Quote from: MGrayson on May 04, 2024, 07:25:35 AMQuote from: xoda on May 04, 2024, 06:16:55 AMQuote from: MGrayson on May 03, 2024, 09:47:12 PMQuote from: xoda on May 03, 2024, 07:51:21 PMI have the Pentax 67 400/4 ED-IF. It's optically fine at 100MP. It's just too heavy, so I never use it.Quote from: MGrayson on May 02, 2024, 06:44:14 AMThis, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7
Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6
There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.
Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?
Curious if you could expound on that a little more? "Fine" as in it has good sharpness from corner to corner wide open like the XCD 135mm? Or fine as in acceptable, though not holding up unreasonable pixel-peeping standards?
First of all, UGH!
Full frame. The sidewalk is about 200 yards away. f/8. Wide open is too low contrast and too much fringing.
Crop
It's sharp, but I often can't tell when I've missed focus. Not a high contrast lens.
Here's the XCD 135 + 1.7x
And same crop
I could hand hold the Mamiya 645 300/5.6 ULD and get better results than the Pentax at one fifth the weight.
In fact, I just did. This is f/5.6. Sorry about the motion blur on the walkers. Here's the same crop.
Matt
Quote from: xoda on May 04, 2024, 06:16:55 AMQuote from: MGrayson on May 03, 2024, 09:47:12 PMQuote from: xoda on May 03, 2024, 07:51:21 PMI have the Pentax 67 400/4 ED-IF. It's optically fine at 100MP. It's just too heavy, so I never use it.Quote from: MGrayson on May 02, 2024, 06:44:14 AMThis, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7
Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6
There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.
Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?
Curious if you could expound on that a little more? "Fine" as in it has good sharpness from corner to corner wide open like the XCD 135mm? Or fine as in acceptable, though not holding up unreasonable pixel-peeping standards?
Quote from: MGrayson on May 03, 2024, 09:47:12 PMQuote from: xoda on May 03, 2024, 07:51:21 PMI have the Pentax 67 400/4 ED-IF. It's optically fine at 100MP. It's just too heavy, so I never use it.Quote from: MGrayson on May 02, 2024, 06:44:14 AMThis, but it weighs 14 pounds. 800mm f/6.7
Less insane is this. Only 10 pounds. 600mm f/5.6
There's a mirror 1000mm f/8, if you don't care about the bokeh.
Curious if any one has any experience (even second-hand experience) with either of these lenses on a modern digital camera?
Quote from: Ralf on May 04, 2024, 03:15:11 AMThe "Focus on infinity" function works with the 4/21, 2.5/38 & 1.9/80 lenses.
I could only imagine using this function for astrophotography (which I don't actually do yet), and for that the 3.5/45 would be my last choice anyway.
The Hasselblad service will probably be able to explain why focus on infinity doesn't work with the 3.5/45.
Quote from: Helwin on May 04, 2024, 04:24:53 AMQuote from: Ralf on May 04, 2024, 03:15:11 AMThe "Focus on infinity" function works with the 4/21, 2.5/38 & 1.9/80 lenses.
Did you test them all or how do you know?