Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,705   Online: 969
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    brent8927's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oak Park, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    274
    Images
    18
    What makes the 135 macro better than the 120? Does it work well for nature and landscape photography?
    In the name of God, stop a moment, close your work, look around you. ~LEO TOLSTOY

  2. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Well, for me it was the right length, the right look. It wasn't a quantitative thing. At the right distance, it made the right picture... for me. Like everything else, it's more a question of 'feel' than technical performance.

    The 135 was designed without a focus mount, to be used on a bellows. But with the focusing mount, it was a neat lens. Under normal circumstances, expensive though.

    For all around use, the 150 is probably better for most folks most of the time. No bad choice here, though.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  3. #13
    brent8927's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oak Park, IL
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    274
    Images
    18
    I'm going to listen to advice and get a portrait lens instead; I'm going to test out a 160mm CB in the next few days and I'll see how I like it. (I went with the 160 instead of the 150 because it's supposed to be nicer to use hand-held and was a bit cheaper, as well as newer; I also doubt I'll notice a difference between then two, at least not at the size I print at.)

    Thanks everyone for your help. By the way, if anyone is interested in a near-mint Vivitar 2X converter, I'm probably going to be selling that off; I wont need, or want it, if the 160 suits my needs. Most likely my selling price would be around $110 or so.
    In the name of God, stop a moment, close your work, look around you. ~LEO TOLSTOY

  4. #14
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    I missed this thread entirely. I own the 120mm f4 CFE.

    Quote Originally Posted by brent8927
    Here are my concerns/questions; the maximum size I print is about 7x7 inches; will I really see better picture quality by using a dedicated macro lens?
    I think if you mean in comparison to a lens with tubes. Now, I'm a hobbyist, so I don't see a difference. A couple of the commercial photogs I know that do macro use a macro bellows, tubes and all sorts of lenses. So, I am going to assume there is no difference in perceived quality for them Now a fine art photographer might have a different opinion.

    Does the macro lens have better depth of field, or is it just the same as an 80mm lens with 40mm of extension?
    That a good question. I don't know the answer to that one. I have a book called the Hasselblad Manual that has all these answers, I think. I would highly recommend it.

    How about the depth of the photograph? The lens is supposed to be optimized for photographing flat objects right? So is there going to be a loss of depth in the photograph?
    I shoot models all the time with this lens - great for beauty shots. Most of the models I shoot are, ...ahem..., not flat.

    I realize the lens is expensive; but I've settled on this sort of "simple" style and will probably be sticking with it for a few years or so; however, I do also like to take snapshots and larger scale photographs (like landscapes) just for memories; my contact sheets are my photo albums.
    Had I known more about the Hassey system back then, I would have bought the 120mm as my 'normal' lens just for the versatility. It's about normal plus it has the 'close up' features. In fact whenever I travel, I always take three lenses - my 40mm, my 180mm and my 120mm as my normal.

    So, does anyone think I would be better off with the 120mm lens? Would the only benefit be that I don't have to take the lens off to take off the extension tube when I want to switch from focusing close to focusing at infinity?
    I have heard of people subing in a 100mm with tubes. This seems very reasonable, as the 100mm is amuch better lens than the 80mm.

    I find the actual act of photography to be much more enjoyable and "meditative" when I'm not worrying about switching equipment.
    I'm the same way. I actually wish for a really nice Zeiss Zoom lens witha macro option. I know this thing will cost $10k and probably weight a couple kilos, but I still wish for it!

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin