Do you miss your fast lenses?

[dfarkas]

Thanks David and David ( btw David F ) you really should check your emsils -

This adaptor is very interesting...

There are then - a lot more 'lenses' available than 'just' Leica...

I think the most useful V lenses will be unique ones like the 110 f/2 that have a special look as well as focal lengths missing from the Leica lineup (for now) like a 250 SA, 350 SA, or even 50 f/4.

So far we've tried the 40 FLE (non-IF) CF, 50 f/4 CF, 60 f/3.5 CF, 80 f/2.8 CF, 110 f/2 FE, 120 f/4 CFi, 150 f/4 CF, 180 f/4 CFE, and the 350 f/5.6 SA CF. All focus quite easily on the S2 and achieve perfect infinity focus. Ironically, most show more CA than the Leica 70mm, and unsurprisingly, aren't quite as sharp when shot wide-open. Hopefully, when we've compiled enough data we will publish our findings (most likely on my blog).

Peter, no email..... do you have my current email address? It's [email protected].

David

 

[Jack]

Just to add to what's been said, I find that MF DoF is about 2 stops over what the equivalent 35mm DoF is. IOW, f1.4 on a 50 in 35mm, is roughly equivalent to f2.8 on an 80 in MF if that makes sense. Hence, the 110/2's popularity to be mounted to everything out there -- it is roughly equivalent to a 50/f1.0 in 35mm

Moreover, I find my latest Phase 80/2.8 LS to be spectacular wide open, with great bokeh and a gentle progression to the creamy rendering, very reminiscent of the Leica M 50 Lux pre-asph.

 

[georgl]

A 36x48mm sensor ("normal digital medium format") has twice the area of 35mm, therefore you "loose" 1 stop DoF.

f2.8 on 35mm would be f4.0 with medium format (altohugh the overall look of MF is still different).

The "real" (~60x40mm) medium format backs (60MP) "loose" about 1.5 stops, the small MFDBs (31/40MP + S2) only "loose" a little bit more than half a stop.

Most fast MF-lenses have a distinctive ("soft an creamy") open-aperture look, like older f1.4-designs for 35mm - the S2 lenses lack this look.

Another issue is the mirror, handhelding long times is not a good idea when you want to keep the resolution high.

So: MF for available-light (there are only two cameras with current CCDs and microlenses for usable >640ASA: H4D-40 + S2) not so much, but a narrow DoF with an interesting look shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

For me I don't really miss the fast glass anymore and reason being is my back for one can do high ISO full res. The other issue is lens performance and on a couple lenses I have like the 150 D for instance at 2.8 it is brilliant although paper thin DOF on some gigs I absolutely need 2.8 and this lens would be the first to turn too. Lenses like a 28mm D are not great wide open anyway so little need there. But the 45, 80 , 150 and even the 300 4.5 are very good wide open and with a higher ISO back like the P40+ i rarely run into trouble and still get nice bokeh from them. Plus even at F4 or so the bokeh is the same as the 1.8 and 2.0 lenses on 35mm. So honestly the number means very little it is more sensor size and lens combination.

 

[Seascape]

I think the most useful V lenses will be unique ones like the 110 f/2 that have a special look as well as focal lengths missing from the Leica lineup (for now) like a 250 SA, 350 SA, or even 50 f/4.

So far we've tried the 40 FLE (non-IF) CF, 50 f/4 CF, 60 f/3.5 CF, 80 f/2.8 CF, 110 f/2 FE, 120 f/4 CFi, 150 f/4 CF, 180 f/4 CFE, and the 350 f/5.6 SA CF. All focus quite easily on the S2 and achieve perfect infinity focus. Ironically, most show more CA than the Leica 70mm, and unsurprisingly, aren't quite as sharp when shot wide-open. Hopefully, when we've compiled enough data we will publish our findings (most likely on my blog).

Peter, no email..... do you have my current email address? It's [email protected].

David

David, I would strongly suggest trying the 100 3.5 CF lens, a very high performing lens.

David K. (Toronto)

 

[Shelby Lewis]

This is a great thread...

As someone who's been a 35mm shooter forever, I've often wondered (anecdotally) what the MF shooters felt about having "slower" glass. I shoot between f/1.2 and f/2.8 essentially all the time in my 35mm work (at least my portraiture and wedding work) and the "slower" MF glass has given me pause a few times when considering the move up to MF.

For me, the main pause has been about resulting shutter speeds, not DoF... but it seems like that's getting to be less of an issue with the newer backs and their ability to handle middle/higher ISOs better.

The thoughts on here are very helpful to a wide-aperture-35mm-shooting-guy like myself, lol. Thanks all...

 

[Alexander DeVoe]

This is a great thread...

As someone who's been a 35mm shooter forever, I've often wondered (anecdotally) what the MF shooters felt about having "slower" glass. I shoot between f/1.2 and f/2.8 essentially all the time in my 35mm work (at least my portraiture and wedding work) and the "slower" MF glass has given me pause a few times when considering the move up to MF.

...

The thoughts on here are very helpful to a wide-aperture-35mm-shooting-guy like myself, lol. Thanks all...

Shelby, You did a better job of translating my thoughts into words than I did!

Most of my shooting, (after acquiring fast glass...) has been down in the f/1.4 - 2.8 range as well. Consequently, although risky due to camera/hand shake, I have been getting away with low light conditions that I would have been unable to shoot in before. But, then again, I'm pretty stubborn about raising ISO. A back that handles ISO800 cleanly is starting to sound really sweet right now. Which makes that H4D-40/35-90mm deal even sweeter. MUST WAIT TILL PHOTOKINA... :ROTFL: RESIST JUMPING! (I won't buy anything until I've seen everything, by the way. I just want to.)

I might have to check out the 110 f/2 as you mentioned Jack, it seems like it gets a lot of love from a lot of people...

I guess my concern was twofold - both shutter speed and DoF. The explanations and examples everyone has been giving are perfect and exactly what I needed. I love the creamier look of the MF glass, and certainly wouldn't miss the slightly splotchier Nikon bokeh that I'm used to in my lenses. Not that I don't like it, I just prefer the smoothness of the Hasse + Phase/Schneider rendering.


-Alex

 

[Shelby Lewis]

But, then again, I'm pretty stubborn about raising ISO

This is where I'm NOT stubborn... and have wondered if my standards for a "clean file" are a bit looser than many here. I've had many a wedding file that clients loved that most here would deem "unusably noisy". I've surely seen online reviews where the comment was made that "ISO 400 is for emergencies only" and I thought to myself "it's not that bad, especially given the amount of resolution in the file".

From that side of things, I wish there were more ISO 400 (and up) samples from some of the lower priced backs out there.

As a location shooter, a file that captures the essence of the moment is often of the greatest importance to me...Still, wouldn't an 80mm f/1.4 MF lens be something interesting?! That might get us portrait shooters something closer to the LF "look"

Who knows

 

[Alexander DeVoe]

I've had many a wedding file that clients loved that most here would deem "unusably noisy". I've surely seen online reviews where the comment was made that "ISO 400 is for emergencies only" and I thought to myself "it's not that bad, especially given the amount of resolution in the file".

From that side of things, I wish there were more ISO 400 (and up) samples from some of the lower priced backs out there.

I have to agree that when I do find myself bumping up the ISO a bit, I'm getting a file that is more than usable, and sometimes one of the best/most liked shots from a given scene. This is especially true when rather liberal post processing takes place (like with my own little bit of wedding/portrait work).

I think this is a bit of a photographers curse (at least when dealing with non-technical clients/audience): a VERY critical eye regarding the technical aspect of a given photograph. I know that I find myself looking for it more and more with a direct relationship to how much I know, and how technically "accurate" my own work is.

How does that saying go... The best photographs are the photographs you actually take? Something like that. Basically, I think it is more worthwhile to nitpick less and shoot more. At least in my own work. A little noise shouldn't scare me, and I don't know why it does. But don't let the sensor manufacturers hear that. My story for them is I want nothing less than perfection.

I guess it's just one of those things where I need a reason to remember to set the cleanest usable ISO, or I won't. I know that was a problem in my early work (not at all anymore). The metadata from my early digital stuff is pretty humorous. :ROTFL:

-Alex