Conner999
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
jcolwell wrote:
It's a very personal thing. I prefer the f/2.8. I sold my f/1.9 to somebody who prefers the f/1.9 - at least, so far he does - he recently borrowed both of my f/2.8's, stay tuned. Anyway, for 'straight up' shooting (i.e. no tilt-shift), I prefer the Summircon-R 90/2 and Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 over the Mamiya C 80/1.9 and Rokinon 85/1.4. For T-S shooting, I prefer the C 80/2.8N. If you want to know what you prefer, you'll have to try them for yourself. 
That would be me (thanks again JC).
Bottom line is if I had to pick between an M645 2.8 and the 1.9, I'd still pick the 1.9 - but not because the 2.8 sucks in comparison. The 2.8s render very nicely, but I still prefer the having the speed on-hand of the 1.9 given how close I felt the 1.9 and the 2.8C rendered. That said, I am going to pick up a 2.8N (my 1.9 is a C) . The lens is a great performer and given it's price for a mint copy, a no-brainer. Having the higher contrast of the N version would be nice to have on occasion - despite my preference for C-style rendering. Never one solution.
I've owned a good number of 80-90s across a number of brands, from dirt cheap to 'how much?!" including all three from Leica, some multiple times and have also managed to shoot with other borrowed glass in that range thanks to kind folks like Jim. If he'd developed his Leica Lust a little earlier, I'd be returning the favor, but I'm working on it ;>
Bottom line, I don't know if I could pick one clear winner. Some are real sleepers that are given the "but it's not a ___" treatment by Leica/Zeiss fanboys and some are so over-billed by web hype it's comical, but none would ever (or have ever) gotten immunity from re-sale.
There are so many nice lenses in that FL range to pick from, it really comes down to what mix of strengths, for you, outweigh each lenses weaknesses. Of the ones I've used, if I had to pick one lens, speed aside, in the 75-100mm range it would be the CV 90 APO. In the case of the CV, I've always been VERY impressed with their glass and am currently starting the process of re-acquiring the complete line (now that EoS mounts are coming out) that I sold when prices hit asinine levels (prior to the 90SLII's release) or in moments of stupidity. The CV 20 is the only one I'm iffy on as don't know how often I'd shoot that wide.
-----------------------
As an aside, the quest for the ultimate uber-fast yet sharp moderate tele lens is a bit of a funny obsession we get into (sometimes more than once). We get obsessed with it yet when you think of it in moments of lucidity (a.k.a non-gear-head mode), when you shoot such a 'Holy Grail' lens wide open, so little of the final story/feeling your trying to convey with your image is actually showing the len's resolving capability that you need to be careful you're not spending more to feed your gear-head side vs any actual benefit to your 'story telling'.
Having a razor thin sharp plane of focus is nice (everything else being equal -- which it never is), yet it's the non-resolution aspects of the rendering that should concern us more: color accuracy, bokeh, tonality, bokeh CA and how the plane of focus is transitioned in & out of (some lenses are so abrupt it looks odd, almost like Gaussian work in post). The 'unsharp' aspects of the lens is what dominates the pic, what we're paying a $%^ fortune for in paper and ink to print and what viewers/clients notice first. No one wants a F1.2 piece of sandblasted beach glass, but there's a limit - at least for me anyway.
I'll use the fast Leica's as a 'one family' example. The 80 lux & 90 'cron are both reasonably sharp w/o, yet get VERY sharp in center very quickly as you stop down (the 'lux at F2.8-4, the 'cron at 4-5.6) with great bokeh, great CA control, etc, etc. The only difference between the 90/2 and 80 is the price, speed and the fact the 'lux gets sharper in center faster as you stop-down. On the flip side, the more 'clinical' 90/2AA is WTF sharp w/o, has smoother handling than the aforementioned and is better across the frame at wider apertures and has that clarity' or 'transparency' you see from APO glass. Yet it's bokeh can get iffy, it's CA control is not as good as the other Leica APOs (or the CV90 or CV180), it's very pricey and ANY work, from a simple CLA on up, requires a a lengthy and $$$ round-trip to Leica. Stopped down to mid-apertures, you'd be hard pressed to tell any of the three apart. Which is better?
Hell, if I $$$ for every time I've showed a print (or emailed) a sharp skinny DoF image to someone to look at just to have them 'oooh' and 'ahh' over the 'soft background' and how 'nice' it goes 'in and out of focus' vs the cut-your-corneas sharp 0.5" actual plane of focus, I'd be running that Hassy H4D-40 MFD kit I covet so much ;>
-------
I also agree with JC - M645 (or Hassy) glass is not for Mirex use only. A lot of the glass in M645 can give any comparable AF native mount 35mm lenses a should-to-shoulder run for their money and sadly (given what Canon or Nikon ask for glass and their QC) in more cases than not, win.
|
