ZEISS 150mm f4 SONNAR

[anthonym3]

What Matt said.

60mm + 150mm works for me, along with a few extension tubes.

Thank you!

 

[MattKing]

Thank you! Viewing the photos with your commentary is extremely helpful. At age 85 I want to learn as much as possible about medium format after using a LEICA M-3 for more than 50 years.

If you ever used a 90mm lens with your M3, as well as a 50mm lens, then the experience of switching between the lenses will have some similarities. Particularly if you had a separate finder for the 90mm lens.

 

[anthonym3]

If you ever used a 90mm lens with your M3, as well as a 50mm lens, then the experience of switching between the lenses will have some similarities. Particularly if you had a separate finder for the 90mm lens.

Thank you,that is very helpful, I have a 50mm 2.8 ELMAR and 90mm f4 ELMAR with a finder. I use the combo with the M-3 and a 3f.

 

[Pieter12]

I have this on a HASSELBLAD 500C, older chrome model. I'm going to attempt fine art photography and need opinions of the use of this lens or should I buy an 80mm PLANAR? Also I will be shooting black and white, any recommendations for film stock?

Use what you have. It is your vision that counts, not the lens or the focal length.

 

[anthonym3]

Use what you have. It is your vision that counts, not the lens or the focal length.

Thank you! I've no choice but to use what I have, I wanted opinions of the efficacy of the 150 for landscapes. At age 85 SOCIAL SECURITY leaves not much discretionary income following monthly expenses thus purchasing what I would like an 80mm PLANAR is not possible. I use the HASSELBLAD and LEICA M-3 for portraits, the LEICA with 90mm f4 ELMAR when not using my 50MM 2.8 ELMAR.

 

[bdial]

In the spirit of one of the earlier posts, I have 3 lenses for my Hasselblad kit, a 60, 80, and the 150. If I could have only one, it would be the 150.
For the wider end, the 60 doesn’t get much love compared to the 50, and so generally costs much less. But it’s a very fine optic, I believe it’s considered to be sharper than the 50.

 

[anthonym3]

In the spirit of one of the earlier posts, I have 3 lenses for my Hasselblad kit, a 60, 80, and the 150. If I could have only one, it would be the 150.
For the wider end, the 60 doesn’t get much love compared to the 50, and so generally costs much less. But it’s a very fine optic, I believe it’s considered to be sharper than the 50.

Thank you. Why would the 150 be the only one?

 

[BrianShaw]

Like @bdial, if I had only one Hasselblad lens it would be the 150. For me, it is my most frequently used lens for both people and “landscapes”. I tend to like tighter composition in landscapes than the broad and expansive landscape photos using wide angle lenses. The 150 is the longest that Im willing/able to hand-hold, given some rather reasonable constraints.

 

[bdial]

Thank you. Why would the 150 be the only one?

For the same reasons that Brian said. It took me a long time to realize, but I’m not really a wide angle type, most of the time. I would probably be happy with the 100 as my “normal” lens, though I’d probably miss the 80’s speed.

Mileage varies though.

 

[Slixtiesix]

You won't be disappointed by the 150/4. It is sharp, compact and lightweight. It's the classic Hasselblad tele lens. As others mentioned, it is also comparably cheap. Even the latest CFi version sells for a bargain. It allows for a concentrated perspective without having too much compression of distance. Back in the 1970s-90s it was the first choice of many professional portrait photographers. Very well suited for landscapes and still lifes too. A true evergreen within the Hasselblad lens lineup.

 

[anthonym3]

You won't be disappointed by the 150/4. It is sharp, compact and lightweight. It's the classic Hasselblad tele lens. As others mentioned, it is also comparably cheap. Even the latest CFi version sells for a bargain. It allows for a concentrated perspective without having too much compression of distance. Back in the 1970s-90s it was the first choice of many professional portrait photographers. Very well suited for landscapes and still lifes too. A true evergreen within the Hasselblad lens lineup.

Thank you!

 

[pdccamerqs]

As has already been stated, both the 80 and the 150 are great lenses and differ mainly in field of view. From a 35mm (or full frame digital), perspective, the 80 and 150 have roughly the same field of view as 45mm and 80mm lenses, respectively. . Certainly they are quite equivalent in terms contrast, sharpness, etc. The 80mm is one stop faster and can focus a little closer. 0.9m for the 80 and 1.4m for the 150. Many beautiful fine art photographs have been made with both lenses. Search the web for images made with both these lenses and get inspired!

Regarding film/developer combos, I like HP5+ for its forgiveness and the results I get with it when developed 1:1 in 20 degree C D-76. There are many other fine combos as mentioned in this thread. Whatever combination of film and developer you pick, settle on consistent processes for measuring exposure and then developing (ie. time, temp, agitation, etc.) and stick with it for at least 10 rolls in varying situations to really get a feel for how it all works together!

Good luck and have fun!

Best,

Paul

 

[anthonym3]

As has already been stated, both the 80 and the 150 are great lenses and differ mainly in field of view. From a 35mm (or full frame digital), perspective, the 80 and 150 have roughly the same field of view as 45mm and 80mm lenses, respectively. . Certainly they are quite equivalent in terms contrast, sharpness, etc. The 80mm is one stop faster and can focus a little closer. 0.9m for the 80 and 1.4m for the 150. Many beautiful fine art photographs have been made with both lenses. Search the web for images made with both these lenses and get inspired!

Regarding film/developer combos, I like HP5+ for its forgiveness and the results I get with it when developed 1:1 in 20 degree C D-76. There are many other fine combos as mentioned in this thread. Whatever combination of film and developer you pick, settle on consistent processes for measuring exposure and then developing (ie. time, temp, agitation, etc.) and stick with it for at least 10 rolls in varying situations to really get a feel for how it all works together!

Good luck and have fun!

Best,

Paul

Thank you!

 

[rulnacco]

Just to show you what the150mm CF version will do as a portrait lens (the C lens should be pretty comparable in terms of image quality), below is an example shot kind of stressing it to the max--it was taken wide open at minimum focusing distance including, if I recall correctly, a short extension tube. This was taken on a 2004-era Sinarback 54M 22-megapixel digital back. Make sure to view it at full resolution, and you can see the sharpness of the bits that are in focus, and the character of the focus fall off at such close range. Looks pretty excellent to me--I've never felt let down by the 150mm, certainly.

jeremiah.jpg

I do also have the 180mm Sonnar, and it is truly exceptional, visibly a small bit better than the 150mm when images are closely examined. However, it is much more expensive, larger, heavier (particularly front-heavy), and far more awkward to use in the field--I give it some use in the studio, but hardly ever outside of it. It's got to be one of Hasselblad's best lenses. But I never use it as a carry-around lens--the 150 is perfect in size, weight, and quality for shooting outside the studio. If you carry it as part of a 50-80-150 kit or, as I find even better for me, a 60-150 two lens kit, you'll get great use out of it.

 

[pdccamerqs]

Just to show you what the150mm CF version will do as a portrait lens (the C lens should be pretty comparable in terms of image quality), below is an example shot kind of stressing it to the max--it was taken wide open at minimum focusing distance including, if I recall correctly, a short extension tube. This was taken on a 2004-era Sinarback 54M 22-megapixel digital back. Make sure to view it at full resolution, and you can see the sharpness of the bits that are in focus, and the character of the focus fall off at such close range. Looks pretty excellent to me--I've never felt let down by the 150mm, certainly.

jeremiah.jpg

I do also have the 180mm Sonnar, and it is truly exceptional, visibly a small bit better than the 150mm when images are closely examined. However, it is much more expensive, larger, heavier (particularly front-heavy), and far more awkward to use in the field--I give it some use in the studio, but hardly ever outside of it. It's got to be one of Hasselblad's best lenses. But I never use it as a carry-around lens--the 150 is perfect in size, weight, and quality for shooting outside the studio. If you carry it as part of a 50-80-150 kit or, as I find even better for me, a 60-150 two lens kit, you'll get great use out of it.

Wow! Beautiful image. The tip of the nose is OOF as are the ears. I have had similar experience with both my C and CF versions of this fine lens. I usually use either the 8mm or 16mm extension tubes for this kind of head shot.

 

[rulnacco]

Wow! Beautiful image. The tip of the nose is OOF as are the ears. I have had similar experience with both my C and CF versions of this fine lens. I usually use either the 8mm or 16mm extension tubes for this kind of head shot.

Thanks! Yeah, I knew I wasn't going to be able to get everything important in focus, but the lens focused accurately enough (on my Acute Matte screen with chimney finder) to get exactly what I wanted to be sharp. And yes, I used either the 8mm or the 16mm extension tube, I can't remember which one--although I think it was the 8mm, as the digital sensor had a bit of a crop factor so I didn't need to get quite as close as I would have with film.

 

[warden]

One more example with the 150, which I like as a portrait lens - I'm sure I used an extension tube here but I don't know which one. The background is about 15 feet away and I wanted to blur that out a bit. (Delta 3200)

 

[pdccamerqs]

Thanks! Yeah, I knew I wasn't going to be able to get everything important in focus, but the lens focused accurately enough (on my Acute Matte screen with chimney finder) to get exactly what I wanted to be sharp. And yes, I used either the 8mm or the 16mm extension tube, I can't remember which one--although I think it was the 8mm, as the digital sensor had a bit of a crop factor so I didn't need to get quite as close as I would have with film.

As far as I'm concerned, the focus was spot on. The eyes and facial hair make the image.

 

[anthonym3]

Just to show you what the150mm CF version will do as a portrait lens (the C lens should be pretty comparable in terms of image quality), below is an example shot kind of stressing it to the max--it was taken wide open at minimum focusing distance including, if I recall correctly, a short extension tube. This was taken on a 2004-era Sinarback 54M 22-megapixel digital back. Make sure to view it at full resolution, and you can see the sharpness of the bits that are in focus, and the character of the focus fall off at such close range. Looks pretty excellent to me--I've never felt let down by the 150mm, certainly.

jeremiah.jpg

I do also have the 180mm Sonnar, and it is truly exceptional, visibly a small bit better than the 150mm when images are closely examined. However, it is much more expensive, larger, heavier (particularly front-heavy), and far more awkward to use in the field--I give it some use in the studio, but hardly ever outside of it. It's got to be one of Hasselblad's best lenses. But I never use it as a carry-around lens--the 150 is perfect in size, weight, and quality for shooting outside the studio. If you carry it as part of a 50-80-150 kit or, as I find even better for me, a 60-150 two lens kit, you'll get great use out of it.

Thank you.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

As far as I'm concerned, the focus was spot on. The eyes and facial hair make the image.

an excellent photograph! Congratulations.