I find that when I have the 80mm and 100mm lenses with me, which is often, I consider which to use often and most of the time I am not thinking about focal length but what each lens can bring to the composition.
Are you thinking of the 110mm ƒ/2 Planar lens for the Hasselblad 2000 and 200 focal plane cameras? Did someone adapt it for SL66?(There was a wide aperture 110mm lens, I think. The last one I saw for sale was $18,000, but I didn't buy it)
Yes, Zeiss/Rollei did make a SL66 version. I suppose the SL66 versions of those Zeiss lenses were easy to make since they don't have shutters, like the focal plane Hasselblads. In fact, I was tempted to go with the focal plane Hasselblad so I could use the f/2 lens, but the feeling passed.Are you thinking of the 110mm ƒ/2 Planar lens for the Hasselblad 2000 and 200 focal plane cameras? Did someone adapt it for SL66?
Now you're on the hook to share the maiden voyage pics when you get it. Congrats!
100mm f/3.5 Planar CF T* maiden voyage.
It's a bit hard to tell because I was hand holding, but this lens seems to do better at distance than closer in. It also does not focus as closely as the 80mm f/2.8 Planar CF T*.
Tri-X @ ASA 400, Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:250, EMA developed for 60 min. Scans of silver prints:
View attachment 396154
View attachment 396155
View attachment 396156
View attachment 396157
100mm f/3.5 Planar CF T* maiden voyage.
It's a bit hard to tell because I was hand holding, but this lens seems to do better at distance than closer in. It also does not focus as closely as the 80mm f/2.8 Planar CF T*.
Tri-X @ ASA 400, Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:250, EMA developed for 60 min. Scans of silver prints:
View attachment 396154
View attachment 396155
View attachment 396156
View attachment 396157
Looks great! The lens is a keeper.
Past rule-of-thumb about FL difference to make it 'worth while to own' was 1.2x
A different measure of 'worth while' is what FL pleases YOU to use. Employing (FL/ frame height) as the measure (to negate differences of frame aspect ratio) 100mm FL/ 56mm frame height means that its vertical frame is similar to using 45mm / 24mm on 135 format frame camera, which many photojournalists preferred to use as their 'normal' lens (in lieu of 50-55mm 'normal' that became popularized on 135 format SLRs in order to easily clear the reflex mirror).
Past rule-of-thumb about FL difference to make it 'worth while to own' was 1.2x
A different measure of 'worth while' is what FL pleases YOU to use. Employing (FL/ frame height) as the measure (to negate differences of frame aspect ratio) 100mm FL/ 56mm frame height means that its vertical frame is similar to using 45mm / 24mm on 135 format frame camera, which many photojournalists preferred to use as their 'normal' lens (in lieu of 50-55mm 'normal' that became popularized on 135 format SLRs in order to easily clear the reflex mirror).
I have a 50, 60, 80, 120, 180, and two 250’s(one each with and without shutter). Yeah, the bag is heavy but every time I think about parting with one, I second guess it and decide to keep.
Re: weight, I almost never carry more than two at a time so that works fine.
I will typically carry the 50, 80, 100 and SWC unless I have a reason to use another lens such as the 30mm Fisheye, 250mm or 500mm. The 150mm never gets out much any more; I do not usually take portraits.
actually - if someone has any sample photos at minimum focus - and some at mid range ... is there a sweet spot for bokeh past minimum ofcus?
In terms of resolution, the 80mm and 100mm are quite similar in the center.
The 100mm is way ahead in term of corner resolution and distortion though.
The 120mm is not a terribly high resolution lens, but it has lovely rendering and focuses much closer.
For me the difference between 80mm and 100mm in terms of field of view/perspective is quite significant (same with 50mm vs 60mm etc), so I find it very useful (although costly) to own lenses with similar focal length.
Actually, the 100/3,5 Planar is not famous for its bokeh. It is nothing peculiarly spectacular and under certain circumstances, it can be quite harsh. Please mind this lens was designed for aerial photography, landscape, architecture and industrial work, where out-of-focus areas are unimportant. If you want to have great bokeh, rather look for a 2000 body with the 110 Planar. If you want to stay with the 500 system, both the 80mm and 120mm have smoother bokeh than the 100mm.actually - if someone has any sample photos at minimum focus - and some at mid range ... is there a sweet spot for bokeh past minimum ofcus?
The truth is hidden in the details:
The Makro-Planar 120 is often used incorrectly as a general-purpose lens. Besides macro photography, this lens is ideal for still life and studio work. Its design, which is intended to produce sharp images from corner to corner at close-up and macro distances, is not ideal for images at infinity. However, starting from f/11, it becomes acceptable.Truth is a dangerous word.
My comments were on the basis of using the Hasselblad 120mm as a general purpose lens, but even on closer distances it is not a very high resolution lens.
Which lenses do you think are the best in terms of resolution?It has good sharpness up to the corners, quite low distortion and as mentioned a nice rendering, but in terms of resolution it can’t match the best lenses.
I have a totally different experience with the Makro Planar than you do. This lens performs just fine with both 50 MP and 100 MP medium format sensors. It has perfect color saturation, microcontrast, and sharpness. I can provide examples if you like.
Ah heck, my Kodak Instamatic X-15 could do that good. Snicker, snicker!Not quite macro, but the minimum focus distance with the 80mm ƒ/2.8 Planar-CB lens (hand held, Tri-X 400 film). This is one of the instruments at the historic Plutonium Reactor B at the Hanford site in Washington state. I scanned the negatives with a Minolta ScanMulti film scanner.
View attachment 399918
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?