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!
The 250/5.6 is a good deal lighter than the XCD 135+1.7x, but point taken. I wish I had something this long in Iceland, where breaks in the clouds could light up a snow-field in the distance on the side of a mountain. The 135 by itself, given that it is f/2.8, looks like it would be a pretty good portrait lens for head shots. If I had to carry the 120 or the 135, I'd choose the 120 for its macro capability.I am interested in the 135 xcd, but I cant imagine using some big manual focus lens around. Would probably rather use a fast ff camera and tele lens, with nice fast AF.
However, the 120 does not accept the teleconverter (120 vs. 135x1.7=230).The 250/5.6 is a good deal lighter than the XCD 135+1.7x, but point taken. I wish I had something this long in Iceland, where breaks in the clouds could light up a snow-field in the distance on the side of a mountain. The 135 by itself, given that it is f/2.8, looks like it would be a pretty good portrait lens for head shots. If I had to carry the 120 or the 135, I'd choose the 120 for its macro capability.
Yes, I'd rather not carry the 1.7x. It's not a light piece - heavier than either of the XCD 45's. It's all tradeoffs, and we all have our own utility functions, and we don't optimize with our heads.However, the 120 does not accept the teleconverter (120 vs. 135x1.7=230).
Interesting option, what focal length were these shot at and how much does IQ / corner sharpness vary in the zoom range?Inspired by @Ed Hurst , I picked up a Pentax 67 55-100/4.5 zoom. Stellar optics! So here is a good "mount it on a tripod and shoot at f/11" zoom. Not, heavy. Really sharp. I took the same (boring) picture with it on the Leica S3 at 55mm, 70mm, and 100mm. On the X2D at the same, and then for fun, the S3 with the S70/2.5 at f/11.
These were all at 70mm so I could compare to the Leica S70. I guess I can do 90 and 100 to compare those focal lengths with Hassy and Leica primes. (I don’t have the XCD 65.) Since it’s a 67 lens, you never get near the corners on a 44x33 sensor . I wanted to just shoot as one might rather than doing a resolution test. But Ed shoots this lens on a GFX 100s(?).Interesting option, what focal length were these shot at and how much does IQ / corner sharpness vary in the zoom range?
Also, what size are the front filter threads?
Exactly!I find my most used lens in medium format is at maximum sharpness and micro contrast at F8 and that is my Hassselblad 100mm 3.5 CFI.
For me, 100% of the point of the X2D is the 100MP in resolution and with ski area clients and wealthy home owners who often want to display images in the range of 4'-10' feet, it really does make a difference. To me, one of the most rewarding aspects of large format printing for these uses is that with an incredible image, one can take the entire 72" wide print in as a moment in time and then be able to keep walking closer to it right up to reading distance and to have it keep giving you more and more. That just blows people's minds.
I recently took delivery of a Fotodiox tilt-shift adapter for my V lenses on the X2D. So far it seems as though it will help keep me out of the F16+ range and that ought to help retain overall sharpness and micro contrast. My only quibble with it is the too small and therefore somewhat delicate tilt axis lock screw. It really needs to be cranked down on a lens like the 180 CFI so I will have to be patient and careful with it.
I did some tests and you are correct. The corners improve as you stop down and everything is equally unsharp at f/11. At 55mm, the center outresolves the sensor - strong Moiré - even wide open. That is fading at f/8 and gone at f/11. F/16 is mush. Of course, we’re talking mush at 300%.All I know is on my GFX 100, f11 looks significantly worse, in terms of microcontrast and finer detail, compared to f8, on all my lenses. That’s all I’m saying. If that’s not an issue for you, well, that is 100% legit. But then it’s a shame about those 100 MPs