mark_rabiner

With slow film and a tripod even at large mags it could be hard to

tell. What sheet film has is a creaminess in the highlights that roll

film doesn�t match and I think the reason being the thinner emulsion on

roll film is the issue more than the film area. Sheet film is thicker;

more silver. This is my impression.

Instead of an extension tube a less extreme cheaper easier method is a

Proxar (magnifying filter). I have gotten not terrible results from

Hoya's brand. BTW You're not supposed to call them filters as they are

lenses but that's how they are commonly referred to.

For what seems like twice the weight the 180 doesn't seem worth it.

They say its sharper but who is �they�? But it pairs off nicely with

the 120. I like my 150, its a classic.

Sounds like the bellows are tubes are being sold with the lens. They

are listed as separate items. The 135 can not be used alone, it must be

used with either of the aforementioned. The tube being handier but

limited (will focus to infinity making the 135 as handy on the long run

as the 120 but with the bellows having more flexibility. The 120 can be

used of course with out bellows or tubes but if your were doing a huge

amount of macro work the 135 is the lens to use. A Classic.

I have a 2.8 F Planar and would be equally happy with a Xenatar. I

think F means you have a 220 option which I like although it is

slightly funky (you loose a frame). My meter works but you have to

remember to point the camara down at least 30 degrees. I've had it for

twenty one years, it was made in the early seventies and I would gladly

sell it for $5000. In other words I have no intention of parting with

it. One tenth the parts of my 'Blad but the same lens or thereabouts.

If you like Avedon and Penn then this is what they've done the bulk of

their work with.

I've heard of people mounting their �Blad bodies on the backs of view

cameras. That might seem the way to good. Also with the digital

revolution in full swing everyone seems to coming out with medium

format view cameras that are super cool; like Rollei, Linhof, ArcaSwiss

and probably others. Although these options are not cheap either is the

flex or these arc, both with limited movements.

I would thing they would reintroduce the Superslide back to make those

limitations less so. I would get one if I had one of those �Blads. I

might get one anyway; they go for pretty cheap.

The magic number might be the figure that you would consider to be not

overpriced.

Pan F is so much better than its 35mm counterpart that I wonder if it

is the same emulsion. I can usually always get APX 25 120 in the walk

in fridge at pro photo portland Oregon down the street just as often as

they have the pan F which is usually. My experience is Pan F being more

than twice better than FP4 which has also given be erratic results. I

often shoot 220 plus X as my medium speed film because of this. I use

Rodinal 1/50 and have used others.

Most of the professional photographers I know and have heard of use or

dream of using the 120 widely considered one of the better and more

useful lenses and often considered to be the best. Am I surprised to

see a controversy on this lens! I would not believe any of it. Believe

the 120 is for many people: the reason to use a Hasselblad. I doubt

that its sharpness at infinity is significantly different than a 150 or

180 despite the fact that it is a macro. It's previous version is a 5.6

which I would be less sure of defending. But its just as possible that

this older lens has more than comparable results if you can stand the

dimmer less focasable image on your groundglass.

I have a pre-FLE and have no intention of sweating it. The FLE deal

seems like a real pain and I would love to see it demonstrated visually

just how worth it it might be. In other words I'll believe it when I

see it.

I think what happened is another camera system got results that were

dangerously close to Hasselblads in its wide angle close focus results

and they panicked and started floating the elements. Why not?

Hasselblad users are thought of as sparing no expense. I can't believe

my models results are anything less then exquisite onthe charts and can

speak from ten years experience getting results with it.

If I specialized in close focus work in medium format wide angle I

would check it out personally, renting a FLE and comparing

results.Since it is not the latest model it will be in a lower price

category.