advertisement


help please

Ian,

Oooooooo, creamy smooth bokeh, like buttah.

As you know, I'm a skint bastard who buys or swaps when the right deal comes along, so I'll keep my eyes peeled for a cheap 150/4.

Do you know if the 120mm lens is well regarded? That's the other hunky of glass I've heard about but have no experience with.

Joe
 
Joe,

Remember, you can crop to gain length. An 80 on 35mm is a good portrait length, so as long as you happy with a 35mm frames worth of film for enlarging you can shoot from distance with the 80. I'm re-reading that and it's not very well written but I hope you understand what I mean.

Cesare
 
Cesare,

Thanks, but I was hoping to use all of the 6x6 frame to gain the advantage of a larger negative or slide.

Is the 80mm on a Hassy roughly a 45-50mm on a 35mm camera? If so, I should be OK, as I took this head shot of the goil with a 45mm lens. However, it was on the Fuji S5, so it was cropped with an angle of view roughly equal to a 70mm lens relative to a 35mm film camera. Ahhhhhhhhh, all this cropping has me confused.

2483701640_343e7ec89a_o.jpg


Joe
 
Joe, yes, 80mm translates to roughly 50mm. Since the frame is square not rectangular it is hard to give an exact comparison since it depend on how you want to measure it!

As a portrait lens the 80mm is good for half/full length body shots. I'd probably want something a bit longer for close crops as the camera ends up a bit in the face of the subject which most people don't enjoy. It will work well though.

110 on my 6*7 is about the same - I tend to get portraits with body like this:

2591474074_9ec504f955.jpg


So expect half/full length body shots with an 80mm to be very natural working distance

Cesare
 
Nice shot, Cesare.

Looks like the 80mm will be poifect for what I have in mind.

Joe
 
G4,

Bokeh is a subjective assessment of how a lens renders out-of-focus elements.

Good bokeh is smooth and creamy, crap bokeh is disjointed and harsh.

Joe
 
Thanks. Shows you're never too old to expand your vocabulary. Is its etymology known? I'm a bit of an obsessive about such things. May come in handy on my other forum.
 
G4,

It's derived from Japanese, 暈け, meaning "blur" or "haze". The Japanese really like their 暈け. In fact, they're obsessed with 暈け.

(That's my go-to-wiki-Ctrl-C/Crtl-V skills you're witnessing. My head is encyclopaedic only for original Star Trek information.)

Joe
 
Hokeh dokeh! Here's me, taking photographs for half a century and I never considered the quality of the out-of-focus bits. Is it a function of the shallowness or otherwise of the depth of field, or a result of some property of the lens? I suspect the latter, thinking about a Seagull camera I used to use.

Paul (G4IFU is my callsign).
 
Ian, the 150mm looks excellent. Can you or Cliff bring a Hassy on Tuesday? I need to peer myopically through one.

And Joe and Cesare - have you not seen The Midwich Cuckoos?
 
guybat said:
Ian, the 150mm looks excellent. Can you or Cliff bring a Hassy on Tuesday? I need to peer myopically through one.
Click to expand...

Hi Guy

Owing to diary confusion I already brought the blad to the pub last Tuesday, so to avoid more confusion I'll have to bring it again ;-)

I spent this evening at the V&A which had a late opening session themed around their photography collection, and had photos up all round the place. I took the blad loaded with Ilford 3200 and wandered around being accosted all over the place by people who wanted to know what blad it was etc.

The final laugh was going in the Camera obscura with the exhibitor explaining about the upside down back to front image and then looking at me (and my daughter) and my blad in the stygian gloom and saying "no need to explain this to you as you have a hasselblad". I did point out that the VF image was only back to front and not upside down too ;-)

Anyway for the "new to blad" fraternity, wear one wherever you go as it gets a heck of a lot of people talking to you !

Cheers, and see you Tuesday
Cliff
 
vibbles said:
after seeing the results you guys have been getting with MF I'm thinking about getting a RZ67, is this a good choice for a relative newbie to film?

thanks
Click to expand...

My own intro to MF was by buying a 2nd hand fuji 645 rangefinder and running several rolls of ektachrome e100vs through it. These cameras go for around £300-£400, they are easy to use and reliable and the fujinon lenses are very sharp.

cheers
Cliff

PS the RZ67 isn't that big really
 
G4IFU said:
Is it a function of the shallowness or otherwise of the depth of field, or a result of some property of the lens? I suspect the latter, thinking about a Seagull camera I used to use.

Paul (G4IFU is my callsign).
Click to expand...

Number of lens elements gives it it's 'shape', dof controls how blurred stuff is.
 
Paul,

Number of lens elements gives it it's 'shape', dof controls how blurred stuff is.
Click to expand...
What Anex said, plus the number of blades in the iris, the shape they form when stopped down, the lens's optical design, how under- or overcorrected the lens is for spherical aberration, etc. also have bearing on bokeh.

Suffice it to say that most lenses have OK bokeh, some have truly hideous bokeh (generally Catadioptric or mirror lenses), and a handful have sublime bokeh.

Nice Bokeh
BW010905-eatonC.jpg



Crap bokeh
433523-lg.jpg



Bokeh like rich creamery buttah
3481161568_33c87e65a8_o_d.jpg


Joe
 
Thanks chaps. Be interesting to know which camera took the heron photograph. My Seagull's bokeh wasn't as bad as that. I must dig it out sometime.
 
G4IFU said:
Thanks chaps. Be interesting to know which camera took the heron photograph. My Seagull's bokeh wasn't as bad as that. I must dig it out sometime.
Click to expand...

It is pretty horrible. I think the top one is a Leica Summicron (not sure if it is an M, C or an R).

I think the heron is shot with a mirror lens as you can see doughnut ring distortion, so my guess is that it is something very cheap and mirrored. Mirror lenses can work quite well on back-lit subjects where the OOF background is 2 stops or more lighter than the subject so you don't notice the patterns so much.

cheers
Cliff
 
Guy, I'll bring mine along as well, we can compare focusing screens with Cliff's posher one (I know how to have fun, me).

Joe, never used the 120 but I think the way it works is that all the lenses are basically excellent, so I suspect that one is too.
 
Cliff -- The top picture was taken with a Jupiter 50, or as Vuk would say, his Yupiter. I think he paid $25 for it.

Ian -- Thanks, brother. You bin he'pful.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top