Any Zeiss Tele Apotessar 350mm shooters out there?

[mgrayson3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One problem with, well, anything, is that the better equipment *tends* to be used by more proficient practitioners. Is it the look of the superachromat, or is it the lighting, location, and setup choice of the photographer? The samples I've seen with the Zeiss 350/5.6 have the beautiful smooth detail of Leica S glass. But would the HC 300/4 be noticeably different in the same circumstances? The samples I've seen of the 350/5.6 were also shot on a Phase One IQ4150 back - the 300/4 on an X1D. Does *that* make a difference? As always, the only way to find out is to try it oneself.

Edited September 14, 2021 by mgrayson3

[Stuart Richardson]

It is a good point. However, I think there are certain parameters that are easy to see, regardless of whether the practitioner is accomplished or not. With the 350mm I have, for example, the lens is soft at all apertures. I am attaching a test picture taken on the SL2. I did an aperture run (photographing at all apertures), and the best was f16 or so. That is this. I am not sure how well it renders in the screenshot, but the detail is low contrast and fuzzy. It only gets worse towards the edges and at wider apertures. To me, this is not a usable lens on these modern bodies. I am sure someone could take a better picture than the one below, but my advice would be to find a lens that works better. It sounds like the 350mm Superachromat is one of them. The MTF looks good, but I am still slightly skeptical, just because it is an older lens...they are not all bad, of course, but what was acceptable then is not these days in a lot of cases. Also, film had different requirements than digital, which is more critical with off axis light and field curvature, focus shift etc. In any case, just thought I would post a real world test so people can see what to expect with the 350mm FE at least...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mgrayson3]

Oh, I agree that a soft lens will be soft. I returned a Contax 350/4 for that reason. I was thinking more about the subtle differences between "sharp" lenses. The prices on eBay reflect fashion, supply, and quality (among other things). The Hassy 300/4.5 is half the price of the superachromat. It *may* be because it's still in production, or not as adaptable to other systems, or, as some people say, it's "just a Fuji" (which would be fine, as the current Fuji 250/4 renders beautifully), or it's designed for portrait distances and not infinity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes, those terrible Fuji lenses! Haha. Here are three from the awful 300mm Fujinon CMW and 450mm Fujinon C.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[MacSpikes]

20 hours ago, albireo_double said:

I have the Hasselblad HC 300/4.5 with the Leica S adapter. Have never studied the MTF charts but it works for me (having said that, I do not use it so often). Fully integrated, AF works like a native lens etc. Much better ergonomics/manageability that the Zeiss Apo Tessar.

Agree fully with the comments re Rollei Schneider lenses. I even bought a new Hy6 mod2 from DW recently, with some lenses that are supposed to be "the last ever made, because this is the last set of components we have". Sadly, there were issues with the film back (leaking light, film not held flat in some images) and the focusing screen (did not confirm with AF) and the camera and lenses have now been with DW for the past three weeks. I am only hoping that they don't go bankrupt again, before they return my equipment. But yes, on those images where the above issues did not occur, the sharpness, contrast and overall quality were the best I have ever seen on medium format film. 

Agreed. The HC 300/4.5 feels very much at home on the S. Although heavy, it feels well balanced and the AF works quite good. I do not use it as often as the 70 or the 35, but it is a great addition if you need that length. And if I am not mistaken, you could even add a Hasselblad H 1.7x teleconverter (but you'd probably lose your AF).

[mgrayson3]

1 hour ago, MacSpikes said:

Agreed. The HC 300/4.5 feels very much at home on the S. Although heavy, it feels well balanced and the AF works quite good. I do not use it as often as the 70 or the 35, but it is a great addition if you need that length. And if I am not mistaken, you could even add a Hasselblad H 1.7x teleconverter (but you'd probably lose your AF).

Hmm. A 510mm f/7.65 manual focus lens? Who knows. It might work... 😀. Well, I've ordered the S adapter H, HC 300/4.5 and 1.7x from eBay. It's very hard (that is, I've been unable) to find any information about Aspherical, ED, Low Dispersion, Fluorite, or basically anything about the lens elements in the HC lenses. I have faith that they are good designs. Unfortunately, my S3 is on the way to Wetzlar, as it won't tether. I never USE wired tether, but a camera should have all its bits working properly.

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, mgrayson3 said:

Hmm. A 510mm f/7.65 manual focus lens? Who knows. It might work... 😀. Well, I've ordered the S adapter H, HC 300/4.5 and 1.7x from eBay. It's very hard (that is, I've been unable) to find any information about Aspherical, ED, Low Dispersion, Fluorite, or basically anything about the lens elements in the HC lenses. I have faith that they are good designs. Unfortunately, my S3 is on the way to Wetzlar, as it won't tether. I never USE wired tether, but a camera should have all its bits working properly.

HC 300/4.5 works fine on the S; the af is fairly accurate - albeit somewhat slow - so usable for static subjects only. But manual focus can of course be used. af doesn't work with the 1.7x extender. The viewfinder also becomes quite dark, so manual focus isn't that easy. But possible. The sharpness & micro-contrast is great; the colours Zeiss-alike; the bokeh can be somewhat disturbing; and the lens is somewhat prone to flare.

 

[mgrayson3]

1 hour ago, helged said:

HC 300/4.5 works fine on the S; the af is fairly accurate - albeit somewhat slow - so usable for static subjects only. But manual focus can of course be used. af doesn't work with the 1.7x extender. The viewfinder also becomes quite dark, so manual focus isn't that easy. But possible. The sharpness & micro-contrast is great; the colours Zeiss-alike; the bokeh can be somewhat disturbing; and the lens is somewhat prone to flare.

 

Oh dear. Nice bokeh is sort of the point. OTOH, landscape and architecture (my preferred targets) are pretty much usually sharp everywhere. Your next photo in that thread shows my platonic ideal of long lens look. The SL 90-280 is perfect  

Well, as I keep saying, we’ll see…

Edited September 14, 2021 by mgrayson3

[Deliberate1]

On 9/14/2021 at 8:15 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

Yes, those terrible Fuji lenses! Haha. Here are three from the awful 300mm Fujinon CMW and 450mm Fujinon C.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Stuart, your top image is gorious.

And the last one is a splendid portart of Mars, taken, I presume, with a very, very long lens.

David

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Thank you! The last one was with the 450mm, which is around a 60mm on 35mm full frame, but I was on the surface of Mars at the time...

[chrismuc]

Using these 350mm (sometimes …), not on Leica S but on GFX and on Contax 645 IQ180, I can say, the C645 350f4 is good but not great, while the Zeiss HB 350f5.6 SA is exceptional. Also its focusing feels wonderfully precise and perfectly damped, like an Otus lens. 

[John McMaster]

On 9/12/2021 at 1:02 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

If you want a telephoto for the S, Helge had good experience with the 280mm APO Telyt f4 lens, which when converted to the S system has enough coverage. I think he liked the 300mm Mamiya lens as well, but he will likely come by and put in his advice. 

The 280mm APO f4.0 needs to be used with the 1.4x APO converter to reach infinity.  The Mamiya 280mm f2.8 is pretty good, but no Mamiya lens I have used looks as good as a Leica. 

Also tripod head comes into it....  These lenses, particularly the Mamiya, will mount to the tripod via the lens.  My usual tripod is a Gitzo CF with an Arca Cube, superb until there is leverage on it - such as an S(007) with battery pack suspended several inches away from the centre point.  If I am expecting to use the longer lenses, really the only time I will carry them, I use a Wimberley head on the larger Zone VI wooden tripod.

john

[Deliberate1]

18 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thank you! The last one was with the 450mm, which is around a 60mm on 35mm full frame, but I was on the surface of Mars at the time...

Stuart, my apologies for the misspell in comments directed at your images above. It was not my intention to describe the first of them as "gorious." There is, in fact, nothing at all gory about it, at all. Indeed, quite the contrary.

Sometimes it surprises even me that I can claim English as my first language. 

David

[Deliberate1]

18 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thank you! The last one was with the 450mm, which is around a 60mm on 35mm full frame, but I was on the surface of Mars at the time...

Stuart, I am sure I querie for the entire forum when I ask how the execution of the image you snagged on Mars was affected, if at all, by the 1/3 gravity (compared to Earth).

I could have used some of that gravity boost whilst shlepping the 20lb Rollie 6008i kit through the Egyptian desert  - in June. 

David

[mgrayson3]

FWIW, I just did a focus experiment with a long lens on my "other" camera. Fuji X-H1 with 100-400 zoom. I turned off IS (although that turned out not to matter). AF was perfect. Shirt buttons at 1/2 mile etc. etc. Manual focus was terrible. Focus assist, magnified. Didn't matter. It was always off. This is a relief, as the Superachromat is now officially "too much trouble for lazy old me". If the HC 300/4.5 doesn't work out, then I'm left with S lenses for the S, which is no tragedy.

Matt

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks David! I knew what you meant, haha. The lovely thing about that 450mm lens is that it is tiny! It has a 52mm filter ring. I am not sure exactly why...I think due to the focal length and coverage, but the lens is not dark at all on the ground class. 

Despite the size of the lens, the camera is big and the reduced gravity helped. I actually took a shot of the shot, for that one, so you can see the rover tracks. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Deliberate1]

8 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thanks David! I knew what you meant, haha. The lovely thing about that 450mm lens is that it is tiny! It has a 52mm filter ring. I am not sure exactly why...I think due to the focal length and coverage, but the lens is not dark at all on the ground class. 

Despite the size of the lens, the camera is big and the reduced gravity helped. I actually took a shot of the shot, for that one, so you can see the rover tracks. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Nice. Got to love the size and weight of those LF lenses. I have a Toyo 45 rig (4x5) that does not get anywhere near the attention it deserves. I have scanned a few shots on the Eversmart - the files were like 1 Gb and gagged my PS/LR computer. I am sure I lowered the resolution I could make them more manageable.

If you were to peek inside our two chest freezers, you would see a trove of Koday Readyloads and Fuji Quickloads that I bought off Ebay (I think when Bush Jr. was President). I tell my wife they are "accumulating in value." Classic rover track shot, BTW. Well done.

David

[helged]

17 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

FWIW, I just did a focus experiment with a long lens on my "other" camera. Fuji X-H1 with 100-400 zoom. I turned off IS (although that turned out not to matter). AF was perfect. Shirt buttons at 1/2 mile etc. etc. Manual focus was terrible. Focus assist, magnified. Didn't matter. It was always off. This is a relief, as the Superachromat is now officially "too much trouble for lazy old me". If the HC 300/4.5 doesn't work out, then I'm left with S lenses for the S, which is no tragedy.

Matt

Are you staying that manual focus with live view magnification don't ensure images in focus? Strange, as this is the method I find most reliable. Just wondering... 

Edited September 17, 2021 by helged

[mgrayson3]

41 minutes ago, helged said:

Are you staying that manual focus with live view magnification don't ensure images in focus? Strange, as this is the method I find most reliable. Just wondering... 

Did you HAVE to say that? Now I retested carefully and, you are, of course, right. In an effort to avoid a large expenditure for an object of lust that would probably get little use, I used shoddy technique to fool myself. But now... Well, my wife wants to remodel the kitchen. That's worth a few legendary lenses. 😇

OTOH, the AF on a stabilized 400mm lens on a small sensor can do miracles. The building seemingly under attack by the police helicopter is about 2 miles away. (tight  crop)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Matt

Edited September 17, 2021 by mgrayson3
I'm an idiot

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mgrayson3]

I know this thread is about the 350/4, but I continue to wonder about the 350/5.6. The Teleconverter APO 1.4XE  seems to come in two color schemes - with and without the two blue stripes of the Superachromats. And yet there is nothing I can find in any Hassy literature to suggest that not all Teleconverter APO 1.4XE's are the same. Is anyone clear on the truth of the matter?