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/
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.
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.
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
I'd buy the 120 for the Hasselblad... then pick up a bargain 80 at some point in the future.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
.
If he also went with the 1.4 teleconverter it would add 80+1.4=112mm and 150+1.4=210mm.
That is great, sometimes i love to shoot those older people to show the sharpest wrinkles they have.
THe 80mm DOES NOT WORK WITH THE 1.4
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?