Hey ic-racer, that's a super cool image!I used the monster 40mm Distagon since the early 1990s on a SLX. As much as I like very wide lenses on 35mm format, the extensive foreground the lens provides can be difficult to manage. So I don't have as many good prints as I might have imagined. Here is one:
View attachment 262876
Did you use the tilt?I used the monster 40mm Distagon since the early 1990s on a SLX. As much as I like very wide lenses on 35mm format, the extensive foreground the lens provides can be difficult to manage. So I don't have as many good prints as I might have imagined. Here is one:
View attachment 262876
I see, it looks very much like the SL66 and the Hassy. It must be quite heavy!My lens is for the SLX and 6000 series and does not offer any front tilt. The lens optics, I believe are identical to the SL66 version and the Hasselblad version.
View attachment 262913 View attachment 262912
I used the monster 40mm Distagon since the early 1990s on a SLX. As much as I like very wide lenses on 35mm format, the extensive foreground the lens provides can be difficult to manage. So I don't have as many good prints as I might have imagined. Here is one:
View attachment 262876
From what I understand, they never made an FLE version for the SL66...I suspect the contrast in that image is mostly the result of the choice of developer--though the lens is certainly an excellent performer.
According to the SL66.com website there was a Carl Zeiss (Jena) Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. I have never seen one. I wonder what it is like?Pardon my heretic proposal, but what about a longer lens, such as 180?
Just speaking about focal length, I am not familiar wih the SL66 system - but a lens around 180mm should exist.
There is a picture (of the lens, that is) in this photo.net thread:According to the SL66.com website there was a Carl Zeiss (Jena) Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. I have never seen one. I wonder what it is like?
Leader.
Oh, no! You made me want to get that! Ha!There is a picture (of the lens, that is) in this photo.net thread:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/carl-zeiss-sonnar-180-f2-8.505695/
I too wonder how pictures look like, and whether this lens is the same as the 180 2.8 of the Pentacon Six (which gets rave reviews)
My usual quote to Hasselblad owners was "You'll end up owning all lenses eventually." Prices have skyrocketed so much in the recent years that it has become an unrealistic proposition. But it might still be accessible to SL66 owners??Oh, no! You made me want to get that! Ha!
My usual quote to Hasselblad owners was "You'll end up owning all lenses eventually." Prices have skyrocketed so much in the recent years that it has become an unrealistic proposition. But it might still be accessible to SL66 owners??
Very cool images! Exactly, why limit to wide? I especially like the close to Ansel one. Thank you.Leader,
coming back to your original question and the "why" of my idea of a longer lens.
I think that a longer lens is very useful for landscapes. It allows isolating some parts of it, which comes handy in densely populated countries (like your or mine) where you (too) often have power or telephone wires or similar inelegant items. More importantly, it compresses perspective and provides a "different" point of view.
Obviously, it all depends on what you want to doWide angle is the "traditional" way of doing landscapes, and is so for a reason. But if you already have a 50mm, a 40 might not buy you much. 30mm more so. And a long lens even more. I mentioned 180mm as it is one of my most used lenses (and one of Hasselblad's best) but obviously a 150 or 250 will do too.
Here a couple examples, taken with the Hasselblad 180mm.
California:
View attachment 262988
Not coming close to Ansel:
View attachment 262989
Alps near Munich:
View attachment 262985
Same location, taken with a 50mm lens:
View attachment 262986
Hope this helpsGood luck with your decision, let us know what you choose!
Here goes for the "pissing contest"30mm Fisheye, 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm, 500mm + 2XE tele-extender.
Thank you for the complimentVery cool images! Exactly, why limit to wide? I especially like the close to Ansel one. Thank you.
Leader.
Here goes for the "pissing contest"
38 SWC, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 135 (bellows), 150, 180, 250 SA, + 2XE
I'd love to get my hands on a 30mm. I'll let you win, if only for that one
The 120mm is my most used lens, for a variety of purposes (from portraits to landscapes, real "macro" is probably the thing I use it the less for) I just like its angle of view, I really feel at home with that lens.I considered the 120mm and the 135mm but I just do not do enough close up work. I barely use the 150mm other than to flatten prints because I rarely do portraits so no 180mm although I did think about it. The 30mm and the 500mm were offered at a price I could not refuse.
The 120mm is my most used lens, for a variety of purposes (from portraits to landscapes, real "macro" is probably the thing I use it the less for) I just like its angle of view, I really feel at home with that lens.
Like you, I had a couple offers at a price I could not refuse: the 135, 150, and even the 250 SA (although that one was a bit more expensive.)
The 135 has become my "scanning lens", together with a CFV ii digital back. It's a terrific lens for that purpose.
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?