Hi
First post for me for a while. Family life, young kids etc has meant little time for my beloved hobby.
Anyway, I was recently looking at longer Hasselblad lenses for my 501CM over my 80mm and 120mm lenses. I discovered that there's a 500mm lens and was expecting it to be VERY expensive. But was therefore quite surprised to find one like this one for £450 : http://ffordes.co.uk/product/13102910355881 And this for £500 : http://ffordes.co.uk/product/14032509191631
I note the f stop is just f8. So it will obviously not be ideal in low light. Is that why there are not expensive? Are they actually good lenses (I know all Carl Zeiss lenses are good compared to mainstream lenses but you see my point)? I recall reading once that the faster the lens, and pretty much for every f stop increase in speed, the quality of the glass had to be exponentially better. So a 2.8 lens vs a f4 lens, for example, might only have one stop extra but the glass quality might be 5 or 6 times better. My 120mm for example, was about £350. So I expected a 500mm to be about 10 times that, but then with an f stop minimum of f8, I can see why many folks might not want one because unless you're taking photos in a studio or a sunny beach, it might be rather restrictive. But other than that, how does the lens quality compare to the other lenses?
First post for me for a while. Family life, young kids etc has meant little time for my beloved hobby.
Anyway, I was recently looking at longer Hasselblad lenses for my 501CM over my 80mm and 120mm lenses. I discovered that there's a 500mm lens and was expecting it to be VERY expensive. But was therefore quite surprised to find one like this one for £450 : http://ffordes.co.uk/product/13102910355881 And this for £500 : http://ffordes.co.uk/product/14032509191631
I note the f stop is just f8. So it will obviously not be ideal in low light. Is that why there are not expensive? Are they actually good lenses (I know all Carl Zeiss lenses are good compared to mainstream lenses but you see my point)? I recall reading once that the faster the lens, and pretty much for every f stop increase in speed, the quality of the glass had to be exponentially better. So a 2.8 lens vs a f4 lens, for example, might only have one stop extra but the glass quality might be 5 or 6 times better. My 120mm for example, was about £350. So I expected a 500mm to be about 10 times that, but then with an f stop minimum of f8, I can see why many folks might not want one because unless you're taking photos in a studio or a sunny beach, it might be rather restrictive. But other than that, how does the lens quality compare to the other lenses?