I have simialr problem with my newly acquired 85f1.2L. My initial test with my D60 using AF is a big joke . MF with the D60 & 85f1.2 is a bit better, but still hit-and-miss. The brighter and bigger VF of the 1D MK2 does help to MF and I believe that the AF accuracy is better with the new camera too.
All your testing of the Carl Zeiss lens leads me to go through my camera cabinet, where I store all my non-Canon stuffs, including whole bunch of Hasselblad lenses (mostly I have two of each ). The 150f2 Sonnar is always my sharpest Hasselblad lens. But I believe that my 120f5.6 S-Planar cannot be too far behind. The 85f2.8 Planar has been a good portrait lens for me to use on a Minolta XD11 body. I still have the adpater for Hasselblad lens/Minolta body. Now, I am considering to buy the Haaselblad/EOS adapter, just for entertainment as I don't really believe that the current Canon L lenses are materially inferior to the older design Hasselblad lenses.
Stephen,
Oh, please, stop mentioning Hass. I may just buy the lenses and adapter to see how good they are
Regarding Canon "L", I think what we are seeing are "manufactured" goods. They can no longer afford to have highly skilled optics technicians to assemble and test glasses.
Pondria wrote:
Stephen,
Oh, please, stop mentioning Hass. I may just buy the lenses and adapter to see how good they are
Regarding Canon "L", I think what we are seeing are "manufactured" goods. They can no longer afford to have highly skilled optics technicians to assemble and test glasses.
Look at the bright side of buying Hasselblad lenses: some people cannot even give them away. The price of used Haselblad lens are so low that it is not even funny. Put up a WTB in this forum and you can probably pick up couple 80mm for nothing.
Pondria wrote:
Stephen,
Oh, please, stop mentioning Hass. I may just buy the lenses and adapter to see how good they are
Well, if it makes you feel any better, they probably won't be that great. As image circle goes up, absolute resolution goes down. With an APS sized sensor, you are seeing only a very small portion. Hassy's are good, but not *really* designed for that heavy of a crop.
Paul Kierstead wrote:
Well, if it makes you feel any better, they probably won't be that great. As image circle goes up, absolute resolution goes down. With an APS sized sensor, you are seeing only a very small portion. Hassy's are good, but not *really* designed for that heavy of a crop.
I got it ! If the lens has both larger image circle and the high resolution, the price will be unreacheable.
Pondria wrote:
The manual focus wide open is very challenging even with the home-made Split screen.
Yep, manual focus with the 85mm f/1.4 via the 10D's viewfinder is really pushing it. I've mounted the lens on my 10D but I use it on my Contax SLRs with their big, bright finders. If the 1Ds were a more portable camera, and thus more suitable for my main use (on-the-go cityscapes & candids), I'd get one & install the Canon split-image screen.
daverk wrote:
Yep, manual focus with the 85mm f/1.4 via the 10D's viewfinder is really pushing it. I've mounted the lens on my 10D but I use it on my Contax SLRs with their big, bright finders. If the 1Ds were a more portable camera, and thus more suitable for my main use (on-the-go cityscapes & candids), I'd get one & install the Canon split-image screen.
-Dave-
Like Olymic Athlets, I'm practicing this very hard. I need to establish the "lock-in" between the lens, my left eye and the split screen.
Pondria wrote:
I got it ! If the lens has both larger image circle and the high resolution, the price will be unreacheable.
I am not sure "unreachable" actually quite covers it. I am a little fuzzy on the exact phenomenon (and really need to know, so will have to research a little), but it goes something along the lines of as the image circle gets bigger, the aberrations get bigger as well. I have taken 35mm sized crops from a very high quality MF (mamiya 43mm) and very high quality LF (Super Symmar 80mm) and in both cases the results were unimpressive though not awful. Of course, in their full native formats it is a different story.
For the same size print ( I mean "large print" ). 60mm x 40mm size negative film need to have only 60% of the of the resolution of 36mm x 24mm negative. Large format lenses can have poorer resolution than 35mm lenses but still can produce better print.
Now, for the phenomena itself, it is interesting. For the same focal length, as the radious of the lens grows, it is simply becoming more difficult to focus on a spot. Even for a monochrome light, it will get difficult.
Not literally unreachable, merely excruciating! The Tele-Superachromat from Zeiss is $25,000. For your money (and second mortgage), you get 300mm, a speedy f/2.8, and an amazing 6x6 image circle for your Hassy. If you mount this monster on a 35mm camera, you still enjoy a better MTF than any CZ telephoto, regardless of format. In short, stupendous performance.
In the normal MF realm, optical performance is lower for economic reasons because expected enlargement is lower. You are presumably happy with the superior tonality and finer grain.
Paul Kierstead wrote:
Well, if it makes you feel any better, they probably won't be that great. As image circle goes up, absolute resolution goes down. With an APS sized sensor, you are seeing only a very small portion. Hassy's are good, but not *really* designed for that heavy of a crop.
I have used my Hasselbald lens on my Minolta XD11 film body long times ago. I have used that combination both indoor (studio) and outdoor. The results were very good.
Among our circle of photo friends we have reached a conclusion that the good results were probably because of I was using the sweet spot (center) of the medium format lens. There was no agrument that a 35mm lens usually are better quality than a medium format lens, and they have to be for a small film size.
BTW, I just ordered and paid for the Hasselblad/EOS adapter. The adapter should be on its way to me on Monday. I will do some shooting with the adapter and see how good/bad the results are. Like I was told before: this is a small price to pay for enjoyment and entertainment, as I can't see me abandoning my L lenses and picked up my Haaselblad lenses again .
slau wrote:
BTW, I just ordered and paid for the Hasselblad/EOS adapter. The adapter should be on its way to me on Monday. I will do some shooting with the adapter and see how good/bad the results are. Like I was told before: this is a small price to pay for enjoyment and entertainment, as I can't see me abandoning my L lenses and picked up my Haaselblad lenses again .
Enjoyment and Entertainment - Why not. Great point.
We are all interested in your experiment. By the way, what H lens are you going to try on EOF ? It would be even nicer if the setup can fill the gap that Canon line leaves.
Pondria wrote:
We are all interested in your experiment. By the way, what H lens are you going to try on EOF ? It would be even nicer if the setup can fill the gap that Canon line leaves.
The adpater is very easy to use and I will try all the H lenses I have. The trick is MF and doing multi shots to ensure I get a good one from each lens test. I am thinking to play with the 50f4 Distagon, 80f2.8 Planar, 120f5.6 S-Planar, 150f4 Sonnar, 250f5.6 Sonnar and even my long lost friend - the Rodenstock Imagon 200mm. I just hope I will have time to do this. If I am really in the mood and feel energentic, I may even test each coopy of lens.
I do need some suggestion of the lighting, subject and background, etc. It will be nice to do one shot to check for all the good stuffs . Prefer to use strobes and softbox for better lighting control.
slau wrote:
... I am thinking to play with the 50f4 Distagon, 80f2.8 Planar, 120f5.6 S-Planar, 150f4 Sonnar, 250f5.6 Sonnar and even my long lost friend - the Rodenstock Imagon 200mm.
It is interesting ! For the 35mm format, Canon has pretty good comparable offerings with 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, 200/2.8 and 300/4. If any of your H lens performs better than the Canon offering on the 35mm image circle, I would be joyously surprised !
Well, I received my new Haaselbald/EOS adapater today. As promised I have put three of my Hasselblad lenses and two Canon lenses through some simple test. All images were taken with MF on the 1D Mk2, tripod, MLU & remote release. Here are the images of the Carl Zeiss 150 on the Mk2 & the adpater:
The images of the Hasselblad lenses (150f4 Sonnar, 120f5.6 S-Planar & 80f2.8 Planar) are surprisingly good and I think they are as good as the Canon lenses (135f2L & 85f1.2L). But, you can reach your own conclusion by looking at the (full size - 8 MP) images here:
I picked the f8 - f11 images as I don't want the focusing error to muddy up the water. Also, the f8-f11 images should be the sharpest ones of those lenses. I did shoot a series of images of each lens at various f stops.
Pondria wrote:
Stephen,
The 80/2.8 is especially impressive. Where can I get the test chart ? It would be very nice if you and I shoot the same target.
I have uploaded the chart and you can download it (99 KB .gif file) here:
You are welcome. I just printed mine on a 8.5X11 paper. Not really sure what size should it be printed on as I have no knowledge of .gif file. Sorry.
BTW, I am taking the chart off to avoid any copy right issue. If you need it again or haven't downloaded it, I can post it again for a short time period.
. MF with the D60 & 85f1.2 is a bit better, but still hit-and-miss. The brighter and bigger VF of the 1D MK2 does help to MF and I believe that the AF accuracy is better with the new camera too.
). The 150f2 Sonnar is always my sharpest Hasselblad lens. But I believe that my 120f5.6 S-Planar cannot be too far behind. The 85f2.8 Planar has been a good portrait lens for me to use on a Minolta XD11 body. I still have the adpater for Hasselblad lens/Minolta body. Now, I am considering to buy the Haaselblad/EOS adapter, just for entertainment as I don't really believe that the current Canon L lenses are materially inferior to the older design Hasselblad lenses.
. Prefer to use strobes and softbox for better lighting control.