Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: 35mm vs. large format
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:48:12 -0700
References: <01C02C7C.D7949660@user-2ive0bp.dialup.mindspring.com>

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> > there is no medium/large format equivalent to the 35/1.4 ASPH,
> > or the 90/2 ASPH...
> 
> The closest I have seen are the Hasselblad 50/2.8 and the 110/2.  Damn, damn fine lenses.

The 120 f/4 macro on a Hasselblad is an awesome hunk of glass. I would think it
would  be said to serve it's format as well as the 90/2 ASPH APO does for 24x36
mm. Plus it gets right in there to the nubbies!
I've LOVING my 90/2 ASPH APO by the way, it's balance and feel and results.
And i don't have the 120 for my Blad system yet.
The Distagon CF 3.5/60 mm lens is a fast, light and compact wide-angle lens for
the Hasselblad not ultrafast like the 35/1.4 for Leica but an awesome performer
none the less. And so is a 50, Fle or no fle's.
Lately i hear the reason faster lenses are not made for medium format is lack of
flatness of the neg.
It's certainly a viable different ball game.
Markwr

via ball via nota duck?

In reply to: Message from Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com> (RE: [Leica] Re: 35mm vs. large format)