Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fast lens question  (Read 4505 times)
padey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« on: September 06, 2006, 04:26:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there such a thing as medium format fast glass, ie f1.4 primes?

If not, why?
Logged

[span style='color:blue']
Andrew

www.catoandpade.com.au[/span]
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2006, 05:37:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there such a thing as medium format fast glass, ie f1.4 primes?

If not, why?

Good question.

I assume it's due to size, weight and cost considerations.

Here is a summary of MF lenses at f2.8 or faster. I'm making this up as I go along so don't rely on it 100%.

The Contax 645: 80mm f2, 45mm f2.8, 140mm f2.8

Bronica ETR (645) has a 50mm f2.8, 60mm f2.8, 75mm f2.8.

Bronica SQ series (6x6): 80mm f2.8

Hasselblad V: f/2.8 80 mm 'C' lens. The rest of the C series is slower. The F lenses were faster: f/2 110 mm, f/2.8 50 mm, f/2.8 80 mm and f/2.8 150 mm

Hasselblad H: HC f/2.8 80 mm and HC f/2.2 100 mm

Rollei PQ/S: 50mm f2.8, 80mm f2, 80mm f2.8, 110 f2, 180mm f2.8

Mamiya 645: 80mm f1.9, 80mm f2.8, 45mm f/2.8, 55mm f/2.8, 150mm f2.8, 200mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8

Mamiya 67: 110mm f2.8

Pentax 67: 75 mm f2.8, 90mm f2.8, 105 mm f2.4, 165mm f2.8

Pentax 645: 45mm f2.8, 75mm f2.8, 150mm f2.8

Result: the fastest lenses are: Mamiya 645 80mm f1.9, Contax 80mm f2, Hass V 110mm f2 (F), Rollei 110 f2, Rollei 80mm f2

Did I miss any?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2006, 08:53:26 AM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2006, 12:24:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Good question.

I assume it's due to size, weight and cost considerations.

Here is a summary of MF lenses at f2.8 or faster. I'm making this up as I go along so don't rely on it 100%.

The Contax 645: 80mm f2, 45mm f2.8, 140mm f2.8

Bronica ETR (645) has a 50mm f2.8, 60mm f2.8, 75mm f2.8.

Bronica SQ series (6x6): 80mm f2.8

Hasselblad V: f/2.8 80 mm 'C' lens. The rest of the C series is slower. The F lenses were faster: f/2 110 mm, f/2.8 50 mm, f/2.8 80 mm and f/2.8 150 mm

Hasselblad H: HC f/2.8 80 mm and HC f/2.2 100 mm

Rollei PQ/S: 50mm f2.8, 80mm f2, 80mm f2.8, 110 f2, 180mm f2.8

Mamiya 645: 80mm f1.9, 80mm f2.8, 45mm f/2.8, 55mm f/2.8, 150mm f2.8, 200mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8

Mamiya 67: 110mm f2.8

Pentax 67: 75 mm f2.8, 90mm f2.8, 105 mm f2.4, 165mm f2.8

Pentax 645: 45mm f2.8, 75mm f2.8, 150mm f2.8

Result: the fastest lenses are: Mamiya 645 80mm f1.9, Contax 80mm f2, Hass V 110mm f2 (F), Rollei 110 f2, Rollei 80mm f2

Did I miss any?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you made a great list! thanks for the research....
it is much harder to get fast MF lenses, because coverage is obviously much larger...
the real stunners are the rollei lenses, they accomplish f2 WITH a built in shutter!
Logged

narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 851


« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2006, 02:35:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Did I miss any?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

useful list, but just to add:

Plaubel Makina 67/670 80mm Nikkor f2.8
Rolleiflex Zeiss Planar 2.8 / Xenotar 2.8

both great cameras.


For LF, the fastest modern ones were:

Zeiss Planar 135mm f3.5 (amazing lens in its later version)
Schneider Xenotar 150mm f2.8

and of course some aero-ektars for specialist use.
Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2006, 05:48:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there such a thing as medium format fast glass, ie f1.4 primes?

If not, why?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What do you need it for ?
Logged
padey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2006, 08:06:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What do you need it for ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In an average session I will shoot 40% of the shots at or below f2. For my shooting edge sharpness isnt the highest priority all the time.

Plus Id rather drop a stop on the glass then bump the ISO for quality reasons, when boxed in by a shutter speed.

andrew
Logged

[span style='color:blue']
Andrew

www.catoandpade.com.au[/span]
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2006, 08:23:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The available DOF at f1.4 would be tiny. Not really useable. That might also help to explain the lack of very fast lenses.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
padey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2006, 09:16:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The available DOF at f1.4 would be tiny. Not really useable. That might also help to explain the lack of very fast lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess it come down to your style of photography.

I find it very usable in the 35mm world and would love an 80mm or 150mm f1.4 in the MF world.
Logged

[span style='color:blue']
Andrew

www.catoandpade.com.au[/span]
James Russell
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2006, 11:03:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I guess it come down to your style of photography.

I find it very usable in the 35mm world and would love an 80mm or 150mm f1.4 in the MF world.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


A 80mm 1.4 in 645 pretty much equals 1.0 in 35mm.  If you've ever use the Canon F1.0 50mm lens you would realaize that the only thing in focus is one eyelash, 5 eyelashes at 1.2 two eyes at 1.4.

If you really want wide open then buy a contax and use the 80 F2 and get the adapter for the blad FE 100 F2 lens.

That will equal anything in the 35mm world for falloff.

JR
Logged
rljones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2006, 11:46:33 PM »
ReplyReply

padey,

James and foto-z have it correct: the larger sensor/film size of MF means the DOF is about 1 f-stop more shallow than stated f-stop as compared to 35mm film. An f2.8 has the DOF of the equivalent f2. So not only would an f1.4 lens be much more expensive and heavy, but they'd be difficult to focus.
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2006, 02:08:13 AM »
ReplyReply

And LF has about 4 stops less depth of field compared to 35mm. So that 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar on 4x5 works about the same as a 40mm f/0.7 lens on 35mm.
Logged

padey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2006, 03:38:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the answer to my newbie question.
Logged

[span style='color:blue']
Andrew

www.catoandpade.com.au[/span]
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad