Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,685   Posts: 1,548,586   Online: 1211
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    106

    Hasselblad Short Tele for Landscape

    Hi all. My current Hasselblad kits consists of a 50, 80 and 250. I'm looking to fill the gap between the 80 and 250 - and I take landscapes, not portraits, so I'm looking for something that performs well stopped down. I've reviewed a few threads here and elsewhere and am still looking for some help. I don't have a strong preference one way or another for 150, 160 or 180 in terms of the framing they give, so I am looking for the best resolution I can get. My budget precludes CFE and CFI lenses. My questions:

    1. 160 CB Tessar - I don't know much about CB lenses - how would the quality compare with C and CF?

    2. 150 f4 C/CF and 180 f4 CF - which is sharper stopped down at infinity?

    3. If there is anyone out there who has used all three, which do they prefer?

    thanks in advance...

  2. #2
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,386
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    Go with the 150 CF. For those odd times when you want an out-of-focus area, it will produce the more pleasing Bokeh. They're also plenty on the used market, so you can pick one up in good shape for less if you watch carefully. The CB lens has a somewhat slower maximum aperture (f4.8 vs. f4), and the shutter is not quite as robust (that said, the lenses are new enough that it shouldn't be a problem for the life of the lens in your hands). Another thought about the 150 vs 180 - the 150 is a substantially more compact lens than the 180 - it will pack and travel easier. What you should do if you can is rent both a 150 and a 180 and see how you like the results. Is the difference in field of view significant to you, and which gets you closer to what you want, perspective-wise?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Westminster, Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,504
    My 150mm is my bread and butter.

    That said, I also love my shorter 100mm.

    Go with the 150mm.
    When I grow up, I want to be a photographer.

    http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Photography/index.html

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,346
    Another vote for the 150mm CF. Great for landscape, and fantastic for portraits when combined with a 16mm tube.

    Whenever I head to the western U.S., my hiking kit is usually a 150mm CF and a 2x converter. Between the two focal lengths I can cover a large range of shots. The landscapes out there are so broad that any wide-angle lens is disappointing in MF, so I focus on what a friend calls "landscape portraits".

  5. #5
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    I use the 180 and love it (supposed to be sharper than the 150 but can't verify that) but also consider the 120 macro if you take shots up to 20m or so. It supposed to lose quallity only after that distance.
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  6. #6
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,386
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    The 120 is ok for landscapes, but a bit too close in focal length to the 80 relative to his 250. Also, it produces extremely sharp, contrasty images and quite harsh and unflattering out of focus areas (OOFAs aka Bokeh) at non-macro distances.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,341
    I'd ditto the 150, especially since you already have the 250. I own the 120, and it suits my needs, but as Flying Camera said, it's a bit close to your 80. And, yes, there's a lot of them available used. They are/were a staple of the wedding/portrait photographers' kits.

    Peter Gomena

  8. #8
    DrPablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    796
    Images
    63
    The 150 C T* f/4 is a wonderful, compact, and sharp lens with great background blur. And the prices are extremely good for them these days -- only the 80mm lenses are cheaper.
    Paul

  9. #9
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,386
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    The downside of the C lens is that the shutters are getting quite up there in years, and some parts are no longer available, resulting in either A: VERY expensive custom repairs or B: a very pretty glass-and-aluminum bookend. The CF lenses have come down enough in price that you can pick up a very late model CF for not much more than a late C T*. In some cases, less, because there are folks out there collecting the black C lenses now.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    7

    160 CB

    Sometimes the 160 CB is available at a bargain price compared to the 150 CF. I'v e been very pleased with mine, its light, not quite so sharp as the 150 but performs very well in backlit situations compared with other tele's i have owned. This may be due to the very simple optical design.

    This was taken with the 160

    http://www.tonyestcourt.co.uk/html/cuckmere.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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