vincenthoy28 寫:
章魚 寫:
sing 寫:
要"精"既話就, 賣左支80佢, 再SWC, 60, 100, 180, 350SA, 簡而精!
100/3.5 不是沒有諗過，不過就不會賣 80，佢根本不值錢，但就幾愛用。
60 就好想用
350SA .. 就真係沒有諗過，一日未買 180 ，一日都會諗下支 250SA 有沒有可能 ... o既 ..
Be serious, if excluding portrait, I prefer SWC + CF60 + CF100 + CF250 as simple set and SWC + CF60 + FE110 + FE150 + CF250 is you are so demanding in quality.
180 is excellent is optical performance but not for photo. Most of the time, you will find 180 is too "wide" & some time is too "tele" for landscape. Personally, the best combo is 150mm + 250mm.
Back to original question, the performance of 150f4 is not so outstanding. The only choice is F/FE150f2.8. Even Carl Zeiss marketing manager said 150f2.8 is the shapest lens in compare with MP120, S150f4, S180f4....
For 250, I saw many photo taken by CF250 (non-SA) and the result is good. Therefore, my comment is "Why SA??"
Thanks ar wah & now I read this from Mr. Kornelius J. Fleischer
A typical example is the Superachromat 5,6/250: It produces extreme sharpness (250 linepairs per millimeter)at the plane of best focus. But slightly off (which may be caused by photographer's focusing error, film position error, curvature of film, humidity, registration error of mirror or focusing screen, magazine wear, to name just a few), the sharpness drops dramatically. It can drop even below the levels the sharpness of a Sonnar 5,6/250, or the one of a Tele-Tessar 4/250. In other words: The performance of the Superachromat is extreme, but nervous. It requires advanced technique on the part of the photographer and also well aligned and maintained equipment, to actually utilize the full potential of this lens.
登入
註冊
問答集
搜尋
