Sonnar 180 vs Sonnar 150 for landscape photography

[mikael_larsson]

Many of you seem to prefer the Sonnar 180 over the Sonnar 150 for

portraits, but what about landscape photo with the Sonnar 180 lens?

 

I would like to hear from you who do that kind of photography with the

180 what you subjectively think about the coverage and perspective of

the lens for scenics as well as smaller landscapes such as inside

forrests and the like. Do you find the 180 too long in focal length

for some applications and that it needs a complementary shorter tele

lens?

 

I feel that the Sonnar 150 is very flexible and I use it together with

a Distagon 50 without any need for anything in between. That might be

the critical difference betweeen the 150 and the 180.

 

One reason for me to consider a Sonnar 180 instead of my Sonnar CF 150

is for usage together with my Mutar 2X, where the 180 might give a

better resulting image quality than the 150 when used with the

converter and with a slide film like Velvia and a sturdy tripod.

 

Any thoughts about this?

 

Best regards

[thomas_breazeale1]

Mikael,

The 180 is not only well suited for portraits but also makes a very nice landscape lens.It is very sharp with high resolution and performs well with film such as Velvia or E100VS.I use mine almost exclusivly for outdoor use such as in wooded areas,for tighter scenics when wanted and recently took some wonderful closeups of Wawel Castle in Krakow with this lens.Every lens has it's limitations Mikael including the 180.What is your intended purpose of each image?Do you want more or less depth of field?I carry a 50,a 60-120zoom and a 180 and at times still feel the need for a little more focal distance than the 180 can handle.I am considering buying a Mutar for this lens also just for times like this.A sturdy tripod 'is a given'. Regards, Tom

[greg_jones1]

I have both lenses and find that, at least in my applications, they are very different performers. I too shoot landscapes, and find I usually go with the 180 as I tend to favor longer lenses. The 180mm has higher contrast than the 150 (in my specimens) which is not to say that the 150 is a low contrast lens. I shoot a lot of color negative and the differences come through quite clearly in terms of color saturation and contrast. However, I just printed some color prints taken with the 150 of some ferns with somewhat lower color saturation that are beautiful. Generally, the 180 is sharper than the 150 particularly wide open but most sharpness differences disappear at f8.

 

Before I ramble on incessantly about the virtues of these remarkable lenses, I would recommend the 180 simply because you indicate you want to use it with a 2X. This tells me you are looking for that long reach capability, and the 180 performs better with the 2X than the 150.

[elgenper]

Mikael, I don´t think anything in the Hasselblad line is sharper and crisper than the 180, and it works very well with the Mutar 2x too, even wide open (get the old, German Mutar, not the new "Extender" model!). To put it succinctly, it is "skarp som fan".<br><br> That said, the 180 is longer and heavier than the 150, and of course a narrower angle of view. I feel the 180 is a better complement to the 80 than the 150 would be, and if you are keen on sharpness, you might prefer the 100 to the 80, which would bias the choice even more in favour of the 180.<br><br>Nobody but you can decide which angle of view would be best within your own system, and the 150 isn´t exactly bad either.<br><br>Btw, I´m selling my entire ´Blad outfit shortly, simply too heavy for me in the field on my old days :-( If you´re interested in any of these items, contact me directly. I´m in Stockholm.

[mikael_larsson]

Thanks for your comments!

 

Yes, I have to make a more or less intelligent decision on what to buy. One issue is that today, I use the Distagon 50 and the Sonnar 150 for landscapes and my S-Planar 120 T* for close-ups only. I have tested the S-Planar on infinity against the 150. The 120 is quite good to very good at f/11 - f/16, but not quite the same as the 150, in terms of edge sharpness, saturation and contrast. (In close-ups on the other hand it is superb.)

 

With a 180, another short tele lens (or a long normal lens, if you prefer) is likely to be needed and the 120 would then be a good complement in terms of angle of view. However, for usage at infinity, the situation is that one of the lenses is superbly sharp and contrasty and the other one is 'just' very good but not spectacular since it is a macro lens.

 

This somehow indicates that if one buys a 180, a need for yet another lens, such as a Planar 100, is raised if image quality is of concern.

[cameron_ertman]

I use the 180mm with the "newer" version of the 2X and the 1.4X. Both converters produce exceptional sharpness and clarity when combined with the 180mm (with only a one stop light loss with the 1.4X, the viewfinder image is still nice and bright; also, I highly doubt that the older 2X mutar is any better than the new 2X...at least mine works great). Also remember that Zeiss (not Hasselblad) recommends this lens for close-up work as an alternative to the 120mm and the 135mm when you need to work farther away from the subject, or when you want a narrower angle of view in the background area. All in all, the 180mm is exceptional.

[bengt_rehn]

It seems that you feel very comfortable with the angle of wiew from the Sonnar 150. The Sonnar 180 is better if you want to use the converter, but you may suffer more by missing the angle of wiew from the 150. You said that you didn´t miss anything between the 50 and 150mm lenses, else would an alternative be to get the CF 100, CF 180 and a 1,4 XE. You will get a good 140/4,5 and 250/5,6 this way. If possible, try to get a good deal on a 180 and find out for yourself if you can live without one of the lenses. You may know that the Sonnar 150 has less vignetting than the Sonnar 180. LYCKA TILL!

[brant_carroll]

The following is 'inside the forest' (a rain forest in Washington State) shot with the 180 CFI. Cropped horizontally but full frame vertically.Very sharp lens for capturing the details. I use it with a 32mm extension tube for fungi, leaves, details. It aint light to carry but I wouldn't trade it.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/740385

[tom_thumbnail]

How would the 180 work out being handheld on a 1.6 crop body (Canon EOS with adapter?) Is this 180 what they call the "Zebra?"

[q.g._de_bakker]

Nope.<br>The 'Zebra' is a Zeiss Jena lens. This 180 mm is a Zeiss Oberkochen lens.<br><br>The 180 mm (any) lens will work as good on an Eos as it does on a Hasselblad. Whether a Canon 180 mm lens wouldn't be about as good, and a lot more convenient to boot, is another matter. ;-)