Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Best MF System and lenses for Bokeh  (Read 7741 times)
Paul Barker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2011, 07:19:30 AM »
ReplyReply


In the meantime I'm happy with my V Series 555. I wish someone could take that platform and just tweak it ever so slightly and bring it into the modern age.

I'm with you on that one!

Back in the days of film I had switched over to using Rollei 6006/8s and enjoyed using them. I only went back to V series as I couldn't mount a lightphase on the Rollei.

However, I've enjoyed going back to the simplicity of the V series, although I wish I could reliably use a P1 back on a 200 with the 110 f2.

...although the 5 blade aperture on the Hass V means you get an odd shape bokeh

For me, it's a bonus. I shoot a lot of still life, often with shiny things in the background. It gives things a sparkle which I and my clients like. When I did test drive an H I specifically looked at the difference, but with the H lenses it was just ugly.

But horses for courses...
Logged
DeeJay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2011, 08:52:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, that platform was there with the 203FE. It was a strategic decision by the Hass management of the time not to develop that camera (which was backwards compatible with all the existing lenses, finders and magazines) but to join forces with Fuji and produce the H-system. It's another big what-if of camera history.

John

Yup, but more like Why the hell? Smiley

I'm with you on that one!

Back in the days of film I had switched over to using Rollei 6006/8s and enjoyed using them. I only went back to V series as I couldn't mount a lightphase on the Rollei.

However, I've enjoyed going back to the simplicity of the V series, although I wish I could reliably use a P1 back on a 200 with the 110 f2.

For me, it's a bonus. I shoot a lot of still life, often with shiny things in the background. It gives things a sparkle which I and my clients like. When I did test drive an H I specifically looked at the difference, but with the H lenses it was just ugly.

But horses for courses...

Yeah i do like the Rollei and woud think about it if the IQ backs would fit. But realy I am very happy with the V Series. I would take that any day over the modern POS. If it aint broke...
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 08:55:53 AM by DeeJay » Logged
donaldt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2011, 08:55:55 AM »
ReplyReply

what movie lens can cover 645??

a lot

most over 100mm-150mm does cover 645 without much problem
Logged
donaldt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2011, 09:00:09 AM »
ReplyReply

The motion lens idea sounds interesting. Do you need a Focal Plane Shutter?



yes absolutely no chance with leaf shutter
I looked into the possibility to take out the glasses in some old V lenses and use the shutter and the barrel
but the opening was too small so even if you can fit a lens inside it is automatically stepped down
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 09:05:43 AM by donaldt » Logged
DeeJay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2011, 10:37:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Might look into this - can you name some brands or lenses in particular ?
Logged
bradleygibson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 08, 2011, 02:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup, but more like Why the hell? Smiley

It wasn't as if Hasselblad didn't want Zeiss for their H system.  So why didn't they do it?

<completely unsubstantiated rumor mongering>

Zeiss may have been unwilling to build AF lenses for Hasselblad, due to some earlier Hasselblad/Zeiss shenanigans involving AF lenses on the V system.

</completely unsubstantiated rumor mongering>

Smiley
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 02:24:03 PM by bradleygibson » Logged

henrikfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2011, 03:05:38 PM »
ReplyReply


It wasn't as if Hasselblad didn't want Zeiss for their H system.  So why didn't they do it?

<completely unsubstantiated rumor mongering>

Zeiss may have been unwilling to build AF lenses for Hasselblad, due to some earlier Hasselblad/Zeiss shenanigans involving AF lenses on the V system.

</completely unsubstantiated rumor mongering>

Smiley
[/quote]

I think it's much more likely that Hasselblad wanted to make better money with Fujinon.
The easiest would of course be to keep on working with Zeiss. They allready had a lot of existing
Hasselblad-users begging for more Zeiss.

I would say it could only be profitt-issues that made them go away from Zeiss.
Zeiss have made exelent fast af-lenses for Sinar. A lot better than Hasselblads Fujinon lenses.
But of course more expensive..
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2011, 07:15:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah Ray that's true there are some nice fast Mamiya lenses.
But the topic was best MF system and lenses for bokeh not fastest!   Cheesy    

Of course it was. Then someone made the factually inaccurate claim that the Contax 645 has the "fastest mf glass", and I was merely countering that, setting the record straight. Sometimes little tangents like that are necessary in a thread - putting out the bush fires of inaccuracy and ignorance before they spread further.

Exactly people confuse bokeh with fast lens

Well, don't count me among those people. I thought I made it very clear when I stated: "we can argue about the bokeh and rendering, but not the f-stops". That good bokeh is not guaranteed by a fast f-stop is clear from that!

Ray
Logged
donaldt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2011, 08:04:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Might look into this - can you name some brands or lenses in particular ?


Kinoptik, Dallmeyer Super Six, Bausch and Lomb Super Baltar, Cooke Taylor Hobson, Carl Zeiss.....
most of these are no longer in production though you need to find them used
Logged
donaldt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2011, 08:06:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray
wasnt pointing the finger
but there are people out there would believe faster lens give better bokeh
and no matter how hard you try to explain they will go back to their Canon f1.2 and says they are the best (not that they are not good)


Of course it was. Then someone made the factually inaccurate claim that the Contax 645 has the "fastest mf glass", and I was merely countering that, setting the record straight. Sometimes little tangents like that are necessary in a thread - putting out the bush fires of inaccuracy and ignorance before they spread further.

Well, don't count me among those people. I thought I made it very clear when I stated: "we can argue about the bokeh and rendering, but not the f-stops". That good bokeh is not guaranteed by a fast f-stop is clear from that!

Ray
Logged
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2011, 08:13:06 PM »
ReplyReply

>> Exactly people confuse bokeh with fast lens

Exactly what is bokeh? Can anyone give a comprehensible definition?
I'm not sure I know, but this is what I see that might be close to what people talked about by "bokeh".

First it's not about the rendering of the out of focus image, or how smooth the out of focus blurring.
what I like about Leica or zeiss's image, when it fits my taste, is the rendering of the in-focus image within the the out of focus background.
It's how the in-focus image smoothly stands out from the rest of the out-of-focus image. When it fits my taste, I can hardly draw the line between the in-focus elements and the out-of-focus elements. They are just integrated as an one image.

Very often I saw the review articles or magazines zooming out the out of focus background, to show how good or bad the bokeh, with no in-focus elements in the context.
Not that they are wrong, as I'm not sure exactly what is right, but something is just missing from the point.
     
 

Logged
donaldt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2011, 11:31:25 PM »
ReplyReply

in fact
Bokeh is about personal preference
it is how the image is rendered
any lens maker would design their lens differently to render differently (both in focus and out of focus)
therefore it has nothing to do with the aperture (of course you still need shallow enough DOF to express the bokeh)
some like smooth bokeh that is all blur
some like bokeh that is, while smooth, still retain the shape
but it is safe to say that people generally dislike harsh bokeh (over-correction)

as for the in focus and out focus rendering
they are in fact interrelated
so you are kinda correct to say you need to see both to decide
I know nothing about the physics of optics but as far as my experience goes, it is easier to make a sharp lens with harsh bokeh (most third party Japanese Lens makers do that, like Sigma or Tamron, most of their lenses are really sharp, sometimes sharper than the original brands, but has ugly bokeh)
whereas it is often difficult to make a sharp lens with smooth bokeh



>> Exactly people confuse bokeh with fast lens

Exactly what is bokeh? Can anyone give a comprehensible definition?
I'm not sure I know, but this is what I see that might be close to what people talked about by "bokeh".

First it's not about the rendering of the out of focus image, or how smooth the out of focus blurring.
what I like about Leica or zeiss's image, when it fits my taste, is the rendering of the in-focus image within the the out of focus background.
It's how the in-focus image smoothly stands out from the rest of the out-of-focus image. When it fits my taste, I can hardly draw the line between the in-focus elements and the out-of-focus elements. They are just integrated as an one image.

Very often I saw the review articles or magazines zooming out the out of focus background, to show how good or bad the bokeh, with no in-focus elements in the context.
Not that they are wrong, as I'm not sure exactly what is right, but something is just missing from the point.
     
 


Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3771


« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2011, 04:46:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Exactly what is bokeh? Can anyone give a comprehensible definition?
I'm not sure I know, but this is what I see that might be close to what people talked about by "bokeh".

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
paratom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2011, 04:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Back to the original question-personally I really like what I see from the Leica S2 lenses. (if this is MF?)

I also liked a lot what I saw from the 110/2.0 Zeiss (maybe my favorite for certain subjects) and the 50/80/180mm Schneider lenses.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad