteristics, when one should keep in mind that it must be nearly impossible to find a bad Hassy/Zeiss lens. Just different horses for different courses.
Hello Simon,
Yes you're absolutely right.
Often, things, that are very true (!), are said about things, like lenses. Repeats of things heard before, somewhere else. Etc.
But equally often they are repeated without citing the proper context they belong in.
Many things (all?) are relative (i know, it's platitude No.1).
And that makes all the difference.
Like the 120-mm-soft thingy: its performance at infinity is indeed 'soft', compared to (there's the relative bit) what this same lens can do at another distance. But people only remember "soft at infinity".
Compare it too, say, a CB 160 mm and 'soft' takes on a completely new meaning.
There's another form of relativity involved too. Some people like to use 'soft' lenses for portraits, but i love portraits that show every pore.
So what is 'better'?
And another relativity related thing: lens performance is relative to 1) our ability or inability to use the potential in a lens to the fullest, and b) our need for all that, the "more than enough"-thing.
Using a lens handheld, at 1/30, while running the final 100 m stretch of the Athens Marathon, in 40 degrees centigrade heat, without having taken fluids for the last 40 km or so, or using the same thing on top of a cheap tripod. It will make a huge difference.
I know, that's not about how good a lens is. But if that like in that first thing is the only way you ever take pictures ...
And should we really worry about one lens being better than another, when both lenses we're comparing &ly fullfill our lens performance needs already?
So, again, yes, you're absolutely right.
Yes you're absolutely right.
Often, things, that are very true (!), are said about things, like lenses. Repeats of things heard before, somewhere else. Etc.
But equally often they are repeated without citing the proper context they belong in.
Many things (all?) are relative (i know, it's platitude No.1).
And that makes all the difference.
Like the 120-mm-soft thingy: its performance at infinity is indeed 'soft', compared to (there's the relative bit) what this same lens can do at another distance. But people only remember "soft at infinity".
Compare it too, say, a CB 160 mm and 'soft' takes on a completely new meaning.
There's another form of relativity involved too. Some people like to use 'soft' lenses for portraits, but i love portraits that show every pore.
So what is 'better'?
And another relativity related thing: lens performance is relative to 1) our ability or inability to use the potential in a lens to the fullest, and b) our need for all that, the "more than enough"-thing.
Using a lens handheld, at 1/30, while running the final 100 m stretch of the Athens Marathon, in 40 degrees centigrade heat, without having taken fluids for the last 40 km or so, or using the same thing on top of a cheap tripod. It will make a huge difference.
I know, that's not about how good a lens is. But if that like in that first thing is the only way you ever take pictures ...
And should we really worry about one lens being better than another, when both lenses we're comparing &ly fullfill our lens performance needs already?
So, again, yes, you're absolutely right.
simonpg
Active Member
Thanks Qnu. I really think you painted a valuable picture as a reminder to all of us lucky enough to possess not only Hasselblad/Zeiss' wonderful creations, but any other well designed and constructed photographic equipment.
I am willing to admit that I could only really get about 20% full capability from this equipment; so why should I wonder how "great" great performance really is.
To remind myself that obsessing over equipment quality is of no real creative value (but sometimes a little bit of fun and interest value), I just look through books of works by some of the iconic shooters early last century and remind myself of what they used to create such wonderful images.
Yes, it's something of a security blanket to obsess about a lens' capabilities when selecting a new focal length to add to our (likely already over-filled) kit bags. I suppose it makes us feel confident about our decision and how well we spend our hard earned money. But, maybe we should stand back occassionally and ask ourselves "how meaningful is all of this obsessing to the images we make?".
Debates with you like in this thread help stimulate some realisation.
Your penultimate sentence is a salutory reminder to all. Cheers.
I am willing to admit that I could only really get about 20% full capability from this equipment; so why should I wonder how "great" great performance really is.
To remind myself that obsessing over equipment quality is of no real creative value (but sometimes a little bit of fun and interest value), I just look through books of works by some of the iconic shooters early last century and remind myself of what they used to create such wonderful images.
Yes, it's something of a security blanket to obsess about a lens' capabilities when selecting a new focal length to add to our (likely already over-filled) kit bags. I suppose it makes us feel confident about our decision and how well we spend our hard earned money. But, maybe we should stand back occassionally and ask ourselves "how meaningful is all of this obsessing to the images we make?".
Debates with you like in this thread help stimulate some realisation.
Your penultimate sentence is a salutory reminder to all. Cheers.
blowupster
Member
Here's a test of a Zeiss 180mm /4.0 fitted on a Canon 350D.
Last picture is a 100% crop. Cann you imagine with a 80Mpix full frame sensor ?
The 180 is known to be better than the 150mm. However you need to test. 10 years ago, I had the 150mm then I change for the 180mm. So I needed the 110mm witch I use most. It's only my taste.
Here are the pictures
Last picture is a 100% crop. Cann you imagine with a 80Mpix full frame sensor ?
The 180 is known to be better than the 150mm. However you need to test. 10 years ago, I had the 150mm then I change for the 180mm. So I needed the 110mm witch I use most. It's only my taste.
Here are the pictures
simonpg
Active Member
Thanks Isidor for the image link. I use the same Canon / Hasselblad adapter - superbly made device.
Just a comment though on the 150mm versus 180mm. I have both. It is not so much that one is "better" than the other, although the 180mm is shown to be sharper etc.. I think they are somewhat different horses for different courses - while the 180mm is more of a favourite to me (and the more modern design, I regularly take the 150mm and leave the 180mm at home - for hand held shooting the 150mm seems more accommodating to me and it's image quality is excellent all the same. But for "critical" shooting the 180mm is my choice. Obviously if longer "reach" is needed then the 180mm is generally the choice.
So, I have no reservations about the 150mm at all - what it might lack in sharpness and detail resolution of the 180mm, it makes up for in less weight and more compact size and convenience to use. My feet can make up for the shorter focal length!
Just a comment though on the 150mm versus 180mm. I have both. It is not so much that one is "better" than the other, although the 180mm is shown to be sharper etc.. I think they are somewhat different horses for different courses - while the 180mm is more of a favourite to me (and the more modern design, I regularly take the 150mm and leave the 180mm at home - for hand held shooting the 150mm seems more accommodating to me and it's image quality is excellent all the same. But for "critical" shooting the 180mm is my choice. Obviously if longer "reach" is needed then the 180mm is generally the choice.
So, I have no reservations about the 150mm at all - what it might lack in sharpness and detail resolution of the 180mm, it makes up for in less weight and more compact size and convenience to use. My feet can make up for the shorter focal length!
blowupster
Member
I sold my 150mm years ago for stupid reason: I've been told that the 180 is better and the 180mm is the result of new calculation. In fact for me the 180mm is too long and now I use my 110mm most of time for portraits.
In the future I cann imagine to get the CFV back so the 180mm will be used less to less. But I have to rocognise that the 180mm/4.0 at 4.0 is realy a first class lens. I have the special " digital finder" to focus too.
In one word: My zeiss 180mm at 4.0 is better (sharp) on the 350D than my Canon 50mm (1.4 and 1.8) at f 8 !
In the future I cann imagine to get the CFV back so the 180mm will be used less to less. But I have to rocognise that the 180mm/4.0 at 4.0 is realy a first class lens. I have the special " digital finder" to focus too.
In one word: My zeiss 180mm at 4.0 is better (sharp) on the 350D than my Canon 50mm (1.4 and 1.8) at f 8 !
I sold my 180mmf4 a while ago. It was a CFE version. I didn't like its "olive" shape but the images it produce were superb. I prefer the 180mm f4 CF version. I did not consider 150mmf4 because it is not as breathtaking as 180 at f4.
When I was looking for my "new" 180, I found an even better alternative, the 150mm f2.8, the one with no shutter. It is much lighter than the 180, it can focus even more accurately and I prefer a shorter focal length. I am not a professional so I don't need a big distance to work with. To me, 150mm is more "pleasing" than 180 for portraits. The face looks more "intimate" , "younger" "more 3D". 180 is more "clinical" or "flatter". The same I found in 24X36 format that I prefer 85mm to 100mm for portraits.
Somtimes I really like going near my subject and use short teles. Some might worry about the "distortion" for getting too near, I find the "distortion" can be quite pleasing. The photo above was taken with Contax 120mm. No cropping at all.
Don't you just love carl zeiss len's, do you have problems focusing with such a narrow depth of field?
I had to do something similar recently for a client and found that only half were usable due to the person moving just an inch, which i thought might happen, reason i toke a few more extra, one of the few times i wish i had auto focusing.
There is one big problem with the old hassy, every thing else seems of such of lower quality, I find it so hard to use smaller format, even if the job doesn't require the quality which the hassy producers.
I had to do something similar recently for a client and found that only half were usable due to the person moving just an inch, which i thought might happen, reason i toke a few more extra, one of the few times i wish i had auto focusing.
There is one big problem with the old hassy, every thing else seems of such of lower quality, I find it so hard to use smaller format, even if the job doesn't require the quality which the hassy producers.
Focusing was not easy. It helps with a co-operative subject. In fact, one of the eyes was slightly out of focus. It was compensated by using unsharp mask. The focusing was critical. I did not rotate the focusing barrel to adjust focus. Instead, I find it helpful to move the camera to and fro. In this short distance, most autofocus mechanism do not work. I doubt if there is any camera could autofocus in this situation. Could Hassy H3 work this time ?
"There is one big problem with the old hassy, every thing else seems of such of lower quality" Please do not say that. Contax Zeiss 120mm f4 apo-macro-planar in Contax 645 is every bit as good as Hassy Zeiss 120mm f4. In fact, most people would say the Contax is better. It can focus down to 1:1 wothout extension tube. Unlike the Hassy lens which do poorly at infinity, its performance at infinity is very good. Unfortunately, it is like a treasure lost in the sea when Contax closed its lens production two years ago.
"There is one big problem with the old hassy, every thing else seems of such of lower quality" Please do not say that. Contax Zeiss 120mm f4 apo-macro-planar in Contax 645 is every bit as good as Hassy Zeiss 120mm f4. In fact, most people would say the Contax is better. It can focus down to 1:1 wothout extension tube. Unlike the Hassy lens which do poorly at infinity, its performance at infinity is very good. Unfortunately, it is like a treasure lost in the sea when Contax closed its lens production two years ago.
simonpg
Active Member
Paul I totally agree with your focusing comments for studio portraits. And like Joseph says, you do need a cooperative subject who 100% complies with your commands.
I did studio shooting for the first time 2 weeks ago - I felt I did really well and was very pleased with my composition ideas.
BUT.....then I got the films back - OUCH! 80% were not sharp!!! I have never taken un-sharp photos before. But a pro told me that if the model moves an inch I will loose focus. He also said I should not have used a tripod as it makes you take your eye off the subject for critical seconds (especially when the subject might move a fraction).
Yes the composition was a success but the sharpness ruined all but 20% of the images.
So, back to the drawing board.
I did studio shooting for the first time 2 weeks ago - I felt I did really well and was very pleased with my composition ideas.
BUT.....then I got the films back - OUCH! 80% were not sharp!!! I have never taken un-sharp photos before. But a pro told me that if the model moves an inch I will loose focus. He also said I should not have used a tripod as it makes you take your eye off the subject for critical seconds (especially when the subject might move a fraction).
Yes the composition was a success but the sharpness ruined all but 20% of the images.
So, back to the drawing board.
najobskalf
Member
The Victorians had a useful studio device for this purpose - a head cl&. We have all had a good laugh at the very idea! However .....
stever_max
Member
I can think of sometimes when I would have liked to use a head cl& on someone I was not photographing!
My bad!
Steve