The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

opinions on Zeiss 110/2.0

Paratom

Well-known member
I am interested in the Zeiss 110/2.0 As far as I know the Rollei and the Hasselblad version have the same optics inside.
Reasons why I am interested:
1) Should be great for focusing caused by a bright viewfinder and shallow DOF
2) The focal length would fit quit well for people and portrait stuff - a little longer than 80. (However the 80 focal length is fine as well) Also as fast allround lens.
3) From what one hears it should have a very nice smooth rendering

For those who use it or have used it:
-Do you use f2.0 often, and how do you get along with the shallow DOF at that f-stop
-Used at f2.8 and higher f-stops - is there anything "magic" compared to lets say a 80mm Xenotar?
-For what reasons do you use this lens, what do you like about it.

Thanks for any ideas, Tom
 

woodyspedden

New member
Tom

I have the Hassy version which I currently use with adapter on my Nikon. I originally bought it for use on my Hassy 203FE but have decided to sell that body and of course because the 110 2.0 has no shutter it is useless on my Hassy H3DII-39.

I think this lens is perhaps the best portrait lens on the market. The bokeh is so wonderful (and the DOF so shallow) that the subject seems to leap off the page!

I will probably sell my (mint) copy of the lens given my current kit though. I just don't do enough portraits to justify such an expensive lens sitting around on a shelf.

Woody
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I have owned it twice for my Mamiya and admittedly it is stellar. (Missed it after selling the first one, so repurchased it. :rolleyes:) However, it is really only "super special" at f2 and f2.8. It is still very good at smaller apertures, just that it gets to looking a lot like other lenses in that focal range, like the 120 macro...

In the end, my 150/2.8 Mamiya has a very similar special look at f2.8 and though longer in focal, I found myself migrating to the 150 more than the 110 for when I wanted that look -- the 150 being AF and fully integrated electronically is just a lot more convenient to use. And if I needed or wanted the 110 focal length, it was usually for landscape at smaller apertures, and I have the 120 macro for that. So in the end, I sold my second one, but it remains a stellar optic in my mind for those that want to exploit its strengths...
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Yes Jack,
I am also still somewhat undecided if I should not rather go for the 180/2.8 AF lens. But then with the longer focal length and 1 f-stop slower you need at least one stop more light.
I think my main problem so far is that I am not used to "run out of light" so far. f1.4 lenses with ISO 640 on the M8 or even higher ISO on the D3 is just much different.
(Maybe a crop sensor with micro lenses would have been better suited my needs. Dont know yet.)


I have owned it twice for my Mamiya and admittedly it is stellar. (Missed it after selling the first one, so repurchased it. :rolleyes:) However, it is really only "super special" at f2 and f2.8. It is still very good at smaller apertures, just that it gets to looking a lot like other lenses in that focal range, like the 120 macro...

In the end, my 150/2.8 Mamiya has a very similar special look at f2.8 and though longer in focal, I found myself migrating to the 150 more than the 110 for when I wanted that look -- the 150 being AF and fully integrated electronically is just a lot more convenient to use. And if I needed or wanted the 110 focal length, it was usually for landscape at smaller apertures, and I have the 120 macro for that. So in the end, I sold my second one, but it remains a stellar optic in my mind for those that want to exploit its strengths...
 

robmac

Well-known member
I used the 110/2 under somewhat different circumstances - on a 1Ds2 (could also use on Nikon). Very Leica 90/2-like WO, sharpens up nicely as you go down a couple of stops. I tend to think of it as Hassy's version of the 90/2 pre-APO. Smooth operation and, given is a very fast MF lens, very fine-pitch focus mechanics. The Hassy aperture preset button is a godsend for stop-down use.

The ONLY 'con' I had with it is that unlike say the Leica 80 'lux or the 90/2 (pre-APO) I found (YMMV) that WO and up close, the transition from out-of-focus to in-focus to out-of-focus (front to back through plane of focus) was more distinct or abrupt vs. gradual and smooth. The color, details, etc within the plane of focus is sweet, but I can always tell my 110/2 shots from those from my 80 'Lux or a (borrowed) 90/2 pre-AA by this trait.

Again, this was on a FF DSLR, things could be radically different with a much larger sensor'd MFDB.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Hi Tom. I use all three lenses you are talking about -- the 80mm Xenotar, 110/2 Planar and 180mm f/2.8 Tele-Xenar AF. All of the lenses are fantastic, but I think the 110/2 is the most pleasing optically. It is more useful in some senses in that it focuses to .8m (versus 1m for the 80mm and 1.8m or so for the 180mm), and the overall optical look pleases me more than the other two lenses (which are gorgeous as well, just not QUITE as gorgeous). I agree with Jack that it has a unique look at f/2 and 2.8, but I think it extends to f/4 as well. Beyond that, it just looks like a nice mid telephoto. At f/8 it is very very sharp. This lens behaves VERY similarly to the 75/1.4 Summilux, so if you like the 75/1.4, you will probably love the 110/2. I do not shoot it too often at dead wide open, but usually at 2.8 or f/4 (often because the shutter speed is not fast enough to shoot f/2). I don't really miss the AF much, and compared to the 180/2.8, it is a much smaller lens. The 80mm Xenotar is also a great lens, but I think it is a bit wide for many portraits. The 110/2 looks perfect to my eye...
Here are some samples...mostly from film and the Hasselblad version, though I have not been able to tell a difference between it and the Rollei version.









This gives you an idea of the depth of field when used close up and wide open:




This is the 180mm and 1.4x TC:


And just the 180mm:


This would be the 80mm Xenotar:





 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi Stuart,
thank you for those samples and your answer.
Really helpfull. The shorter min distance would be welcome since I have touched the limit of the 80 Xenotar a couple of times in the last days.
I really like the look in your "110"-images.
Regards, Tom

Rob - what you tell me here doesnt make it easier for me to resist!
Thanks for the help, Tom
 

carstenw

Active member
Tom, John Black has a few pages describing his experiments with the AFDII and at some point, the 110/2, both on the AFDII and on a 1Ds3. His was the latest version with the square baffle inside the back of the lens (against the glass, not just the squarish shape around the rear element), and he claims that this would negatively affect the boke wide open.

His pages start here: http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Medium_Format_Blog/Archive.html

I just picked up a really clean copy with box, bag, booklet and both covers for 1060 Euro, but I think in general you would have to pay a bit more. Mine is the FE version, with the contacts, but earlier than John's square-baffle version. He has picked up another one since, I believe, probably a non-square-baffle version, but I am not sure.

Unfortunately, I can't try mine yet, since the adapter is still on the way for my Contax 645, and anyway, I don't yet have the money for a DB for it. I will shoot some film while waiting, though. I do have an old 500C, but I am not sure if putting the lens on this camera will damage one or the other, so I haven't tried. This would be just for the purpose of walking around, looking through it and playing, since I know that the lack of a leaf shutter in the F/FE lenses precludes the use on 500-series bodies.

Edit: I looked at the mounts of my old 80/2.8C and the 110/2FE very carefully, and apart from the contacts, the mounts are identical, so I carefully put it on the camera and focused around a bit. It is hard to tell with the dim viewfinder in this old camera, but I can already tell two things: the depth of field at f2 close up is amazingly narrow, just a few millimetres. A breath will move you away from focus. Secondly, I like the look of what I can see. I have a feeling that I will really like this lens.
 
Last edited:

robmac

Well-known member
Tom,

She a gorgeous lens by any definition. If you think 90/2, 80/75/1.4 for MF, you'll love it.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Carsten -- for what it's worth, my Hassie 110/2 is without the square baffle and the Rollei 110/2 is with it -- I have not noticed any difference in bokeh (though I have not really been looking for it either...).
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Carsten,
in case of the 110 it seems hard to find a used one in Rollei mount and easier in Hassy mount ;(
Regarding the choice of back: So far I am fine with the 54LV but I could really use 1-2 steps better ISO performance. I really recommend to include the ISO-needs into your evaluation of backs.
 

carstenw

Active member
I have not had the chance to try the lens yet, so I cannot evaluate the boke. However, as mine doesn't have the baffle either, I doubt I would find anything wrong. The question is with. John meant that it was visible in some cases. Perhaps he is listening in and has a sample?

Tom, if need be, can you not adapt the Hassie 110/2?

I am not planning to do any MF DB shooting without a tripod, and will do all my shooting at base ISO. The ISO is not a problem for me. I also rarely shoot my M8 at even 640, and usually at 160, sometimes at 320. I expect that the 54LV is okay at 200? That is about all that I am expecting. I truly want to use the Contax 645/54LV combo for high-quality work only.

Btw, does anyone here know what the deal is with the Hasselblad 2000/200-series cameras and the 54LV back? Is there some way to make it work?
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi Carsten,
I dont think the Hassy-V-lenses can be used on the Hy6 but maybe anybody else knows? Also I would like full use of f-stop control etc.
What I see so far from ISO looks totally fine to me.
Do you use flash if there is not enough available light or do you only shoot in bright daylight?
Cheers, Tom


Tom, if need be, can you not adapt the Hassie 110/2?

I am not planning to do any MF DB shooting without a tripod, and will do all my shooting at base ISO. The ISO is not a problem for me. I also rarely shoot my M8 at even 640, and usually at 160, sometimes at 320. I expect that the 54LV is okay at 200? That is about all that I am expecting. I truly want to use the Contax 645/54LV combo for high-quality work only.

Btw, does anyone here know what the deal is with the Hasselblad 2000/200-series cameras and the 54LV back? Is there some way to make it work?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Tom,

Given you are shooting the Sinar, I would definitely recommend the 110 --- it fits quite nicely in-between the 80 and 180 and Stuart hit it right on when he says it gives you the 75 Lux look. (And I'll even agree f4 still carries a bit of it too ;).) The only hesitation would be if you already own the 120 macro in which case you have that focal range covered, but not necessarily with that look...
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Tom -- the Hassie 110/2 will not work on the Rollei for several reasons -- the most important is that it does not have an in lens shutter, and neither does the Hy6 -- so there would be no shutter. Beyond that, Hasselblad V (and F) lenses are entirely mechanical (the FE lenses have contacts only to transmit aperture information for the metering), and the Hy6 entirely electronic. This is before any difference in flange to focal plane is taken into account. In any case, it would be extremely difficult to adapt lenses from the Hassie onto the Hy6.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Tom -- the Hassie 110/2 will not work on the Rollei for several reasons -- the most important is that it does not have an in lens shutter, and neither does the Hy6 -- so there would be no shutter. Beyond that, Hasselblad V (and F) lenses are entirely mechanical (the FE lenses have contacts only to transmit aperture information for the metering), and the Hy6 entirely electronic. This is before any difference in flange to focal plane is taken into account. In any case, it would be extremely difficult to adapt lenses from the Hassie onto the Hy6.
Thanks Stuart and now when you say it I feel kind of stupid that I didnt think of the "missing" leaf shutter...
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Tom, I thought you were referring to the Rollei version for your Sinar -- AIUI they are the same optics and the Rollei version will work on your camera. Of course it is priced like all other Rollei gear ;)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Tom, I thought you were referring to the Rollei version for your Sinar -- AIUI they are the same optics and the Rollei version will work on your camera. Of course it is priced like all other Rollei gear ;)
Yes,
I thought of the Rollei version. (however I was interested if the Hassy version would work as well because you get in for quit lower prices. But of course it doesnt work).
The problem with the Rollei 110 I havent seen one used so far (whereas its no problem to find nearly all other Rollei lenses used.)
Either nobody owns the Rollei 110 or it is so good that nobody wants to give it away.
Rollei has a special offer for the 110 going on which means about 35% reduction of the list price so I might jump on this if I dont find a used copy. Would need to sell some other stuff therefore.
 
So far I am fine with the 54LV but I could really use 1-2 steps better ISO performance. I really recommend to include the ISO-needs into your evaluation of backs.
carstenw said:
I am not planning to do any MF DB shooting without a tripod, and will do all my shooting at base ISO. The ISO is not a problem for me. I also rarely shoot my M8 at even 640, and usually at 160, sometimes at 320. I expect that the 54LV is okay at 200?
I'm sure I'll regret bringing this up, but if you guys look at this thread:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1846&page=3

you'll see that the 54LV doesn't actually "do" ISO variation, it underexposes (as do a lot of backs, apparently).
Don't get hung up on quoted ISO performance; just underexpose a little if you need to, but know at what level you hit unacceptable noise (which will vary by image DR).
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I'm sure I'll regret bringing this up, but if you guys look at this thread:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1846&page=3

you'll see that the 54LV doesn't actually "do" ISO variation, it underexposes (as do a lot of backs, apparently).
Don't get hung up on quoted ISO performance; just underexpose a little if you need to, but know at what level you hit unacceptable noise (which will vary by image DR).
I dont know if ISO-variation is anything else than in camera/in software underexposing+pushing.
What I see so far from the 54LV 200 ISO looks fine and 400ISO looks "ok" in the higher and midtones but not great in shaddows.
 
Top