G
Guest
Hi Folks,
I still have a delima on what lense to get next. I currently have a Planar 50/1.4 and would like to get a short telephoto lenses. Not having very much money to play with it means that I'm looking at getting a used lense. My main goal is to use the lense for head-shots in environments as well as landscape. I like shooting people wide open for minimising the depth-of-field.
Now I think ideally the Planar 100/2.0 would be a nice lense %). Unfortunately they seem to be rare and expensive when they come up for sale on the used market.
This leaves me looking at the ubiquteous Planar 85/1.4 or the Sonnar 85/2.8. Which of these is these is the better performer wide open? at 2.8? Or stopped down? Not related to my decision, but I did wonder why the Sonnar 135/2.8 is significantly cheaper than both 85s?
Being someone who doesn't like following the same path as everyone else I reassed my choices. It seems that I have a couple of alternatives. Firstly I could get a Mutar I and turn my 50/1.4 into a 100/2.8. Alternatively I could find a Macro Planar 100/2.8.
Not knowing much about teleconvertors, beyond the specification change in focal length and (wide open) aperture; what happens to the depth of field with a teleconvertor? Does the depth of field remain the same as without the convertor?
My other choice is to use a Macro Planar 100/2.8. I am not likely to use the Macro aspect of the lense, so this might seem like a waste (sort of like buying a Porsche 911 with back seats %). Some of the reviews of this lense say that it is optimised for short focus and the infinity focus suffers. Now I got to admit that this statement stumped me as surely both focus distance use the same glass elements to make the image. So is the reviewer correct? And if so how is this possible.
I would be interested in getting other peoples opinions on my delema.
Cheers,
Mark -%)
I still have a delima on what lense to get next. I currently have a Planar 50/1.4 and would like to get a short telephoto lenses. Not having very much money to play with it means that I'm looking at getting a used lense. My main goal is to use the lense for head-shots in environments as well as landscape. I like shooting people wide open for minimising the depth-of-field.
Now I think ideally the Planar 100/2.0 would be a nice lense %). Unfortunately they seem to be rare and expensive when they come up for sale on the used market.
This leaves me looking at the ubiquteous Planar 85/1.4 or the Sonnar 85/2.8. Which of these is these is the better performer wide open? at 2.8? Or stopped down? Not related to my decision, but I did wonder why the Sonnar 135/2.8 is significantly cheaper than both 85s?
Being someone who doesn't like following the same path as everyone else I reassed my choices. It seems that I have a couple of alternatives. Firstly I could get a Mutar I and turn my 50/1.4 into a 100/2.8. Alternatively I could find a Macro Planar 100/2.8.
Not knowing much about teleconvertors, beyond the specification change in focal length and (wide open) aperture; what happens to the depth of field with a teleconvertor? Does the depth of field remain the same as without the convertor?
My other choice is to use a Macro Planar 100/2.8. I am not likely to use the Macro aspect of the lense, so this might seem like a waste (sort of like buying a Porsche 911 with back seats %). Some of the reviews of this lense say that it is optimised for short focus and the infinity focus suffers. Now I got to admit that this statement stumped me as surely both focus distance use the same glass elements to make the image. So is the reviewer correct? And if so how is this possible.
I would be interested in getting other peoples opinions on my delema.
Cheers,
Mark -%)