CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

New lense vs teleconvertors vs using a macro as a normal lense

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 -%)
 
G

Guest

Mark,
When I bought my Contax RTS with 50mm 1.4 in 1978 (gasp, 25 years ago <font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• a teleconverter until I could save money for a second lens (short-tele). The teleconverter I used 20 years ago was not very good 9Tamron 4 element) and I was not happy with the results.
After 3 or 4 years I bought a used 85 1.4, and I love having the extra stops to use available light (and yes, as everybody says it is a great lens). I find it somewhat too "short", however.
Of the options you mention, I would say the most "bang for the buck" is the 135mm 2.8. It is said to be excellent, and it is relatively inexpensive (particularly when compared to the 100 f:2 and the Makro-Planar), and if you like the focal length it is a very good deal .
Many people don't like 135mm because they think is too long; 100 or 105 has become more standard "portrait lens" focal length. I actually like it better (as all around people + landscapes) than 85.

Juan
 
G

Guest

Mark,
I feel you should also consider the 85/2.8.
Not too much for a used lens (I bought mine for US$240), better depth of field than the 135.
William
 
G

Guest

William, Just a technical point. All lenses have the same depth of field. People often talk (erroneously)about "sharp"wideangle lenses due to the apparent large dof. DOF is a product of reproduction ratio, not focal length. In other words a 21mm lens used to record an image 1:1 will have identical dof to a 400mm lens used to record the same image 1:1
Another photographic fauxpas is the belief that using a filter will "add" something. Filters, by definition can only subtract,i.e."filter" out.
Colin
 
G

Guest

Hello Colin,
Surely "effects" filters such as Cokin - starbursts and so on- must add something in the opinion of those who use them.
John
 
G

Guest

>Posted by Colin Elliott on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 6:00 am: > >William, Just a technical point. All lenses have the same depth of >field. People often talk (erroneously) about "sharp" wide angle lenses >due to the apparent large DOF. DOF is a product of reproduction ratio, >not focal length. In other words a 21mm lens used to record an image >1:1 will have identical DOF to a 400mm lens used to record the same >image 1:1 >Another photographic faux pas is the belief that using a filter will >"add" something. Filters, by definition can only subtract,i.e."filter" >out. >Colin

Colin,

I don't know how many times I have posted a similar message about wide angle lenses and their "great depth of field". Glad you have reinforced it. It's just an urban legend but I am surprised at how many professional photographers on this list and many other list live by that false premise.

Fits into the category Feynman calls "Cargo Cult Science".
 
G

Guest

John, Just because you place something in front of your lens, doesn't mean it's a filter (like those close up lenses (close up filters..Ugh!<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• not consider those Special Effects attachments as filters:Starburst, prisms, etc.Lenses they maybe, "filters", the're not.
Colin
 
G

Guest

Posted by colin elliott on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 4:23 am:

John, Just because you place something in front of your lens, doesn't mean it's a filter (like those close up lenses (close up filters..Ugh! not consider those Special Effects attachments as filters:Starburst, prisms, etc.Lenses they maybe, "filters", the're not. Colin

Well, I often put part of a chain-link fence in front of my lens, such as at a baseball game. Sometimes I get a good shot, when it isn't out of the field of view, it detracts from the shot.

DAW
 
G

Guest

Don & Colin,
Although you may be technically correct in the optical sense, it is the effect we look for in the practical world and I have read many articles about this. So in a less than serious way, I quote from Ansel Adams text on lenses, "Long lenses have the effect of significantly reducing the depth of field of a subject."
William
 
G

Guest

Sorry Colin, my comment was rather meant as humorous.The inverted commas should have include "filters".
John
 

paulcontax

Well-Known Member
To come back to the point :
If you want a real cheap solution : Try to find a good teleconverter (7 lenses ! - these are MUCH better than those with 4 lenses). The Kiron / Kenko MC7 are real good ones.
But this may only be fine for portraits cause it may be VERY soft wide open.
The 2.8/135 is a really very good lens for a good price - much better than any Zoom-lens and much better than anny solution with a teleconverter. And it's much cheaper even than the 2.8/85 ! (not to say than the 1.4/85 !)
The macro-Planar is much more expensive than all the others ! -but it's a really good lens (as the german ColorFoto-magazine tested it at 1:1 and infinity ).
If you even don't have the money for these lenses just try to get the affordable Tamron 2.5/90 macro-lens ! It's cheaper than the CZ-lenses but a really good lens !
This lens gave me much fun ! - even it's not THAT sharp wide open but stopped down to 5.6 it's great !
Paul
 
Top