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!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

SK Blue Ring 150mm f/2.8 LS

Mikec

New member
Honeslty, I can't say so far. I had it for 3 days and only did some minor testing. It feels great, but big. I have to say the 240 feels better handheld. I will report back after I collected further impressions.
Christopher,

Any further impressions to share?

Thanks,
Mike
 

hcubell

Active member
It's a bottomless money pit trying to keep up with minuscule improvements. No thanks
Save up until Phase releases the Platinum Ring Lenses above the Blue Ring Lenses. Those will be REALLY good, and the FUD that you can't take a worthwhile photograph without them will overwhelm you.

I just had two teeth extracted yesterday, and I am debating whether it is more important to me to upgrade from an IQ 180 to an IQ3 100 or replace the two teeth with implants.
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
Save up until Phase releases the Platinum Ring Lenses above the Blue Ring Lenses. Those will be REALLY good, and the FUD that you can't take a worthwhile photograph without them will overwhelm you.

I just had two teeth extracted yesterday, and I am debating whether it is more important to me to upgrade from an IQ 180 to an IQ3 100 or replace the two teeth with implants.
Last time I checked it was $26,000 PLUS my IQ180 to get the IQ3 100. Again, no thanks.
 

Christopher

Active member
The lens handls well. However, I have only used it for a couple of hand held shots. I needed a 150 which is sharp corner to corner as soon as possible and here it is a dream. Much better then the 150/3,5. It's a dream to be able to shoot a panorama ad f4 or even 2,5 and not having to use a 50% overlap.

In terms of quality I have only seen some otus come to that level.

It is heavy and expensive, but it is certainly one of the best lenses out there.

I will report back after more use hand held, but that might take some time. Quite busy here.
 

Mgreer316

Member
A lot of discussion about the weight of this lens plus the XF. But what about that combo PLUS the new V-Grip? That'll be what, 57lbs.? :)
 
Last edited:

aztwang

Member
OK rented this lens this weekend. It is a beast but handles beautiful, using the smooth base of the lens as great spot for left hand rest/steady mount.
I have found that the AF seems to hunt noticeably more than the 150 3.5 and AF speed is not as quick as the 3.5.
Im going to run it thru it's paces again tomorrow and see if this still holds true.
 

Mikec

New member
It's definitely quite a beast. After shooting with it for a bit, the 120mm seems portable! I noticed the AF not as quick as the 150mm f/3.5 as well. However, the extra speed and closer minimum focus distance are important to me. It's the perfect 150mm for me.

OK rented this lens this weekend. It is a beast but handles beautiful, using the smooth base of the lens as great spot for left hand rest/steady mount.
I have found that the AF seems to hunt noticeably more than the 150 3.5 and AF speed is not as quick as the 3.5.
Im going to run it thru it's paces again tomorrow and see if this still holds true.
 

aztwang

Member
It's definitely quite a beast. After shooting with it for a bit, the 120mm seems portable! I noticed the AF not as quick as the 150mm f/3.5 as well. However, the extra speed and closer minimum focus distance are important to me. It's the perfect 150mm for me.
Mike,
The size of the 150 2.8 LS I is very manageable and fits my left hand like a glove. I prefer to handle the 150 2.8LS over the 110 2.8LS. I find
others complaining about the size a bit confusing. I shoot a Nikon D810 with the "Chub", Nikon 200 f2 for 2 1/2 hours handheld and it's not a struggle.
That set up is just shy of 10lbs and the XF/150 2.8LS is 6.7 lbs. So for me, it's a nice weight and balances the XF very nicely.
Any problems with AF hunting to lock on?

Don

XF & 150mm 2.8 @ ISO100-f4-1/250th
CF011734.jpg
 

DrakeJ

New member
I have decided not to pursue this lens. Even when testing the 150 3.5LS I found the autofocus to be subpar, if the 2.8LS is worse that's not really acceptable.

The 150 2.8D is perfect (except for lack of LS), quick and accurate autofocus, low weight. It's sharpness is very impressive as well, I don't find it lacking at all.

aztwang: As for handholding a Nikon D810 with the 200mm f/2 for 2 and a 1/2 hours without struggle, what on earth are you made of? :)
 

aztwang

Member
I have decided not to pursue this lens. Even when testing the 150 3.5LS I found the autofocus to be subpar, if the 2.8LS is worse that's not really acceptable.

The 150 2.8D is perfect (except for lack of LS), quick and accurate autofocus, low weight. It's sharpness is very impressive as well, I don't find it lacking at all.

aztwang: As for handholding a Nikon D810 with the 200mm f/2 for 2 and a 1/2 hours without struggle, what on earth are you made of? :)
HA HA. I've been doing it a long time never thought much of it. I shoot my 400 2.8 handheld as well. I find shooting sports on a monopod to be too restrictive and ditched the monopod about 6 years ago. I admit the 400 is a work out and at times I set it down between plays. Hell sometimes I do some curls with the 400 to tone the arms in between plays...LOL

Back to the original subject. As far as the hunting goes, I was in a strong back lit situation thus the retest tomorrow. I dont want to sell it short, cuz honestly I want one as long as it checks out. The focus speed is just an
observation, not a complaint. The files that I did shoot look good, but it was a client shoot and I couldnt take much time to do cpmparitive images.
I'll be able to compare files tomorrow and have a better idea.

Cheers


Don
 
I just received my 150mm lens, and yes it is big, but we are all perfectionists that want the best image, right? I have to add the autofocus does seem extremely accurate. I spent the day performing the focus trim procedure for the first time, to make sure the lens would be as sharp as possible in autofocus mode. I learned a couple of important things.
Firstly, the lens was very close to being spot on; only a small adjustment was needed (and for my 80mm lens,zero adjustment- good job Phase One).
The amazing thing, however, is that when comparing autofocus images to my manual focused images, I learned that my ability to manually focus is not even close!!!! I only learned this because the tests were done with the lens wide open, and photographing a test target, which was then magnified at 100% in Capture One. This is quite a revelation to see that my manual focus ability did not even come close to the autofocus in accuracy- some images were in fact way off- the test target was a blur. I did the test with other lenses (80, 120mm) and the same results.
It is very surprising to think that all these years I used manual focus for landscape work, because I felt it was more accurate, and it may have been the opposite. My results were probably masked by the fact that I usually stopped down at least a few stops for depth of field.
Amazing.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
I call that, "Welcome to middle-aged eyes." :ROTFL:

I like the new 150 2.8 LS. It's actually more hand-holdable than I thought it would be, though I still prefer to lock down on a tripod. And that blue ring---very fashionable. :D
 

Christopher

Active member
I like the 72mm filter thread lenses just fine. My 35 and 240 are enough weight.
True, but to compare both 150 isn't fair. The 2.8 is way heavier and much better optically. I have both and will still use both, but the 150 2.8 is one of the sharpest (across the whole frame) lenses I have ever seen.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
True, but to compare both 150 isn't fair. The 2.8 is way heavier and much better optically. I have both and will still use both, but the 150 2.8 is one of the sharpest (across the whole frame) lenses I have ever seen.
I'm holding you and Ken and others posting here responsible for my beginning - just beginning - to consider getting this lens. I don't need it. I have the BR3.5. I like the BR3.5.

But what can I do about lust? Damned Dante.
 

Christopher

Active member
I think its important to think about the usage situation. It's certainly no lens one really wants to go hiking with. Or at least I'm happy to take a lighter version for that. For everything else it's just amazing.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I think its important to think about the usage situation. It's certainly no lens one really wants to go hiking with. Or at least I'm happy to take a lighter version for that. For everything else it's just amazing.
I did not need to know that. The only alternative now is to tell my wife who will quickly pour cold water on the whole idea of acquiring one.
(Sigh...)
 
Top