Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:45 PM 25/11/96 +0100, Brad wrote: [snip, thank god!] > >Anyone have any experience with medium format here ? I'm looking at some >use Hasselblad equipment with some perverse longing, and am wondering how >the quality (pictures, lenses and body construction, that is) compare with >Leica quality. Anyinput would be apprecaited. Thanks. I think that one of the best lenses that I have ever used (and I own 5 Leica-M lenses) is the 120/4 Makro-Planar for the Hasselblad. One of the things that I do when I first buy a lens is to photograph a newspaper stuck to a wall to evaluate sharoness etc. Nothing too scientific, its just to see if I bought a dog or not. With the 120 lens (bought used, who can afford to buy any of these lenses new?), I could detect no difference whatsoever on the negatives, regardless of the lens opening. Corner sharpness is supurb equally at f4 or at f22 (the lens goes down to f32). Zeiss claims in their literature that the lens is optomized for makro use only, but I have used it for landscapes etc with first rate results. Ounce per ounce this lens can take on anything that Leica can throw at it. As far as the camera body is concerned, the back on my camera (bought new) scratched certain films (notably TMX 100) which I believe are thicker than normal. Even though I waited until after the warranty period had run out, the Hasselblad distributer in my country (Canada) repaired it and gave me a loaner, for no charge. It has worked fine since then. Dan C.