Zeiss lens addiction. I think I may simplify - opinions?

[rwboyer]

Here is the deal - I think I have a normal/short tele fetish or need lens anonymous or something.

In the normal to short tele department I have:

- 80 mm 2.8 Planar CF
- 80 mm 2.8 Planar CFe
- 80 mm 2.8 Planar CB
- 100mm 3.5 Planar CFi
- 120mm 4 Makro Planar CF
- 120mm 4 Makro Planar CFi
- 150mm 4 Sonnar CFi
- 160mm 4.8 Tele Tessar CB
- 180mm 4 Sonnar CFi

In reality I use the 80 CFi and 150 CFi 80% of the time and the others don't even make it into the case the other 20% I through the 120 CFi in there as well. The other two 80s, the 100, the 160, and 180 virtually never see the light of day - they are all like new and nothing wrong with them. I am thinking I should get rid of them to reduce mental clutter but just cannot seem to.

Anyone else got this normal/short tele fetish issue? Honestly I bought the 100 on a whim and all of the other CFi lenses because I like the ergonomics better and the 160 just to see what it was like vs the 150 CFi.

Suggestions? Know of any groups that help with this sort of affliction?

RB

 

[keithwms]

There is no cure. You just have to treat it symptomatically.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I also like the short teles best. Unfortunately (or should I say fortunately?) The choice in the SL66-system is not as wide as it is with Hasselblad. I like my 120/5,6 best and am searching for an 150/4 at the time. The 120/2 would be nice to have but I have never seen one in real life. Not even sure if it made its way out of the brochures at all. My suggestion would be to keep all the CFi lenses and sell the CFs and CBs to fund something new :-D
As I see you do not have an 250/5,6 already? No wide-angles? Maybe the 50/4 FLE would fit you? Or buy an 203Fe and some fancy stuff like 110/2 or 150/2,8.

By the way, how was the 160 against the 150?

Greetz, Benjamin

 

[rwboyer]

I also like the short teles best. Unfortunately (or should I say fortunately?) The choice in the SL66-system is not as wide as it is with Hasselblad. I like my 120/5,6 best and am searching for an 150/4 at the time. The 120/2 would be nice to have but I have never seen one in real life. Not even sure if it made its way out of the brochures at all. My suggestion would be to keep all the CFi lenses and sell the CFs and CBs to fund something new :-D
As I see you do not have an 250/5,6 already? No wide-angles? Maybe the 50/4 FLE would fit you? Or buy an 203Fe and some fancy stuff like 110/2 or 150/2,8.

By the way, how was the 160 against the 150?

Greetz, Benjamin

I have a 40 and 50 in the latest incarnations - the tele's do not interest me at all as I don't have tele-vision and in general do not like that much compression.

The 160 is probably the best unsung hero and bargain of all time. You an pick these up virtually unused for a song - even when they were brand new they were like 1/2 a 150 or 180 CFi - they have the same CFi ergonomics - better sync port, more sturdy mounting flange and... They are really really good even wide open - the only way you would know is if you knew both the 150/180/160 VERY well you might be able to tell based on the difference in the way out of focus areas are rendered.

RB

 

[ricksplace]

That's an addiction I support.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here is the deal - I think I have a normal/short tele fetish or need lens anonymous or something.

In the normal to short tele department I have:

- 80 mm 2.8 Planar CF
- 80 mm 2.8 Planar CFe
- 80 mm 2.8 Planar CB
- 100mm 3.5 Planar CFi
- 120mm 4 Makro Planar CF
- 120mm 4 Makro Planar CFi
- 150mm 4 Sonnar CFi
- 160mm 4.8 Tele Tessar CB
- 180mm 4 Sonnar CFi

In reality I use the 80 CFi and 150 CFi 80% of the time and the others don't even make it into the case the other 20% I through the 120 CFi in there as well. The other two 80s, the 100, the 160, and 180 virtually never see the light of day - they are all like new and nothing wrong with them. I am thinking I should get rid of them to reduce mental clutter but just cannot seem to.

Anyone else got this normal/short tele fetish issue? Honestly I bought the 100 on a whim and all of the other CFi lenses because I like the ergonomics better and the 160 just to see what it was like vs the 150 CFi.

Suggestions? Know of any groups that help with this sort of affliction?

RB

RB,

You do have a problem. Let me help you by removing some of your surplus that I do not have and could use:
- 100mm 3.5 Planar CFi
- 120mm 4 Makro Planar CF
- 160mm 4.8 Tele Tessar CB
- 180mm 4 Sonnar CFi

I will PM my shipping address to you and pay for the shipping. In exchange I will promptly send to you all the 120 Kodachrome film that I have.

your new friend,
Steve

 

[rwboyer]

RB,

You do have a problem. Let me help you by removing some of your surplus that I do not have and could use:
- 100mm 3.5 Planar CFi
- 120mm 4 Makro Planar CF
- 160mm 4.8 Tele Tessar CB
- 180mm 4 Sonnar CFi

I will PM my shipping address to you and pay for the shipping. In exchange I will promptly send to you all the 120 Kodachrome film that I have.

your new friend,
Steve

I may consider it with the 160 considering there seems to be a ton of them available for cheap - the other ones seem to fetch a premium ;-) Really the reason that I don't get rid of them is 1) The CF lenses have sentimental value in they were part my very first Hassleblad kit when I started out in the early 90's. 2) I am afraid that I will have a strong desire to reacquire the 100 120 and 180 about 2 years after I get rid of them and not be able to find them in as good a shape and or at the same prices.

The 160CB was acquired "just to see" vs. my fav 150 and the 80CB I got for less than "free" because it came in a low priced package WITH a giant rebate at the time that cost less than what I was going to buy anyway - a 501CM backup body, an A12, AND the 80CB for less than free compared to the 501CM and A12 on their own.

RB

 

[Rinthe]

I too think you have a problem. I am a poor student that would gladly take one of your lenses that you do not need.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The cure is to acquire a wooden 8x10" or 11x14" studio camera with very large lensboards and a Packard shutter, and then you can begin exploring classic portrait lenses.

 

[DanielStone]

RB,

are you in need of the money that you need to sell the "extra" lenses? If not, keep them.

I decided that this year I'm getting rid of all the cameras that I don't use on a regular basis(i.e. every week). So far, I'm not feeling any regrets, even selling my first camera ever, my K1000 with lens. I thought that I would have sentimental attachments to them, and couldn't let them go, but after I saw them leave my hands to help a fellow student, and NEW film shooter out, I was thrilled at 1: being able to make profit on the sale of the camera, and 2: seeing another young person(younger than me, and I'm 21!) really enjoy shooting film, and see my camera go to someone who will use it regularly(I hope).

So, If I were you, I would carefully assess which lenses are "dead weight" and which ones help to propel your work further. "Cut the fat" so to speak.

but then again, this is merely a suggestion on my part.

-Dan

 

[rwboyer]

The cure is to acquire a wooden 8x10" or 11x14" studio camera with very large lensboards and a Packard shutter, and then you can begin exploring classic portrait lenses.

Already got that - A Verito for my 8x10 - really nice but believe it or not I really like my really really old Velostigmat f 6.3 wide open for the latest portrait project that I am doing - not soft-focus but enough aberrations to make it really interesting with a nice fall-off from in to out of focus.

My normal to short tele addiction strikes again - I bought about 4 of the crappiest oldest 1920's -1940's lenses to test for the latest project and guess what - I still have them even though I am going to use just one for about the next year.

RB