Tele help for Landscapes

[j. rivera]

I'm in need of a telephoto lens for my Rollei SLX (just got it, great

camera!). I'm shooting a lot of farm country scenes that I often

can't get very close to (blocked by fences, angry bull's, ect.). I'm

trying to decide if the 150 will be enough or should I get the 250

(non PQ versions of course). I'm leaning toward the 250 even though

I'll lose a stop. I haven't heard much about this lens so if someone

could fill me in, that would be great.

 

thanks as always,

[michael_heal]

<p>150 mm is one of the most useful and most popular focal lengths for 6x6 format cameras. It is extremely useful for landscapes as well as a host of other applications. It gives a subtle telephoto effect, similar to a 85mm lens on a 35mm camera, and a moderate angle of view. However, in the wide open spaces you describe, I think the 250 might be a better choice. A 250 is more like a 135 mm lens on a 35mm camera and gives a distinct telephoto effect. Much depends on your personal preferences, however, so no one else can make such a choice for you.</p>

[david_henderson]

I agree with Michael's comment. I have both lenses for my 6x6 and they both get plenty of use. The only thing I'd add is that in extremis you can crop a closer view from a 150 but not a wider view from a 250

[fwstutterheim]

It will depend on how close you can get or how angry the bulls are. :-) I would not worry about loosing a stop. I guess you will be using a tripod anyway.

[j. rivera]

My other thought would be get the 150mm and a 2x. Or, get the 250mm and a 2x and then have 80 2.8, 160 5.6, 250 5.6, and 500 11. Image degradation shouldn't be a problem since I usually print 11x11 or 11x14. Comments?

[michael_heal]

<p>Based on your description of the intended use, I'd still suggest starting with the 250. Use it for a while and see what you think. You may later decide to add the 2x; you may later decide you don't much care for focal lengths longer than 250 mm and instead get the 150; you may later decide that the combination of 80 and 250 is quite sufficient (as do a number of people). A 500mm f11 sounds like an attractive option, but is long enough and slow enough that you will need a very sturdy tripod and cooperative weather conditions for the best results.</p>

<p>If you purchase the 150 and 2x, I think you will end up using them together most of the time as a 300 f8. Using a converter for relatively seldom used focal lengths makes a lot of sense. However, I think it better to buy the focal length(s) you use most. The 2x with 150 is one stop slower and more awkward to work with as you must remember that f4 means f8, etc. The quality with the teleconverter should be adequate if you stop down the lens a couple of stops, but then you effectively have a 300mm f16, albeit with the option of focusing at f8. Compare that option to the option of having a dedicated 250 f5.6 lens from which you can obtain excellent results at any stop, can focus at f5.6, and can set to f8 when you want f8. Using the 2x with the 80 gives you a 160mm f5.6 from which you can obtain good results starting at about f11. Not a bad option, particularly if you can't afford the 150mm lens. Most people would rather buy the 150, however, because this focal length is useful for so many things. It depends on your application and your preferences, though. In wide open spaces, a little longer focal length is usually more appealing.</p>

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

Jeff, congratulations to your Rolleiflex SLX. It is really a great camera. I used to own two. Now, with interchangeable magazines, I use a Rolleiflex 6008i. The Sonnar 5,6/250 is my most used lens with this camera. I recommend it highly. You can find more info on this lens at the Zeiss website www.zeiss.de/photo. You may search the Hasselblad section on this website also for maximum information. The optics are the same in these Sonnar lenses 5,6/250 for Rollei and Hasselblad. Rather than considering a converter I would prefer to use the compendium. It will enhance color saturation and image brilliance with any lens and any camera. Converters tend to do the opposite, and then some...

[paul roark]

I do mostly landscapes and find the 150 much more useful than the 250. (I shoot the SL66, so some of my experiences may not be totally applicable to the SLX, but I believe the optics are the same.) In addition to being a more useful focal length, I find the 150 much easier to focus, sharper, and higher contrast. The 250 also has considerable mirror cut off. I find I now rarely take the 250 unless there is a specific application where I know it'll be useful. On the other hand, it is nice to have that additional reach when it's necessary.

 

Paul Roark, http://www.silcom.com/~proark/photos.html

[djphoto]

Based on side-to-side coverage, which is the only accurate way to compare 35mm and 6x6 angles of view, the 150 on 6x6 has the same coverage as a 100 on 35. The 250 on 6x6 covers the same as a 167mm lens on 35.

[j. rivera]

Thanks for all the help, I'm going with the 250mm when I can find a good one.