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.

Your favourite lens

Austin Franklin (Afranklin)

Coincidently, both you and I have the same equipment taste and usage. Like you a 205FCC, 50/2.8 FE (80% of my shots), and 110/2 FE. Also have 80 CFE, 150/2.8 FE, 250/4 FE, and 350/5.6 CFE Tele-Superachromat, but seldom use. Just love that 50/2.8 FE.

Richard
 
Hi Richard,

> Also have 80 CFE...

Ah, you reminded me. I also have the 80/2.8 FE (and CFE for all those occasions when I need that leaf shutter...when I was using strobes, it made sense, but I don't shoot in a studio any more, and don't use flash with my Hasselblad)...the close focus on it is significantly less than what the CFE is. It's a hard to find lense, but IMO well worth finding for the close focus capability. And, it's very very light, so makes an easy to drag around setup.

I have a very small bag that perfectly fits my 205 w/ 80FE, 110 & 50, plus an extra magazine and all the film I have ever needed. It's quite small/compact and makes travel very easy. I searched far and wide for a bag that would fit this "kit" minimally...it's a Tamrac LTX Series video camera bag.

Regards,

Austin
 
Have most of the FE lenses mentioned (except the 350), I do use the 150/2.8 FE pretty frequently at weddings and for portraits. Recently aquired the 250/4 which is amazing for isolating the subject and compressing the perspective.

But, like you guys, my favorite walk around MF kit is the 203FE and 50/2.8 FE.

I like to get shots of quaint places I may stumble across while on driving trips ... like this:

26592.jpg
 
Another room in the same little store I found in Michigan (203 FE, 50/2.8 FE):

BTW, the film for both shots is TriX Pro @ 320


26595.jpg
 
Wilko Bulte (Wbulte)

Absolutely stunning photos, great composition, range of light, color saturation, shade, shadow, detail,and technically perfect.

Wonderful to see your work.

Richard Loarie
 
Simon P Galbally (Simonpg)


Beautiful photos, your professional talent shows in your work. Thank you for sharing.

Richard Loarie
 
Marc A. Williams (Fotografz)

Christmas relived, Stunning work, makes memories of favorite family times. Thank you for sharing.

I want to go to Don's Drive in. Is the food great?

Richard Loarie
 
Marc,

Given that you use the 203FE a lot, and assuming you have also used 500-series, can you comment on how the 2 series compare? The one stop extra in some lenses is rather obvious, but for the rest? Ease of use, versatility, reliability etc etc come to mind. I am quite curious for the differences.

thanks, Wilko
 
Thanks, Wilko. There is definitely something about ancient, worn-down landscapes that new-fangled volcanic, uplifted or glaciated ones lack.

I definitely reckon you should get yourself to the Bungle Bungles and Uluru one day.

Marc, is everything quaint where you live, or is it your eye
wink.gif
?

Nick
 
Richard, the food at Don's is best followed by an anti-acid ... but it's fun enjoying a sunny day while scarfing burgers, fries and a Cherry Coke in car with some Rock 'n Roll on the radio.

Wilko, I personally find the 200 and 500 systems each have their own charms.

The 500 series is what I grew up with, and now have two 503CWs and a SWC ... which I have total faith in when using them to shoot wedding work. There is something about a totally mechanical camera that does that. Also, I like the ergonomics of the CW winder over the one for the 200 series cameras.

Over the years, I have collected just about the entire lens range for the 500 series from the fisheye through 300. I sold my 250/5.6 SA which was a mistake I will correct someday, and I've never really been interested in the 500. As prices became favorable, I have upgraded these lenses to the CFE and CFi versions if available. I'd like to eventually see the difference in practical terms from the latest 40 verses the CFE/FLE version I have now. And if I can ever find the Schneider zoom in excellent condition I'd give that a try.

One other thing that keeps all the 500 series lenses of value is that I can use all the lenses on the H3D/39 with Hasselblad's ingenious CF adapter... and the CFE versions are automatically recognized by the camera body (the CF and CFi versions have to be manually entered into the menu). 200 series lenses don't work on that system.

I'm newer to the 200 series, only having shot with a 203FE for a couple of years. Love it. Love the speedy lenses, especially the 50/2.8 and 110/2. The only lens I'm not crazy about is the Fuji zoom. It's okay, and has helped at weddings from time to time, but lacks that look of the Zeiss primes. A few months ago I stumbled across a brand new 203FE for $1,500. and snapped it up at warp speed. Sent the other 203 to Hasselblad for an overhaul, and to be converted to use the CFV digital back.

Of possible interest to Zeiss lovers of the FE lens series is that I use them on a Mamiya 645 AFD II body sporting an Aptus 75 digital back !!! Bet they'd sell more of those bodies if that V lens to Mamiya 645 adapter were common knowledge. The bonus is that the Mamiya provides AF confirmation in the viewfinder when using the manual focus Zeiss glass. A real aid when using the 50/2.8 in lower light, or seeking that critical focus with the 110/2 @ f/2. I used a similar adapter on a Contax 645 before selling that system.

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about the Hasselblad system going back to it's origins as are some of the Guru's here, but I do know how to squeeze more out of the gear now and going forward into the future : -)

The dream team just for me personally, (instead of business): all three of the new silver satin Zeiss ZV-Classics on the Hasselblad signature limited addition CFV camera, 2 film backs, tucked into a nice bag with my Chrome Leica MP3 along with a few classic M lenses ... sigh.
 
Just stumbled on this one. C50 again (CF40 has yet to go to the USA).

And before someone mentions it: no, my tilt sensor does not need
adjusting. This is Capitol Reef National Park, and the 'tilt'ed
landscape is the "reef".

Wilko


26602.jpg
 
G'Day Wilko:

Nice pictures. =:)

Here's a simple question from a person born in the first half of the last century (gulp)! I'm sorry if it is a smidgen off topic, but it does mention your post!!

How are you compressing these images to meet the forum posting requirements (130kb), and keeping the artifacts at bay? I see your Capitol Reef is 768 x 799 pixels, ~ 124kb, RGB, 8 bits. I'm guessing you are starting with good sized files, in Tiff?. I know my scanned files end up at about 80MB or more. My compression attempts for emailing etc often produce artifacts (grain!). (I used to get a similar result when - as a combat photographer circa 1968 - I would process Tri-X in field conditions using canteen temperature water, to get immediate, rough but usable wet 8x10s after aerial recon). I'd rather have digital image quality like the ones I see here.

My question relates to emails and websites etc, not printing.

I have been stepping down from tiff to jpeg and 16 to 8 bit then using >Scripts>Image Processor in PS, rather than >Save for Web. Maybe I need a 'plug-in'.

Would you (or Marc or Qnu or whomever) please offer your workflow.

Thanks,

Colin
z04_pc5.gif
 
Hi Colin,

Some are from a Fuji Frontier scans from a minilab here in town, most are scanned on my Epson Photo 3200 flatbed scanner. The Fuji delivered me BMP files (that time, it can also produce other files, like JPG). The Epson I always make produce TIFF, and no sharpening or whatever Silverfast can do, I want a 'raw' image from the scanner.

What I did for the postings was just take these big TIFF/BMP files and run 'm through 'xv'. xv is an open source tool that I run on FreeBSD (a UNIX-like operating system). It should also run on Linux. The tool is easy to use, I set the size and subsequently tweak the JPEG quality dial until I get a file < 130KB (<-- 130KB is sorta-sad for MF ;-)

I'm afraid this does not help you too much, as you probably do not have/use xv.

Of course I could also do this with PS, but that means firing up my Mac first. The trick as far as I found out to do it with PS is is to stay away from things like sharpening until you have selected the final output size. Of course only use losless (or no) compression for all your intermediate / work files. Multiple compression steps are bad news, resizing a previously sharpened image typically turns into something truly ugly. In general, for landscape work I have turned to only very limited sharpening in most cases. To my eye that tends to give a nicer result.

Mind you, I am by no means an expert on this stuff, this has worked for me sofar. I'm curious what Marc has to tell us on this subject.

Wilko
 
Hi there,

Great shots!

There is a Mint condition 250mm 'C' lens in chrome has become available, anyone had experience with these older lenses? thanks Carl.
 
And that (signs of old age) is the only thing to look out for in older lenses.
For the rest, they are as good as the present ones.
 
I would suggest that the older lenses are far better than the new ones - but digital disguises this - as has been wisely put: digital is different from film.
 
Back
Top