Now I know testing is almost without exception at these distances but the Zeiss glass is optimised for infinity, other than the obvious exception of the Macro Planar, and the differences were clearly demonstrated when Hasselblad compared the Zeiss glass against the Japanese built HC lenses on their introduction. I am not here to defend Hasselblad/Zeiss against all comers and I have never shot Bronica glass but the technical posts, which are appreciated, do test the Zeiss glass against charts at fairly close distance, in the case of hevanet stated to be 8 - 10 ft.
#Bronica sq ps b lens pro
Should you wish to tread the di****l path, of doom, the Hasselblad is straightforward and the early backs are no longer silly money.īTW on affordable glass I recently purchased a C 50mm Hasselblad lens and under benign conditions it is indistinguishable from my CF 50mm FLE, where is does fall, if it is a fall because that is why I bought it, is for flare being a non T* example it was £179 UK pounds, with a pro hood I suspect the difference would be taken out other than the close range correction of the FLE. I think the ergonomics of the two systems, and which you find most comfortable/inspiring/confident with, should be a larger factor than the lens differences. There may be stars in the Bronica world I am not as familiar with. On the other hand the Hasselblad/Zeiss 100mm Planar, the 180mm and the 40mm IF are not the usual suspects and are pretty special. The consensus seems to be on the usual suspect lenses one may shade the other, and vice versa, based on different subjects and lighting, may be micro contrast and flare differences but they are really close.
Which two lenses, you don't state any focal length?
0 kommentar(er)
