Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 82

Thread: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

  1. #51
    Sheldon N's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    605

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share.

    A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

    I'm going to run and hide now.....

  2. #52

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,390

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon N View Post
    I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share.

    A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

    I'm going to run and hide now.....
    Why? Not everyone cares. I'm sticking with film.

  3. #53
    Still Developing
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    582

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon N View Post
    I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share.

    A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

    I'm going to run and hide now.....
    This doesn't sound so strange to me.. I bought a 35L prime for my 5D and compared it with the 24-105 to see how much better it was. It didn't seem that much better but was visibly sharper. Until I realised I'd picked the wrong lens.. the 24-105 was actually better than the 35 prime.. I won't contribute about the Leica as I know very little about it. (all my other canon lenses were sold in order to fund my Ebony + lenses)

    Tim

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    674

    Thumbs up Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon N View Post
    I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share.

    A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

    I'm going to run and hide now.....
    Shoot the M8 in RAW only. JPEG looks like garbage. Shoot the 35 at F2 or between F4-F5.6 (max) and not at F8-F16.

    Report back your similar findings...and while you are in the field, find me a nice AS front standard

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    674

    Thumbs up Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    totally agree Frank --- it's why I still shoot with 4x5 (And FWIW, I still own the Chamonix --- I think we had a bet?)

    Bottom line is the M8 is about like quality drum-scanned 2-1/4. Frankly, the only digital solution I've found that beats scanned 4x5 is the Betterlight scanning back in high-rez mode, but it's not a very convenient capture medium relative to film, at least in the field. The 33/39 MP digital backs are impressive and close to 4x5, but the entry cost is prohibitive unless you shoot a lot of frames per year.

    Cheers,
    So it's true that these Betterlight backs can beat a 4X5 w/150 Sironar APO S shot with the best film possible, and scanned with the best drum scanner in the world?

  6. #56
    Jack Flesher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    1,071

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon N View Post
    I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share.

    A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

    I'm going to run and hide now.....
    No need to hide, just get a bit more educated... Leica M glass is optimized to be its sharpest at relatively close reportage shooting distances, like 1.5 meters for the 35's. Also, they are optimized to be sharpest wide open and tend to have their best operating aperture 2 stops down from wide open. By f8, ALL M lenses are suffering from VISIBLE diffraction. THe last factor is the lens and body being in synch --- IOW making sure what you thought you focused on was what you actually focused on.

    So, assuming the mechanical focus connection is proper, try a repeat of your test, using the systems at 1.5 meters and f4. then get back to us with those results
    Jack Flesher

    www.getdpi.com

  7. #57
    Jack Flesher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    1,071

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by audioexcels View Post
    So it's true that these Betterlight backs can beat a 4X5 w/150 Sironar APO S shot with the best film possible, and scanned with the best drum scanner in the world?
    Yes, assuming "best film possible" is a color emulsion too But to be clear, I'm referring to the Super 6K HR version (or 8K), not the 4K.
    Jack Flesher

    www.getdpi.com

  8. #58
    Drew Saunders drew.saunders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    739

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by JPlomley View Post
    ...
    55 APO Grandagon
    75/4.5 Grandagon-N
    90/4.5 Grandagon-N
    135 APO Sironar-S
    210 APO Sironar-S
    300 APO Sironar-S
    120 Nikkor AM-ED

    ...In order to reduce weight, ...
    If you just want to save weight, replacing the 210 with the 200/8 Nikkor M, and the 300 with either the 300/9 M or the Fuji 300/8.5 might save as much weight as dropping any one other lens. Do you use the 120 Nikkor only for macro, or for regular use as well? If you only use it for macro, can you live with the 135 as your close-up lens?

    As long as we're spending your money , how about the 80XL instead of the 75 and 90?

    Personally, I don't like the perspective of a 90 or 135, so, for me, the decision to replace both of them with a 110XL would be easy. If the 135 is your most used lens, keep it.

    Drew

  9. #59
    Sheldon N's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    605

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    No need to hide, just get a bit more educated... Leica M glass is optimized to be its sharpest at relatively close reportage shooting distances, like 1.5 meters for the 35's. Also, they are optimized to be sharpest wide open and tend to have their best operating aperture 2 stops down from wide open. By f8, ALL M lenses are suffering from VISIBLE diffraction. THe last factor is the lens and body being in synch --- IOW making sure what you thought you focused on was what you actually focused on.

    So, assuming the mechanical focus connection is proper, try a repeat of your test, using the systems at 1.5 meters and f4. then get back to us with those results
    I'll have to do that. I did promise my friend a re-test, since he was near tears.

    Keep in mind, there's no pretention that this was anything approaching a scientific test. He was just showing me his new toy and we couldn't resist firing a couple frames off in the back yard.

    Of course at f/4 I'll need to use the 35L instead of the 24-105L. There wouldn't be any contest if you forced the Canon zoom to shoot wide open. Like Tim I've also found that the 24-105L is just as sharp as the 35L when stopped down.

    We may have to match up his 75mm f/1.4 against the Canon 85mm f/1.2L. I doubt that you could find fault with either lens so it's sort of a moot point.

  10. #60
    Ted Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,465

    Re: Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

    To expand on what Jack said about the Betterlight 6K, it's performance is phenomenal but its applications are somewhat limited. You need to be prepared to double the size and weight of your kit if you re going to use the back in the field. You also need to be careful to choose subjects where there is NO movement or where movement doesn't matter. In the studio, working with product shots or art reproduction it's a different matter. I've got some recent shots where the detail is incredible, probably exceeds what I could do with 8x10.

Similar Threads

  1. Three lens backpacking set 90mm, 240mm, and...?
    By Yuri Saniko in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2014, 21:02
  2. help in choosing 135mm lens
    By mo in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 3-Nov-2003, 13:57
  3. Movements with 90mm on Wisner Traditional?
    By Ben Hopson in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 6-Sep-2001, 22:05
  4. Small Product Photography ...135mm Lens? will it work?
    By Ron Stroope in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-Dec-2000, 12:58
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 1-Jun-1999, 09:15

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •