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!

Finally, my move to mf digital (h4d-50)

bahr

New member
Friends, I have been an avid reader on this forum for a long time. I have been using my trusty d3x and before that my old d2x for all of my professional work and now the opportunity has arrived for me to take what seems to be a decent offer on a used h4d-50 camera. I will take the camera tomorrow but without any lenses. Camera has 13000 exposures on it and is just over one year old and is in mint condition.

Currently my eyes are on the 35-90 as a first lens as i think it would be one of the most useful lenses for me but the cost of it is mental. Any suggestions?

Can't wait to post a first pic with it and join the discussions.

Regards,

B :toocool:
 
With out knowing what you are going to be shooting with it...I'd recommend the 35mm fixed lens and 100 2.2 lens plus a 1.7x teleconverter. I think you will be covered with more focal lengths that way and if you buy those used. You can probably get them all for less than the price of a new 35-90. If you are doing any tight portraiture/beauty, I'd also recommend an extension tube. If you are only doing landscapes, the 35-90 should be great.

Enjoy,
Josh
 

bahr

New member
Hi, i appreciate the response. I was actually considering that option aswell. I test drove both the 35 and the 100 but wasn't sure about the 35. It seemed sharp but everything I read about the 35-90 seems to imply that it replaces the primes within that range. I shoot a mix of things like fashion and portraiture to industrial and architectural work. In an ideal situation my wish list would be 28, 35-90 and 120mm. Along with an arca Swiss f camera. :) but I need to be gradual and selective for now. Ive been looking online and in the uk and used prices seem really high for most of these lenses so not sure on how much I could save buying used.
 
I bought all my lenses used. I live in the US but got he 100 2.2 from london and the 35 from Denmark. Of course, I waited a little bit to find a good price for lenses in great condition. I actually use the 100 2.2 with the 1.7x and/or ext tube for beauty. i tested that against the 120 macro and my setup was actually a tad sharper than the 120 macro (version 1). Plus it's a lot lighter and smaller. I'll upgrade fro the 35 to the 35-90 at some point, but I have an 80 too. And there are a bunch of other lighting things I want to buy that are more important to me. I do think the 35-90 is a tiny bit sharper than the 35, but not enough for me to not have the 100. The 100 is sharpest lens I've used, just amazing. The 35-90 won't replace what that lens can do...
 

evgeny

Member
I use 110mm and 50mm II for fashion & portraits, and 120mm II for macro & still life. All are excellent, sharp lenses. The 110mm is small, while 50 II and 120 II are big and heavier lenses.

I suppose the 35-90 is ever bigger and heavier, so it is not in my wish list. However it is also a great lens.

This is a 50mm II photo converted to black & white

 

bahr

New member
Hi, that 50mk 2 looks really good. I decided to bite the bullet and take the 35-90. I have taken the camera today along with the new lens and can't wait to start shooting with it. Will post some pics soon.
 

symbolphoto

New member
Enjoy it. I shoot with a H3DII-31 and the 35-90 and 100 2.2 lenses. Love the setup. You can see some of my work on flickr. I shoot mostly weddings though. May be boring for those not interested in that space.

I was recently in Dubai, loved it there. Great place and country overall. Are you in actual Dubai or in a surrounding city?
 

bahr

New member
Hi, I'm based in Dubai. I've been here for around 5 years now. I tried the 100mm aswell and really liked it. I chose the 35-90 because it seemed to be a great range and all of the reviews rave about it. A little steep on the wallet but should prove to be a great lens. Any comments regarding the lens?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I bought all my lenses used. I live in the US but got he 100 2.2 from london and the 35 from Denmark. Of course, I waited a little bit to find a good price for lenses in great condition. I actually use the 100 2.2 with the 1.7x and/or ext tube for beauty. i tested that against the 120 macro and my setup was actually a tad sharper than the 120 macro (version 1). Plus it's a lot lighter and smaller. I'll upgrade fro the 35 to the 35-90 at some point, but I have an 80 too. And there are a bunch of other lighting things I want to buy that are more important to me. I do think the 35-90 is a tiny bit sharper than the 35, but not enough for me to not have the 100. The 100 is sharpest lens I've used, just amazing. The 35-90 won't replace what that lens can do...
FY, like most Macro lenses, the HC120 Macro is optimized for close-up work, especially the 1:1 or 1:2 ratio ... and one has to take care with de-fraction with this lens ... stopping it down too far causes serious degradation of image quality. f/8 is optimal and f/11 usable ... beyond that you will see some IQ effect depending on what sensor and meg count.

I tested the 100/2.2 with tubes against the 120/4 v-1 using a 39 multi-shot camera, and the 120 won hands down for flash lit product work.

The advantage of the 100/2.2 is that it can be used on the HTS/1.5, and the 120 cannot (according to Hasselblad).

-Marc
 

symbolphoto

New member
Hi, I'm based in Dubai. I've been here for around 5 years now. I tried the 100mm aswell and really liked it. I chose the 35-90 because it seemed to be a great range and all of the reviews rave about it. A little steep on the wallet but should prove to be a great lens. Any comments regarding the lens?
Yes, it's large and heavy, as to be expected with a zoom. But the quality is unquestionable. I have full confidence using it in just about any situation. I had to do a heavy crop of a photo 2 years ago, and it held up extremely well. That's when i knew that lens was worth it's weight in gold.

I wish i could say the same for many Canon zooms. The 24-70, forget about it.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I would recommend HCD 28mm and either 100mm or 150mm and x1.7 Teleconverter.
They are great setup in combination with HCD 35-90mm.
You will love this zoom especially when you shoot to the sun or night light, no comparison with Nikon 24-70mm.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I would recommend HCD 28mm and either 100mm or 150mm and x1.7 Teleconverter.
They are great setup in combination with HCD 35-90mm.
You will love this zoom especially when you shoot to the sun or night light, no comparison with Nikon 24-70mm.
I agree, and just advised another recent H shooter the exact same set-up. If you get the 150, try to find the "N" version ... but the version 1 is no slouch by any measure, if money is an issue.

-Marc
 

evgeny

Member
I would recommend HCD 28mm and either 100mm or 150mm and x1.7 Teleconverter.
They are great setup in combination with HCD 35-90mm.
You will love this zoom especially when you shoot to the sun or night light, no comparison with Nikon 24-70mm.
The HCD 28mm has a smaller 36 x 27 area of coverage, comparing to 64 x 48 in 35 - 90mm lens. These sizes are in centimeters. What does it mean?

Thanks
Evgeny
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
Hi Evgeny,

Sorry, I don't know about the numbers of the coverage areas but practically both HCD 28mm and HCD 35-90mm have good coverage for H4D-40 and 50. Both lenses have no problem of vignette with Cokins X-Pro filter holder.
Marc probably can answer you about the coverage area.
HCD 28mm is also very good with HTS 1.5.
I used to have an HC 150mm and it was outstanding.

Regards,

Pramote
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The HCD 28mm has a smaller 36 x 27 area of coverage, comparing to 64 x 48 in 35 - 90mm lens. These sizes are in centimeters. What does it mean?

Thanks
Evgeny
Hmm, are you sure those numbers are correct.

The 28mm and 35-90mm are HCD (Digital) lenses with a little less coverage compared to HC lenses (HC lenses were originally designed to cover a full 645 film area).

Both of the HCD lenses completely cover the 1.3X 31 and 40 meg backs ... fully cover the 1.1X 39 and 50 meg backs, and trim a small amount of the 60meg back resulting in about 54 meg captures.

Marc
 

evgeny

Member
Hi Evgeny,

Sorry, I don't know about the numbers of the coverage areas but practically both HCD 28mm and HCD 35-90mm have good coverage for H4D-40 and 50. Both lenses have no problem of vignette with Cokins X-Pro filter holder.
Marc probably can answer you about the coverage area.
HCD 28mm is also very good with HTS 1.5.
I used to have an HC 150mm and it was outstanding.

Regards,

Pramote
I believe the HCD 28mm has a crop factor on H4D-60.

Can someone explain why area of coverage is in centimeters, not millimeters?

Thanks
Evgeny
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
Yes, I know that.
This is one of the 2 main reasons holding me off getting H4X to use with my Phase One IQ 180 (I believe it will be trimmed to 72 MP).
Pramote
 
Top