Lenses for my cameras

[jeffreyg]

In your original post you did not mention that you already had a 60 and 150. Since I didn't know your photographic interests other than the mention of portraits I was presenting an example of what IMO would cover a large variety of shooting situations. There is not a huge difference in the coverage between the 60 and 80 (a little over 12 degrees). Extension tubes could give you both close-up and portrait capabilities with what you already have and a 2x would extend your range.

As Katie mentioned the 50 is a terrific lens and the more I used mine the more I liked it. IMO it is better to go with one system and have two bodies. That way each can use the same lenses and should one camera fail you have a back-up. I generally keep one length lens on one body and a different one on the other. I use the same film in both and that way don't have to change lenses. The lenses I have all take the same size filters except for the 350.

There probably are as many opinions as there are photographers and most of us say what works best in our hands. I have been using my current equipment for many years and I am familiar enough with it that I concentrate on the image and don't think too much about the camera.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[TareqPhoto]

In your original post you did not mention that you already had a 60 and 150. Since I didn't know your photographic interests other than the mention of portraits I was presenting an example of what IMO would cover a large variety of shooting situations. There is not a huge difference in the coverage between the 60 and 80 (a little over 12 degrees). Extension tubes could give you both close-up and portrait capabilities with what you already have and a 2x would extend your range.

As Katie mentioned the 50 is a terrific lens and the more I used mine the more I liked it. IMO it is better to go with one system and have two bodies. That way each can use the same lenses and should one camera fail you have a back-up. I generally keep one length lens on one body and a different one on the other. I use the same film in both and that way don't have to change lenses. The lenses I have all take the same size filters except for the 350.

There probably are as many opinions as there are photographers and most of us say what works best in our hands. I have been using my current equipment for many years and I am familiar enough with it that I concentrate on the image and don't think too much about the camera.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Thanks!

This is more confusing now, go with 80mm or as you said it is not much coverage over that 60mm then, i am happy with 60mm for wide shots outdoor, many times i don't see myself i want to go wider with 50 or 40mm, in fact i was hoping to get 50mm and not 60mm, but i started with 60 as i found a great deal with it, and i used it and it is great, also the friend who lend me his 80mm has 50mm already, so i can borrow that when i can or need, i tested his 80mm, it was great, i also tested one person 120mm before, that even nicer lens, let's say for Hasselblad i am not very hassle which one to get, if i got 80 or 120 i will be happy and no rush, but i really think that 80mm is more general lens than 120mm.

About Mamiya, well well well, i don't know what to say, i was going to add something else but i really don't want to make it more complicated for you, so i better not add more details or information.

 

[jeffreyg]

The 80 is more of a general lens and the 120 is more of a specialty lens. Since you and your friends lend each other lenses why not get other accessaries as I mentioned such as extension tubes or a 2x or even a 250mm. It's better to have more of a variety than lenses that are so close in coverage. You should be able to find a lens chart that gives the specs. Even an extra film magazine comes in handy if you are using more than one kind or speed film.

 

[TareqPhoto]

The 80 is more of a general lens and the 120 is more of a specialty lens. Since you and your friends lend each other lenses why not get other accessaries as I mentioned such as extension tubes or a 2x or even a 250mm. It's better to have more of a variety than lenses that are so close in coverage. You should be able to find a lens chart that gives the specs. Even an extra film magazine comes in handy if you are using more than one kind or speed film.

Good idea!

Well, I don't know if i should care much about Hasselblad, i prefer it over Mamiya due to its weight, but the things i didn't want to talk about was that Mamiya 7II will be my choice over my two cameras RZ and Hassy 501, i will not sell both cameras because i can use more backs on both even digital backs, Mamiya 7II doesn't have that feature, but that Mamiya 7II even it doesn't work yet for me [i will send it for repair next year] but it will be my travel/out film camera no doubt, but i don't want to add this Mamiya to this question thread and get many different answers.

 

[tkamiya]

If i will go your path then i am covered already, has 150 for hasseblad [6x6] and 180mm for Mamiya [6x7], i don't see i want any longer, not that tight portraits i mean.

It's all up to what you want and what kind of portraits you'd like taking. When you say "portrait", do you mean environmental portrait where a person is placed in an outside environment and you are trying to show him/her in the context of the environment OR are you talking about a kind it's all about the person and his/her face? It makes BIG difference what kind of lens is more suitable. I do sort of half way between the two.

Tell us more of what you want.

 

[TareqPhoto]

It's all up to what you want and what kind of portraits you'd like taking. When you say "portrait", do you mean environmental portrait where a person is placed in an outside environment and you are trying to show him/her in the context of the environment OR are you talking about a kind it's all about the person and his/her face? It makes BIG difference what kind of lens is more suitable. I do sort of half way between the two.

Tell us more of what you want.

The first one! not headshots or half body, i want environmental shots where portraits there, for example my kids in a garden or zoo, some in front of a center or building or whatever, someone in front of a landscape in background, and so, even indoor like hotels or houses where i show portraits with full body or even half but showing around, sometimes i don't have space where i can go back to have half or full body with longer lenses.

 

[brucemuir]

The first one! not headshots or half body, i want environmental shots where portraits there, for example my kids in a garden or zoo, some in front of a center or building or whatever, someone in front of a landscape in background, and so, even indoor like hotels or houses where i show portraits with full body or even half but showing around, sometimes i don't have space where i can go back to have half or full body with longer lenses.

Sounds like you need wider than "normal".

I was gonna say the 110 2.8 for RZ until you mentioned wider preference.
I had a 65 for awhile on my RZ and it's perfect for environmental style.
Not really exaggerated perspective and even the non floating element version is great. A bit hefty but what do you expect on the RZ system.

For the 'blad I recently picked up a 60 3.5 and like it a bit more than my 50mm f/4

 

[TareqPhoto]

Sounds like you need wider than "normal".

I was gonna say the 110 2.8 for RZ until you mentioned wider preference.
I had a 65 for awhile on my RZ and it's perfect for environmental style.
Not really exaggerated perspective and even the non floating element version is great. A bit hefty but what do you expect on the RZ system.

For the 'blad I recently picked up a 60 3.5 and like it a bit more than my 50mm f/4

I have to borrow my friend 50mm to compare it with my 60mm and see, but in am happy with 60mm so far and don't plan to go wider, if i got 50mm then that will be as bonus not as must.

Well, for Mamiya RZ, both lenses for me seems about normal, not that much huge between two, i know that 90mm is wider, but i have 65 lens on my Mamiya 7II, so i was planning to get another coverage as if i go all the time wider range then i will not have much in longer range, and in fact in the future i will buy 43mm for Mamiya 7II no doubt, so i will have a lot of lenses wide side then, and both that 90 and 110 are not wide angle lenses anyway.

 

[vpwphoto]

I'd buy the 120 for the Hasselblad... then pick up a bargain 80 at some point in the future.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I'd buy the 120 for the Hasselblad... then pick up a bargain 80 at some point in the future.

Thanks for this idea, will think about it!

 

[vpwphoto]

Often thought a good lightweight blad kit would be the 60 and 120 only.... and a Superwide.
The Hasselblad 1.4 converter is stellar, I mentioned earlier another neat kit combo would be the 60, 100 and 1.4 only.
1.4 can NOT be used with the 80 or shorter lenses... I never tried or measured, was afraid the lens elements would "contact" when mounted.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Often thought a good lightweight blad kit would be the 60 and 120 only.... and a Superwide.
The Hasselblad 1.4 converter is stellar, I mentioned earlier another neat kit combo would be the 60, 100 and 1.4 only.
1.4 can NOT be used with the 80 or shorter lenses... I never tried or measured, was afraid the lens elements would "contact" when mounted.

hmmmmm, i don't have any converter for my film gear, i have for my digital gear, so maybe this is a handy tool to think about, ok, i will add a converter to the list.

 

[vpwphoto]

The good Hasselblad 1.4... It cost me $900 US a decade ago... but was worth it. I am sure it would work very well with the 120 or 100 as it has with my 150.

 

[TareqPhoto]

The good Hasselblad 1.4... It cost me $900 US a decade ago... but was worth it. I am sure it would work very well with the 120 or 100 as it has with my 150.

I have 150, so if i got 1.4 should i go with 120 or 100? See how people recommend me 80mm but now you recommend me to go with 1.4 and 100/120, this is with Hasselblad, what about Mamiya RZ?

 

[narsuitus]

Now my question is: for my two cameras i am looking to buy 1 lens of two for each of 2 cameras, tell me what will be your choice if you were in my place?

- Hasselblad 501cm:

Option 1: 80mm 2.8 CF
Option 2: 120mm f4 makro CF


- Mamiya RZ67 ProII:

Option 1: 90mm f3.5
Option 2: 110mm f2.8

I want to use one or any of those lenses for portraits and candid and general outdoors or even indoors.

80mm 2.8 CF

 

[TareqPhoto]

80mm 2.8 CF

Ok, thanks!

 

[John Koehrer]

IMO this thread has thrown more items into the mix than was needed.Tareq has a 60 and 150 and is looking for complementary lenses, not the entire 'blad catalogue.
80mm is a "normal" FL 120mm is a slightly long FL with close up ability. Tareq likes slightly wider FL. The 80 would fill the bill.
If he also went with the 1.4 teleconverter it would add 80+1.4=112mm and 150+1.4=210mm. This gives him a pretty evenly spaced selection of focal lengths.
Something else to consider is the cumulative light loss of the converter ~1 f stop. So his 80/2.8 becomes 80 f4 and the 150 becomes 150/5.6. The choice becomes FL or speed.

 

[olwick]

Well, i am also leaning more towards 80mm, but one person told me that 120 is the sharpest lens in Hasselblad line [i think he means film], so i am not sure if that will make me to choose it over 80mm or go with 80mm better.

Just remember - if you're shooting portraits you probably don't want the sharpest lens ever. It will show every single pore and flaw in skin.

 

[TareqPhoto]

IMO this thread has thrown more items into the mix than was needed.Tareq has a 60 and 150 and is looking for complementary lenses, not the entire 'blad catalogue.
80mm is a "normal" FL 120mm is a slightly long FL with close up ability. Tareq likes slightly wider FL. The 80 would fill the bill.
If he also went with the 1.4 teleconverter it would add 80+1.4=112mm and 150+1.4=210mm. This gives him a pretty evenly spaced selection of focal lengths.
Something else to consider is the cumulative light loss of the converter ~1 f stop. So his 80/2.8 becomes 80 f4 and the 150 becomes 150/5.6. The choice becomes FL or speed.

Exactly my thinking, i can get 120 in the future if needed, but for now i think 80 will be the best choice, even with my digital hasselblad i put that 80 for almost everything more than 120 and 28mm, and ofcourse 80mm on film will be wider than 80mm on digital format.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Just remember - if you're shooting portraits you probably don't want the sharpest lens ever. It will show every single pore and flaw in skin.

That is great, sometimes i love to shoot those older people to show the sharpest wrinkles they have.

 

[vpwphoto]

.
If he also went with the 1.4 teleconverter it would add 80+1.4=112mm and 150+1.4=210mm.

THe 80mm DOES NOT WORK WITH THE 1.4

 

[vpwphoto]

That is great, sometimes i love to shoot those older people to show the sharpest wrinkles they have.

All the Blad lenses seem like the "sharpest lens ever" the 120 and 100 are not THAT much sharper in as much as the 80mm and 150 are very sharp anyway.

The 100 and 120 are usually mentioned in one-up-manship... they are sharper when you look at the MTF curves and bench tests... not that you see that much in a final print.

 

[John Koehrer]

THe 80mm DOES NOT WORK WITH THE 1.4

OK, you don't have to yell! Geez.

 

[tkamiya]

I'd get 80mm and get it over with.... If environmental portrait is your thing, you wouldn't want it too long or wide. On 35mm, I use around 50 to 70mm for that and on my 645, I use 80mm.

By the way.... there's more to portrait than making someone look younger and "better". Wrinkles give character and it can be shown and used to your advantage.