Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,507   Posts: 1,543,540   Online: 1055
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41
  1. #11
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,980
    Images
    1
    The 180 is a lens with impeccable reputation and expensive, but the 150 is no slouch and I doubt you'd see any significant difference in most circumstances. I say save your money, and get the cheaper 250 (I got one in BGN condition from KEH very cheap) and use the 150/250 combo. The 250 is a great performer as well. As for telephotos in landscapes? Sure, for isolating scenes and giving a different compressed perspective such as "layers" of mountains fading in the distance. All up to what you're looking to do.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  2. #12
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,117
    I have the Hasselblad 903 SWC and the Hasselblad 503 CX with the 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, and the 250mm lens. Additionally I have a 2x extender. For landscapes I have never used the 150mm lens, but I have used the 250mm lens many times. Exactly one time I used the 250mm lens with the 2x extender.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #13
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    15
    On occasion I have used a 165mm fast-focus tele on my Pentax 67, chiefly for 'bringing in' a little too distant waterfall or some other major element of the landscape or tors/rock outcrops, trees. Teles are not my first choice for landscape due to inherent perspective compression, but they are useful when a closer approach on foot is not possible or hazardous. A couple of occasions much earlier this year the 165mm was too much for the job; I have now added a 90mm which is a perfect step down with a more natural perspective.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  4. #14
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,270
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    Well, I think it's as true today as ever: use the focal length required to fulfill your compositional goals.
    This is the only thing that matters.

    I frequently use my 250 APO.

  5. #15
    alex gard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Tasmania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    74
    Images
    22
    Thankyou all for the replies. To clarify I have a 50mm, 80mm and 150mm. I was thinking of swapping the 150mm for the 180mm just because I've read a lot of opinions saying that the 180 is the preferred lens of the two (for sharpness reasons mostly) and also eventually getting a 250mm.I do like the compressed almost 'diorama' feel that a longer lens gives and find that when I'm outdoors I use the 150mm a lot more than say the 50mm or 80mm. When I was using a DSLR I used to stick to a 50mm or 85mm and do a lot of stitched 'bokehrama' type photos as I liked the non-stretchy effect that UWA's give. Thankyou all for your opinions and thoughts. I was not so much after a "is this the wrong lens" type of answer moreso just your thoughts on the application of telephoto lenses in landscape stuff.

  6. #16
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,117
    The 150mm and 18-mm lenses are better for portraits than landscapes.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #17
    fmajor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    No one lens is better that any other. Choice depends on what you are trying to achieve given your location, subject, lens available, and other variables. Rather than "I could take a better picture if I had...." it should be "How can I take a better picture with what I have".
    Well there ya go, making perfect sense. Where's the fun in that?!?

    I've come to the realization I'm much more inclined to spend the $ on what I hope will help me make better images when in reality fotch is pretty well on the mark. It requires more effort of me to make a beautiful image with whatever lens is attached to my camera.

    Since the medium format cameras I have I consider to be superb (Mamiya RB67 Pro-S with 65mm and 180mm Sekor C lenses and a Minolta Autocord TLR), I honestly have no excuse for not making great photographs.

    I've tried to do some landscape photographs with my 180mm and it requires a completely different "view" of the landscape. So, I tend to swap out/grab my 65mm and continue to not explore what I'm missing with the 180mm. I've seen some wonderful landscapes taken with the 180mm so I'm confident the FOV can be effective - I simply have to learn how to do them myself!!!

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,169
    Images
    2
    I use which ever lens is appropriate for the composition. I recently photographed a scene ( Villa Vizcaya, Miami,Fl) across the bay from a beach at least a half a mile or more away with my Hasselblad 350mm (40 year old) lens plus the Mutar 2x. Amazing detail and sharpness even recording the parking lot lights on a pole top in front of a tree in the background. I was pleasantly surprised with the result since it wasn't an intended shot just seeing what might come out with that combination.

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    330
    At some point I had a 50, 80, 150 and 250 for my Hasselblad. The 50 and 150 I got rid of. For nearly everything I use the 80. The 250 I use almost solely for landscapes. With regard to the 150 I found it not wide enough to be interesting and nowhere near long enough to make for an interesting composition. I can't imagine the 180 will be much better in that respect.

    I recently sold my 250 purely because it was a CT and don't like the ergonomics, so spending a bit of time looking for a CFi/E at the right price (tricky to find in the UK...) although I started debating with myself whether a 350 would be better...the weight and size does get silly though...
    Hasselblad, Mamiya RB, Nikonos, Canon EOS

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,337
    I'm in the process of purchasing a 250mm lens for my Hasselblad system. I will soon have a 50mm, 80mm, 120mm and the 250mm. The 120 is my favorite lens for the kit, but it just doesn't have enough "reach" for some of the landscape scenes I want to make. I often want to isolate parts of a landscape or better incorporate distant details into the image.

    Since the 250 is roughly twice the focal length of the 120, I figure it will best fit my needs. A 180 would not be that different. (I have borrowed a friend's 180 for a couple of portrait shoots. It is a really great lens!) When you get into medium and large formats, you start to realize that increasing focal lengths require a whole lot more lens than 35mm to create similar telephoto effects. A 250mm is roughly 3X normal for 6x6 cameras. In 35mm terms, that's only about a 150mm lens. My point is, that even thought the numbers seem big, the actual increase in effect is not that great. The 250mm is relatively compact, and isn't that heavy. It's mostly empty space surrounded by metal. The 350mm starts to get ridiculous in terms of size and weight.

    If you can borrow or rent either or both lenses, I'd do that before spending the cash. I've happened to fall into a reasonably good deal, so I'm pulling the trigger.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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