40-80 LS vs primes

[dougpeterson]

Although i can only speak from a Hasselblad perspective... The only drawback is obviously lens/shutter failure and with a set of lenses you can always bring home some frames (or you just get 2 of everything, i've heard the saying "One is None" which i tend to live by).

In the Hasselblad system there is no focal plane shutter available so the eventual failure of the leaf shutter renders the lens unusable until the leaf shutter is repaired.

In the Phase One system (e.g. using Schneider LS lenses with an XF) in most cases* you can continue to use the lens when, eventually, the leaf shutter fails by using the focal plane shutter instead (i.e. you force the system to ignore the leaf shutter).

In any LS lens I've dealt with the shutter is the most likely failure, followed by the autofocus, followed by the aperture, followed by the electronics. So having a backup shutter (in the form of a focal plane) is a nice failsafe. For IQ3 owners you also get a loaner during any repairs on any lens purchased with the IQ3 kit; won't help you the day of the issue, but limits the downtime to a day as long as you're in a reasonably accessible point on the earth where UPS/FedEx/DHL can find you (e.g. not on Mount Kilimanjaro).

That said "one is none" is a good mentality, as none of the above will save you (the day of) if you drop the lens into a ravine . A great backup lens on the Phase One side would be one of the better older mamiya AF lenses like the Mamiya 80mm or Mamiya 45mm. They are very light, very small, very inexpensive (relative to any new Schneider/Hassy lens) and are reasonably good in quality (read: not as good as a modern super-lens, but much much better than not having a lens at all).

*The exception being if the shutter fails in a closed position or completely disintegrates. Both are, in my experience, less common types of failures.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

I have been shooting SLR and stuff since 1970. None of my systems really failed ever in whatever situation, I was shooting in skyfalls without any protection and I had rain water pouring out of my lenses.

System failures can happen, but discussion like this don't lead anywhere. If your back fails all your lenses and bodies are dead. In the business I come from we would call that a common mode failure.

Whatever system you have, it can fail. To be reasonably safe you need to have a last resort option. It is as simple as that!

Best regards
Erik

In the Hasselblad system there is no focal plane shutter available so the eventual failure of the leaf shutter renders the lens unusable until the leaf shutter is repaired.

In the Phase One system (e.g. using Schneider LS lenses with an XF) in most cases* you can continue to use the lens when, eventually, the leaf shutter fails by using the focal plane shutter instead (i.e. you force the system to ignore the leaf shutter).

In any LS lens I've dealt with the shutter is the most likely failure, followed by the autofocus, followed by the aperture, followed by the electronics. So having a backup shutter (in the form of a focal plane) is a nice failsafe. For IQ3 owners you also get a loaner during any repairs on any lens purchased with the IQ3 kit; won't help you the day of the issue, but limits the downtime to a day as long as you're in a reasonably accessible point on the earth where UPS/FedEx/DHL can find you (e.g. not on Mount Kilimanjaro).

That said "one is none" is a good mentality, as none of the above will save you (the day of) if you drop the lens into a ravine . A great backup lens on the Phase One side would be one of the better older mamiya AF lenses like the Mamiya 80mm or Mamiya 45mm. They are very light, very small, very inexpensive (relative to any new Schneider/Hassy lens) and are reasonably good in quality (read: not as good as a modern super-lens, but much much better than not having a lens at all).

*The exception being if the shutter fails in a closed position or completely disintegrates. Both are, in my experience, less common types of failures.

 

[Wayne Fox]

Hi Doug,

I have been shooting SLR and stuff since 1970. None of my systems really failed ever in whatever situation, I was shooting in skyfalls without any protection and I had rain water pouring out of my lenses.

Erik

I think it’s less about weather than it is about heavy usage.

I’ve been a professional photographer since 1975, and I will tell you that shutter failures can occur, I’ve had them on a couple of occasions, once on my Hasselblad with a lens that probably had 25,000 shots on it (during a wedding, I had to shoot the rest of the wedding with a wide angle). I also had one fail on an RZ67, which wasn’t as serious because it was a 180mm and I also used a 150 mm on that system.

Leaf shutters can wear out. That being said, I think the likelihood is pretty low for most, but working pros can put a lot of wear on a leaf shutter, since most expose 4-8 times the frames as they did when shooting film. I think a fashion shooter could easily wear out a leaf shutter in a few years ... maybe less.

 

[dougpeterson]

I have been shooting SLR and stuff since 1970. None of my systems really failed ever in whatever situation, I was shooting in skyfalls without any protection and I had rain water pouring out of my lenses.

System failures can happen, but discussion like this don't lead anywhere. If your back fails all your lenses and bodies are dead. In the business I come from we would call that a common mode failure.

Whatever system you have, it can fail. To be reasonably safe you need to have a last resort option. It is as simple as that!

Five years of experience in tech support gives me a different experience.

Prioritizing backups based on rate of failure is sensible and effective. Can a well made tripod fail? Technically yes, but statistically I'd rather have an extra hard drive than an extra tripod; one is far more likely to fail than the other. Backs fail as well, but bodies and lenses fail far more often.

 

[Chipcarterdc]

Is there a rated life expectancy for the Blue Ring lenses' leaf shutters?

(For that matter, is there a rated life expectancy for the XF's focal plane shutter?)

Sorry for drifting further off topic: I can start a new thread if that's more appropriate.

 

[hcubell]

I think it’s less about weather than it is about heavy usage.

.

I have very recent experience in Iceland in rain and wind, and that experience tells me that modular medium format digital systems are simply NOT cut out for shooting in adverse weather conditions. My IQ 180 back went wonky first, and then my Hasselblad H2 completely died. I did my very best to protect the camera, the back and the lenses from the elements, but to no avail. $75k worth of gear rendered useless. All those shooting with Canon, Nikon and Fuji systems had no failures. All I can say is never again.

 

[Jeffrey]

Recently I returned from Namibia (Africa) where I was so glad I had the 40-80mm lens. No snow or ice, but dust was a major consideration in changing lenses. Another factor on my trip was a strict weight limit for one bag of 44 lbs (20 kg) which forced my decision on using variable lenses. I prefer to shoot primes but have to say the results achieved with the variable lenses were just great. I'm happy.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Steve,

Zooms have the advantage that cropping can be eliminated in one dimension. It is true that you can zoom with your legs, but moving the camera changes perspective. Moving forward or backward, the relation of sizes changes.

What I have found, shooting with Hasselblad V-series lenses 40/50/80/120/180 or 40/60/100/120/180, is that the subject often just doesn't fit in the angle of view. Changing from 180 to 120 for instance would give me a 24x32 mm crop. In those situations I often resort to stitching two images. Most of the time that works very well. In my MFD period I did a lot of stitching.

The example here demonstrates this. Here I want the pines be a backdrop for the aspen in yellow. So I want to keep distance, because moving forward would make the aspen stick above the backdrop. I am actually standing on a roadbank. Moving back I would have a power cable in the picture, but even worse, I would be standing on the middle of the road with heavy traffic. Moving forward I would get a close and lower position.

Not that easy to find another aspen in good colour with a good backdrop and free foreground. In this case I wanted to have a real good shot, and had some doubts about the lenses I was carrying with the Sony. So, I took both the Sony and the "Blad". The 180 mm was a bit long for the task, and I should have made a stitched image, but I did not (*), with the Sony and Contax/Zeiss zoom 35-135/3.3-4.5 the composition was better, but detail was not so great. So, i went back with the Sony and an old 80-200/2.8 APO G I have and reshot. That image was a very good match the Sonnar 180/4 in image quality but had a better composition. That image was shot at 120 mm, so I would have needed a 160-165 mm lens on the P45+ to match. Or, I could have the 180 mil with a full frame back

The Hassy/P45+ image, here on the left, seems to have less good light than the Sony/Minolta image on the right. Daylight is changing all the time and those changes can be subtle. Here the Hassy/P45+ image was developed in C1 v9.3, but my C1 skills probably don't make the image justice.


So, I find that primes may rule in image quality, but zooms may give the better composition. You can of course carry a large assortment of primes but I tend to keep my lens count a bit low.

Best regards
Erik

(*) What I find sometimes that I find out that one composition works out better than the other in post.

JeRuFo, do you mean good reasons not to switch your primes to zooms? Because I am struggling to find good reasons to switch. There's no major advantage in terms of size/weight, it can save a little money, but if you already have the primes, that's out the window. It is more a convenience of shooting, not of ergonomics. If you want to zoom in or out on your scene, and you are going to be restricted (meaning your zoom legs won't be able to move you), then the functionality of just leaving the zoom on the camera might have some positive allure for some.

But as good as the zooms are - and they are very good - the prime lenses for the XF system are superior optically. Perhaps just a tiny bit in some cases, but in every instance I've tested and compared them, the prime has always won. They are also faster, which may be helpful, and again, the size of a 35mm/55mm/80mm is not really all that different from a single zoom lens, since the zoom lenses are so large.

I'm a bit biased toward primes personally, but aside from the above, it really is a subjective choice in the hands of the user.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[msstudio]

Re: 40-80 LS vs prim

On that note (Iceland), I have to say I like my Canon kit. I now did 3 shoots there over the years, always late winter and spring and my Canons never let down nor did I have any anxiety over reliability etc. my party did travel with Leica S and Hassselblad H kits with Phase One backs which performed well indeed, but the care and backup ups of each set probably exceed most people's idea and means.
As much as I want to advocate (and use) the H6, I had a couple of lockups in just average humidity on the beach in early fall here in NY. Not something I want to deal with on an Icelandic glacier hike (as much as I'm a sucker for great files).