What's new
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

Oh, I wouldn't say that the old lenses are FAR better, in fact in some cases I wouldn't even say they are better. Zeiss has improved the performance and durability of many lenses.

For ex&le, I'll take the Floating Element Wide Angles over the older ones any day. And anyone who's uses the sync port in studio appliactions and had the older design fail during a shoot, does appreciate the improved locking type. Better supression of flare and reflections with some newer lenses is apparent in extreme lighting conditions. And, well, there was no retro 180, but the new one set fresh standards. And the addition of data bus to a few lenses certainly was welcome to those also using some of the 200 cameras.
 
Older chrome lenses can de picked up for a song now.
They are strongly underrated.
With some of the older CF lenses a number of plastic parts desintegrate.
That is not encouraging.

I just found a very nice 250 in chrome guise with a shutterproblem
for 75 USD.
I think I hit the jackpot because it was fitted with new glass that is
equal to the latest 250 CFi.
 
Paul,

Try and find a picture of the f/5.6 250 mm's design from the 1950s, before (!) the post-1957 "C" era. The one available for the 1000-series cameras.
Then see if you can spot a difference between it and the CFi 250 mm lens...
wink.gif


I have not just tried to find a difference in design, but have compared the performance of both as well, and again, no difference.
 
If this is in response to my remarks, I did not mean that the newer Zeiss lenses were not as good as the older ones - of course they are. It's the new non-Zeiss ones that I wonder about. (Although the 38 Biogon in the 903SWC may have been marginally better than the later one in the 905SWC which had to be redesigned for health and safety reasons).
 
Hi All,

Returning a little to the original subject, I have a 50mm Distagon, 80mm Planar and the 250mm Sonnar (f5,6) all are black T*s, I'm still very new to MF, but all of these are amazing lenses, and all were the subject of dream purchases when I started photography at school.

As several have stated, it's "horses for courses" but for travelling, (a major part of my work) I would love to take the 50mm everywhere but it's so darn'd heavy!

The 80mm is remarkably versatile, and images can be cropped considerably before reaching 35mm.

In the end, I think the Sonnar has to be my overall favourite, super sharp wide open, it catches water incredibly, and coupled to a V series with WLF, it is so much more discrete than on eyelevel, and gives me the best chance of catching my "camera shy" wife Virginie unnoticed!
The only (and very slight) down point I can find is that it always looks to me as if it's on back to front.

As a beginner, and amateur, I don't usually attach photos, but I'm so much enjoying seeing all your work I feel obliged to start. All constructive critisism is welcome. I know she looks cross, French women often do!

Again regards to all,

Gérard
26629.jpg
 
> I find something around 40mm to be my favorite... large DOF, you =20 > can get in close, yet still get the "scenic" shot when =20 > desired....the only catch is its a 38mm built into the 903SWC. I thought of getting a 40mm for my 553elx, but I came across a 903SWC =20=

that had been a store demo, and it was a couple of years after the =20 905s had come out so they were trying to move it out. Ended up =20 getting one for about 1/2 the price of the 40mm, plus I have a =20 spare camera body to boot.
 
Hi Gerard,

A 50mm heavy? Na... Try a C40. That is heavy. A CF40 is also a handful. But the C50 & the CF40 are always travelling, at the expense of the 150 (stays at home first) and the 80 (second). But I almost always take all lenses, unless I have given myself a task of using only one or 2 to practice.

But heh... I do not have to catch a wife on film :))

So yes, horses for courses.

Wilko
 
"(Although the 38 Biogon in the 903SWC may have been marginally better than the later one in the 905SWC which had to be redesigned for health and safety reasons)."

Yeah, the Biogon on my SWC always makes other photographers sick when they see how well corrected and sharp it is : -)

Hmm, I'd be hard pressed to fault any of the Zeiss glass I use. Don't hear much talk about the 60 ... but wow! ... and the 100/3.5 ... and the 180/4 ... heck, I even love the 35/3.5 for shots like this one shot on Portra 400NC ...

26633.jpg
 
Marc, it was intended as a tongue-in cheek remark! I have always wanted an SWC myself - even though I have a CF40.

As for the CF100 and CF180, I agree entirely: if I could only keep two lenses, they would be the ones.

(Zeiss also made a fantastic microscope objective - the Planapochromat 80x oil immersion NA1.6 - which I still own. Zeiss are simply the best.)
 
Quinten,

Under most conditions the difference is negligable I agree.

In extreme situations the better internal anti reflection treatment of later lenses helps improve image quality.

BTW I do not know whether the similarity with pre '57 designs goes so far that glass elements can be fitted from later versions to the pre 57 lenses. Would be nice to know.

Besides T* silver lenses supplied originally by Zeiss like the 50mm and the 80mm I also have a 150 T* and this 250 T* in my collection.
Of course the last two were later modified and were not available from Zeiss as far as I know.
 
Are you all only into the Zeiss lenses?

I really like the Fuji glass of my H2, they might not render colours that subtly as the Zeiss on my 503, but they are all amazingly sharp lenses, which also render colours quite nice.

For me they are some very modern lenses and deliver outstanding images. They match the style of shooting of the h-system cameras, as do the zeiss with the v-system ones.
 
Simon, welcome to the forum.

You show courage to compare Zeiss lenses to Fuji ones.
lol.gif


BTW nobody in his right mind will say Fuji lenses are no good.
They differ from Zeiss glass particularly in areas where many people
like the performance of Zeiss optics.

The H series with Fuji optics are amongst the best that money can buy.
As a "newcomer" they meet competition from the V series with Zeiss lenses that has been around over fifty years to build a reputation.

Paul
 
Hello Paul,

i didn't want to compare Zeiss to Fuji.

What i meant is that both are gorgeous lenses, with each of its own characteristics. Just as I wrote before both match a certain style.

I just wondered that none of you fovours the Fuji over the Zeiss glases, or lets say likes them as well.

cheers Simon
 
I don't know what gorgeous means inrelation to a lens - but I suspect that equating the optical qualities of Zeiss with Fuji is delusional. Come to think of it, something similar happened with hi-fi (if any of you are old enough to remember pre-MP3 days) when such terms as musicality crept in to replace THD and frequency response, and idiots began paying extortionate prices for special mains cables!
 
Simon,

To me a comparison of H and V system cameras is not very usefull.
Both have their unique qualities and are widely accepted as good
professional tools.

I know you just joined the forum but quite a few of us use the H series cameras with Fuji lenses.

Read some more threads and you will find a number of posts about the
H cameras often with great s&les of shots made with these cameras.

Paul
 
I would have thought that precisely because things have unique qualities comparisons become usefull, possible even.
If not, what is there to compare?
wink.gif


By the way, Paul, when was it again that you joined this forum?
wink.gif
 
Hi Simon, and may I add a warm welcome to this tight nit group MF advocates.

It is to be expected that people who have used Zeiss MF lenses for a long time, some perhaps for many, many decades, set them as the visual standard all others must measure up to. That, and this particular thread is devoted to "our favorite Hasselblad lens" which is taken to mean "which Zeiss lens is favored".

Yet you are absolutely correct in that the Fuji lenses are also Hasselblad branded lenses and can well fit as an answer to "what is your favorite Hasselblad lens". Most here have never used the H system nor the lenses that were designed for it. I think that in balance many would like them more than they think they would. But I can only speak for myself.

Given the over-all performance needs I personally measure a system against, the H system
is a winner. I never considered the H as a replacement for my V gear ... it was a direct choice against the Contax 645 system, with its Zeiss T* lenses, made in Japan by Kyocera, that I used prior to switching to Hasselblad 645.

The H system was clearly the future and the Contax was a dead-end. It is here that the Fuji lenses faired well in comparison considering all things ... not the least of which was AF performance, sync speed, and interface with software solutions to age old lens design compromises. Highly corrected 50mm & 35mm (and now 28mm on my H3D) wide work is accomplished with a click of a mouse ... some purist may turn their noise up at such new ways, but not I. Having had to deal with the distortion of my old Zeiss 35mm on the Contax, I for one do not care how it's accomplished.

In fact, based on your accurate expansion of this thread to include H/C glass, I would have to admit that my most used, and currently most favored Hasselblad lens is the
HC-100/2.2. for the fast focusing, accurate color and beautiful OOF areas of the spontaneous candid event work that makes up so much of my photography ... like this shot of a "dangerous" situation : -):


26639.jpg
 
Correction to above: Contax 645 Zeiss lenses made by the Carl Zeiss Institue in Japan ... Kyocera was the maker of the Contax 645 camera.
 
My experience with Zeiss v Fuji lenses is that the Fuji lenses on the medium format cameras I've used, which are three of the 645 variants, are the bokeh is quite harsh. They are sharp lenses...and if you stop them down and don't care about the OOF (out of focus) areas, they are quite good, if that is your cup of tea. For me, I like OOF, and tend to use my lenses quite a bit wide open, or near to it...so the Fuji lenses I have were not good for my use.

I can't say much about the new FujiBlad lenses as I have no personal experience with them, but the pictures I saw from Michael Reichenman or how ever you spell his name, from the review he did on photo.net showed, what looked to me to be, quite terrible bokeh. So my initial impression of the FujiBlad glass was it wasn't something that would work for me.

With respect to the Contax 645 80/2.0, I can say that my experience, so far, with that lense is that it is a superb lense...equal to or better (because of the 2.0) in some regards than the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses I have.

Regards,

Austin
 
Franklin,

What you describe is one of the differences that other users of
Zeiss lenses have noticed too when they tried Fuji lenses.

The difference in OOF seems to apply to more lenses.
I think it is not a coincidence but has to do with different
approach between German and Japanese designers.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top