Value of the f2.8 setting of the 80 planar

[doug_penn]

<p>I am an amatuer. I have not taken many pictures with medium format, but I did take a few rolls with my uncles 500c and that was enough to infect me. Actually, just looking at the camera, and the words "Made in Sweden" was enough for that. I have spent hours reading about cameras and lenses and also read some books.<br>

I am building a kit (hopefully only 3 lenses but maybe 4) and I just got a new (never used) CB 60 f3.5 Distagon, which I bought because It was incredibly cheap, (and I like the angle of view of the 50 and the 80) I want to keep the 60CB because it is like a CFi and I will never be able to afford a new lens like this again. Right now my body is a black 501c but I may upgrade that to something with the Gliding mirror.</p>

<p>My idea so far is as follows:<br>

From what I have read, I would like to have a 100 Planar and a 180 Sonnar, either CF or CFi<br>

I have a 150 CFi that I will probably use for a while until I get the 180, then I will sell it.<br>

I am trying to decide if I should have a 80 in the kit just because of the 2.8 setting. everyone says the 80 and the 60 are too close to bother having both of them. But the 60 only opens to 3.5, and I sometimes have low light situations. Is the difference between 3.5 and 2.8 enough to warrant another lens? I was planning on using the 60 and 100 as normal lenses, with the 180 for long.</p>

<p>Then another problem is what If I want something wider than 60? The fifty is very close to 60 and the 40 is too expensive. Would anyone have a 50 just so they could go wider than the 60? </p>

<p>I know I could just sell the 60 and do 50-80-150 like everyone else. But then I wouldn't have the 100 or the 180, which everyone says are so good, and I really would like to have. And the other reason is that the 60 is the only CB that is not inferior to the CFi, and CB lenses are available for $0.50 on the dollar or less because of the unpopularity, and they have all the benefits of the CFi, which I enjoy and would appreciate on a daily basis. The highly legible number scales, the easy focusing, the unpainted hood mount (no paint to wear off and make lens less valuable), and the nivarox spring, and the fact that it is not 20-30 years old.<br>

THe only other thought I had was to get a cheap 80 from KEH for $250.00 or so, and have that for these low light situations. But if it will never get used I don't want to buy it or carry it around. </p>

<p>So I leave it to the experts. Do you guys need the 2.8? Or would 3.5 be good enough? I like to shoot handheld, but maybe a tripod could be used instead of the 80mm 2.8. (I even thought about a Contax 645AF because it has the 80 2.0, but that camera is made by Kyocera and that is a little hard for me to swallow even if it was a 0.0) For me it is not just about the photographs. I am an engineer and it is also about the machinery. Made in Sweden is something that will never be seen again. It was a holdover from before they paved paradise and put up a parking lot. Even the "Carl Zeiss" lens on the Contax is made in Japan. Plus, I like square pictures. Rectangles are not natural shapes.</p>

<p>Sorry for the long question. </p>

<p>Andre</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Saying that the 60mm and 80mm are close, is like saying that the 35mm and 50mm are close in 35mm photography. They are not. The classic Hasselblad wedding kit was usually 50,80,150. Of course many not so well heeled shooters, made due with just the 80.</p>

<p>If I were you I'd start out with just the 80 for a few months. Shoot it and learn it's limitations.</p>

<p>If you are asking if the Planar 80's are sharp wide open, the answer is yes.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>The difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is really not something to worry about. So pick the focal lengths you like.</p>

<p>I agree 100% with Steve: 60 mm and 80 mm lenses are very different.</p>

<p>And there's no reason why your kit should not (eventually) consist of 50 mm, 60 mm, 80 mm, 100 mm, (120 mm) 150 mm and (yes, and) 180 mm. I would add the 250 mm to that myself. A 40 mm on the other end too.<br>

;-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>The difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is really not something to worry about. So pick the focal lengths you like.</p>

<p>I agree 100% with Steve: 60 mm and 80 mm lenses are very different.</p>

<p>And there's no reason why your kit should not (eventually) consist of 50 mm, 60 mm, 80 mm, 100 mm, (120 mm) 150 mm and (yes, and) 180 mm. I would add the 250 mm to that myself. A 40 mm on the other end too.<br>

;-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Oh great... First a server time out message, and then the post appears twice...</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>You have the 60 and 150, which to my mind is the most rational 2-lens setup. Do you need f2.8 on the short side? Probably not for DOF, since you have the 150 and presumably legs to step back with. For handholding in low light, I guess it'd be helpful, though personally I always use a tripod with the Hasselblad, in any light, so I can't say how helpful. My experience hand-holding 35mm cameras in low light is that the extra stop isn't worth the anxiety you seem to be feeling. I only have the 80, BTW. Lovely lens, I might never need another.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Doug, you have a nice kit now. Don't get all hung out on buying too much stuff. The 501c is very excellent, the 150 should only drop a tad on that mirror, don't worry about the floating too much. The Cfi 150 is very fine, I use a 180 but if I were you I would just stay put. I would maybe skip the 80 and get the 100 which is an amazing piece of glass. Then maybe get another back or something to hold more film. My kit for last 13 years or so is all CF 50fle, 80, 100, 180. My son has 60, 80CB, 80Cfi, 180. If you do get a body, look for a 503cw where you can hook into the ttl flash connector. Just my 2 bits...</p>

[leighb]

<p>The 80mm is much closer to the 100mm than it is to the 60mm.</p>

<p>Both the 60mm and the 100mm are f/3.5 speed, so there's no difference in that regard.</p>

<p>The 80mm and 100mm are both Planar designs, so their optical performance is almost identical. The 60mm is a Distagon, which is better optimized for wide-angle work.</p>

<p>The horizontal angle of view for the shorter lenses:<br /> 40mm 69.3°<br /> 50mm 58°<br /> 60mm 50°<br /> 80mm 38°<br /> 100mm 32°<br /> 120mm 26°<br /> As you can see, there's much more difference in coverage between the 80 and the 60 than between the 80 and the 100. The difference between adjacent offerings shorter than 80mm is much more pronounced than for those longer than 80mm.</p>

<p>I have all of the lenses from 40mm through 500mm except for the 60mm, the 100mm, and the 135mm bellows lens. I consider the 80mm and the 100mm to be equivalent.</p>

<p>Each has its unique characteristics. I seldom have difficulty deciding which to use.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>A 60/80/150 group of lenses would be a very nice all-around kit. I have a 50/100/150 kit and am well pleased with it. Unless you do a lot of wide-angle work, the 60mm should be fine and the 150mm is a great portrait length, especially if you add a short extention tube for when you want to shoot really tight shots.</p>

<p>The difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is only about a 1/2 stop...I wouldn't let that worry me.</p>

<p>Have fun, shoot lots!</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>If you were serious about photography, I would recommend you just use the lens you have, since you are apparently comfortable with it.<br>

I used to own the 40,50,80,100, 120 (borrowed), 150 and 250mm lenses. I would estimate that 98% of the best photos I've made were done so with the 80mm Planar.<br>

Most of those were actually done with the ancient, chrome C lenses, without the little red t*.<br>

There are far more opinions of lenses than there are lenses. Yes, some do have special characteristics. For instance, the absolutely sharpest Hasselblad lenses I have used were the 100 and the 120. However, I ended up selling or trading all of my Blad stuff, only to settle upon a very clean 500C kit, with a standard 80mm CF lens.<br>

Although the aforementioned lenses were clearly sharper, the images they rendered were not nearly as pleasing to my eyes. There is something about the 80 that does it for me, and I found that addictive use of the 100 was changing the characteristic style of my photographs. My passion for pursuing the development and completion of a cohesive body of work determined my choice of a less sharp, but more pleasing, standard lens. To hell with mtf charts and such. It is all about the image with me.<br>

Since you seem to be into the engineering aspect of photography, it does not matter what you buy. </p>

<p>By the way, the absolute best (and sharpest) 35mm lens I have ever used was one of the Contax G line... made in Japan... by Kyocera.</p><div></div>

[f_ph1]

<p>80mm 2.8 planar chrome C lens. far more pleasant for portraiture, in my opinion.</p><div></div>

[sfcole]

<p>"The difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is really not something to worry about. So pick the focal lengths you like."<br>

In low light, yes, that difference does matter. It could easily mean the difference between successfully hand-holding or not. Just imagine having to drop your speed from 1/60 to 1/30, or 1/30 to 1/15. Each drop of a shutter speed greatly increased the chance of motion blur. There's a good reason why people pay for and lug around 2.8 vs 4 lenses.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>But a shorter lens can be held at slower speeds.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<blockquote>

<p>In low light, yes, that difference does matter. [...]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't agree.<br>

Firstly, because the difference is small, and there is no hard limit between getting a good shot and one that is o.k. in such a small range, such a small difference in lens speed.<br>

Secondly, because if the success of your photography would depend on being able to squeeze a shot off using f/2.8, you are way, way past the point at which you should have broken out the tripod and pure luck, more than anything else determines whether you got the shot or not.</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

<blockquote>

<p>But a shorter lens can be held at slower speeds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The difference between an 80 mm and a 100 mm lens or a 60 mm lens, in that respect (too), is nothing.</p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>because if the success of your photography would depend on being able to squeeze a shot off using f/2.8, you are way, way past the point at which you should have broken out the tripod, and pure luck more than anything else determines whether you got the shot or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We agree again.</p>

<p>This is becoming habitual. Hope we'll survive. :D</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>I don't know F Ph. your first pic looks a little less sharp to me than the second. But the narrow DOF and the contrast may make it seem sharper. I like both of em and they are nice pics IMHO.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>In low light, yes, that difference does matter. [...]</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I do agree with Scott when he says this, and disagree with Q.G.. Often it's not only camera shake you have to worry about - it's also subject movement. Tripods fix one, but not the other.</p>

<p>There are also times when you're working with so little light at night, you're right into the limits of shadow detail, detectability, reciprocity failure...then I find the extra 2/3 stop between f2.8 and f3.5 to be really important.</p>

<p>Finally, flashgun 'reach' depends on aperture, not on shutter speed, so that 2/3 stop gives you considerably more reach.</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Considerably more reach? 25%?<br>

Depends on your definition of considerable, i guess. ;-)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Each stop down is twice the amount of light as the stop above it, ie 2.8 lets in twice as much light as 4.0 at the same shutter speed. 3.5 would be about half a stop, so lets fudge and say 50% more light. Is that significant? Could be. All depends.</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>Barry:<br>

Thanks. The first was shot wide open. Looking at the subject's head, it is too clinically sharp for me. I can't put my finger on it, but it just isn't as pleasant as what I generally get when using the 80 wide open. Perhaps a more "apples to apples" comparison would have been more appropriate for illustrative purposes.<br>

My bad.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Let me put it this way F PH. You may not like it as much as the next guy. I'm just saying many photographers would like to have the problem you see in that photo :). </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Barry,</p>

<p>The best way to judge whether a difference in light-passing-power is significant is to express it in terms of something we know: stops. ;-)<br>

Is just over half a stop significant?<br>

1/60 or 1/45?</p>

<p>Like i said before: if you find yourself in a situation in which a small difference like that would be important, you have done someting wrong along the way that brought you there. Something, like not bringing along a faster film and a tripod.</p>

<p>That 25% was about flash reach (and that's a percentage of the short measurement out of the two we compare). Also not a significant difference.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Probably not a huge difference in most situations unless you are already on the margins and shooting slides or you are just at the limit of your hand holding ability, like lets say 1/30 and 1/15 or 1/15/ and 1/4, you won't have a half stop speed on most cameras that aren't electronic. I'm not really going to argue if a 1/2 stop is a big deal in this or that situation. Like I said it really depends. When you hit that situation when you wish you had that xtra half stop, then it becomes important. But usually not a big deal, especially in the day time.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I also should add that if you are shooting light, such as on the street, you often won't have a tripod, and if you are out for a while, especially in winter, it's easy to get into a low light situation. Some of us don't carry high speed film all the time and not all like the qualities of high speed film either. I should add though, when we are talking about stops and shutter speeds, its relevant to realize that each full increment you open your lens or slow your shutter lets in twice as much light. So if you are at dusk and it's getting dark fast, that amount of light can be significant very fast. A half stop won't matter between 3 and 4 pm, for instance, but it could make a big difference between 5 and 5:30. I'm just making a point. 95 out of a hundred times it won't make a difference in most shooting situations and yes it does help to carry a roll or two of high speed film. A tripod is nice, but personally I usually don't use one for streets, though I have once in a while when shooting static scenes etc.</p>