MF telephoto focal length choice for landscapes (x/post)

[Jamgolf]

I'm seeking advise regarding choice of a telephoto focal-length/lens primarily for landscapes.
Generally I rely on my image archives to determine which focal lengths I tend to shoot and do well with. But as I've been more of a wide angle & standard focal length guy, I do not have large enough collection of images on the telephoto end.

I find some images in the 500mm plus range very appealing with their compression and the isolation... but such lenses tend to become extra ordinarily large. I owned a Hasselblad 250 Superachromat with a Pentax 645D, (approximately ~190mm in 135FF terms). Its image quality was brilliant but sometimes I felt it did not have enough reach. With 54x40 MF it would be ~160mm in 135FF terms i.e. even a wider angle of view.

Questions:
1. What do you consider a good focal length (in 135FF terms), for telephoto landscapes?
2. What are your favorite lenses on the telephoto end, for landscapes?
3. Can you please share some images with some focal length, sensor info and approximate distance from subject?

Thank you very much for your insight.

PS: Some examples of the type of images I have in mind are here.

 

[jamesdfloyd]

For what it is worth...

I use a Phase One 150mm L/S to do some panoramics when the scene requires more than the "normal" 80mm...

 

[Jamgolf]

For what it is worth...

I use a Phase One 150mm L/S to do some panoramics when the scene requires more than the "normal" 80mm...

Thanks for your input.
I had an SK150 for a brief period of time and then traded it in toward my IQ3 back, it is a very good lens but I do not feel 150mm (96mm in 135FF terms) is long enough for the type of compressed/macro images I have in mind. I am thinking ~200mm 135FF as probably minimum. Unfortunately there aren't that many options.

 

[vjbelle]

A shame you sold your SK150 as its a marvelous lens which I have used often for landscapes. I also have the Schneider 180mm which gives me a little more reach and when necessary I can always crop for further reach. I have found that I use my Schneider 120mm and 180mm lenses the most for landscape. My last post in 'Tech camera images' was taken with my 120mm which was perfect for the distance. I've actually found that 180mm is just a tad long for some of my landscape needs. I also don't use 135ff lenses with diagonal measurement for comparison pusposes but rather try to concentrate on the horizontal angle. At that point the 150mm Schneider is closer to a 100mm 135FF lens just with added vertical information.

Victor

 

[dchew]

I have been on the fence in regards to a 210mm for the Alpa. I think the 135mm eq is a very good FL. So is 180-200mm eq, but no way I wan't to carry that around for the occasional use; I would just crop.

But if I ever get a 210 it would be a special order or something sent to Grimes for a "double SB" length. I'd mount (2) 34mm adapters so the lens itself wouldn't be so long.

Dave

 

[vjbelle]

I toyed with getting a Schneider 210 in copal 0 but put it off..... now they are all gone. In a copal 0 the lens is actually fairly small and light as is the 180mm. That's one of the reasons I switched from Alpa to Actus..... my backpack has become much more manageable.

Victor

 

[Jamgolf]

I actually purchased this Hasselblad V adaptor for Cambo WRS

And I am thinking about trying a Hasselblad 250 or 350 Superachromat. Not sure which one yet.
I used to own the 250SA before and was impressed by the image quality, 350SA will offer more reach but is much larger.

 

[algrove]

When you discuss different systems and formats it makes it extremely diffcult to answer your question if one has never had a WRS.

If you want IQ100 sensor comments let me know as I use 110, 150, 240 and the 2x on the last two lenses.

 

[Jamgolf]

When you discuss different systems and formats it makes it extremely diffcult to answer your question if one has never had a WRS.

If you want IQ100 sensor comments let me know as I use 110, 150, 240 and the 2x on the last two lenses.

I am sorry about the confusion. I did not intend to discuss different systems/formats. I am simply asking about choices of focal length users think are suitable for telephoto landscapes. This is obviously subjective with personal preferences involved.

How do you find your 150 and 240 with the 2x?
Would be great to see some 240+2x images if you can share some.

Cheers!

 

[Geoff]

OK, here's a try .

Typically liked the 150mm as my tele of choice, but have also enjoyed the Schneider 300 Apo on the Rollei. Its remarkable, very clear and sharp. The first two shots below were taken with it, the first is a 50% crop, and probably with a shorter lens would have lost its detail. In a real print, you can see the spider webs around the log. The last shot was also taken with the 300, at the end of a long canal lock, and also not really feasible with a shorter lens. (sorry for the out of order).

That said, I'm rather frustrated with the size and weight of this lens, so have recently been trying a Zeiss 250, about half the size. Its not as good wide open, but practically (and good enough for me) equal at f11. Tested its sharpness with a 1.4TX on an infinity object (second shot), and the two lenses were comparable.

 

[Jamgolf]

OK, here's a try .

Typically liked the 150mm as my tele of choice, but have also enjoyed the Schneider 300 Apo on the Rollei. Its remarkable, very clear and sharp. The first two shots below were taken with it, the first is a 50% crop, and probably with a shorter lens would have lost its detail. In a real print, you can see the spider webs around the log. The last shot was also taken with the 300, at the end of a long canal lock, and also not really feasible with a shorter lens. (sorry for the out of order).

That said, I'm rather frustrated with the size and weight of this lens, so have recently been trying a Zeiss 250, about half the size. Its not as good wide open, but practically (and good enough for me) equal at f11. Tested its sharpness with a 1.4TX on an infinity object (second shot), and the two lenses were comparable.

Thanks Geoff, thats exactly what I am talking about.
I think for the more intimate and compressed compositions focal lengths 300mm plus are probably appropriate and as you said "...with a shorter lens would have lost its detail".
Although I think lens' physical size/weight defintely can become a limiting factor. How big/heavy is the Schneider 300APO?

Thank you very much for sharing the photographs too.
I think the first one in particlar is an interesting composition that would be lost with a shorter lens.

 

[algrove]

I am sure others can provide more images than I, but nevertheless I have no problem using the 2x and even find the corners are not problematic for me, either with the 150 or 240 (a massive setup with required RRS rail).

 

[jng]

I actually purchased this Hasselblad V adaptor for Cambo WRS...

And I am thinking about trying a Hasselblad 250 or 350 Superachromat. Not sure which one yet.
I used to own the 250SA before and was impressed by the image quality, 350SA will offer more reach but is much larger.

By all accounts the 350SA is superb but it's a beast, rare on the used market and also *very* expensive if you can find one in decent condition. I am currently using the Hassy 350 CF Tele-Tessar with a 60 Mp IQ160 back. It's definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed and suffers from purple fringing (mostly manageable in C1), but renders quite nicely at sub-pixel peeping magnification. I myself am in the market for a good copy of a 250SA (just returned one to seller because of a misalignment issue) - also somewhat rare but not as crazy expensive as the 350SA.

Have you considered the 500mm Tele-Apotessar? Its MTF specs are significantly better than the 350 Tele-Tessar's and I've seen them for under $2000. Note that with the 350 or 500, using a support rail is essential.

BTW, where did you find the CF-Cambo adapter? I'm considering moving into a tech camera (this is, after all, Dante's forum) and being able to use some of my CF lenses would be a plus.

- John

 

[GrahamWelland]

I'm with Geoff.

150mm or 240mm on tech cam and similar on my XF, although the 300/4.5 APO works well for me too. Remember you can also always crop with MFDB if you have the resolution so no real need for the Bazooka 400 - 600mm behemoths from 35mm. That said, you can never have enough focal length as an option, even if it sits in the car most of the time. However, that ONE time ... :thumbup:

 

[Jamgolf]

I myself am in the market for a good copy of a 250SA ... also somewhat rare but not as crazy expensive as the 350SA.

Right, 250SA is not only as crazy expensive as the 350SA but is also smaller and more manageable.

Have you considered the 500mm Tele-Apotessar? Its MTF specs are significantly better than the 350 Tele-Tessar's and I've seen them for under $2000. Note that with the 350 or 500, using a support rail is essential.

Had not considered that option. Sounds interesting. I'll have to do some research on this

BTW, where did you find the CF-Cambo adapter? I'm considering moving into a tech camera (this is, after all, Dante's forum) and being able to use some of my CF lenses would be a plus.

Ebay. From an individual based in South Korea, with stellar ebay feedback.

 

[jng]

Ebay. From an individual based in South Korea, with stellar ebay feedback.

Could you please send me a PM with info on the seller? Thanks!

 

[jng]

Here's an example of the perspective/compression possible with a 350mm lens on a 40x54mm sensor (image is full width, only cropped vertically).

Campanile at dusk by John Ngai, on Flickr

350mm f/5.6 Tele-Tessar | 501CM | IQ160 | f/11 | 10 s | ISO50

 

[beano_z]

There was this thread from not so long ago, which had some nice options posed:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59574-300mm-iq3-100-efc.html

I got the Hassy tele-superachromat 350 F/5.6, thinking I was going to shoot some portraits with it, but turns out this thing is really a tripod beats, or at least requires a monopod, oddly, not to encounter motion blur, but to make sure I can focus it properly and maintain focus, as with everything MF, the DoF is so narrow it's not even funny.



XF With Zeiss 350 - 05-Sep-2016 by BB, on Flickr

But I guess for landscape work, this thing should be fine, on a good stable tripod and head, I couldn't fault it's sharpness on the IQ 100MP, even in the corners, even at close range focus (don't look at the moon shot in the linked thread, that one was taken under extreme conditions, i.e. on a very small tripod with the center column fully extended and long exposure on a moving moon).

Here's a sample of a portrait I took, not sure if this could be of any reference for you.

 

[Deltona]

Since my move into Medium Format, I have found that I am pretty happy with the 210mm, its sharp, contrasty and quite hand holdable. I like the telephoto for my landscape work, when I have looked through my lightroom catalogue my most used lens last year was the Fuji 55-200 paired with my XT1. The 210mm does not have the same reach but I find the 135mm equivalent to be more than enough.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I never really used my MFD kit (Hassy 555/ELE + P45+) for long telephoto work, but I found that the Sonnar 180/4 + Hasselblad Converter X2 was a usable combination.

Examples, fully open and stopped down two stops:
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/Sonnar-180-2x/Gallery/

Best regards
Erik