The value in bang for buck must lie with the Bronica but other factors intervene such as a requirement for the lens shutter to sync flash at all speeds for some and more ephemerally the cachet or heritage of shooting Hasselblad. As pointed out above unless you are going to be locking down and using very careful technique the differences are mute anyway. I would therefore be very cautious drawing conclusions of a definitive nature from any of these tests, usually performed on a single sample which could well be an outlier for good or bad, and not looking at sample variation. The difference being that the HC glass is optimised for near to mid focus anticipating the "studio" conditions they were expected to be used under. Now I know testing is almost without exception at these distances but the Zeiss glass is optimised for infinity, other than the obvious exception of the Macro Planar, and the differences were clearly demonstrated when Hasselblad compared the Zeiss glass against the Japanese built HC lenses on their introduction. I am not here to defend Hasselblad/Zeiss against all comers and I have never shot Bronica glass but the technical posts, which are appreciated, do test the Zeiss glass against charts at fairly close distance, in the case of hevanet stated to be 8 - 10 ft.
#Bronica sq a 6x7 pro#
Should you wish to tread the di****l path, of doom, the Hasselblad is straightforward and the early backs are no longer silly money.īTW on affordable glass I recently purchased a C 50mm Hasselblad lens and under benign conditions it is indistinguishable from my CF 50mm FLE, where is does fall, if it is a fall because that is why I bought it, is for flare being a non T* example it was £179 UK pounds, with a pro hood I suspect the difference would be taken out other than the close range correction of the FLE. I think the ergonomics of the two systems, and which you find most comfortable/inspiring/confident with, should be a larger factor than the lens differences. There may be stars in the Bronica world I am not as familiar with. On the other hand the Hasselblad/Zeiss 100mm Planar, the 180mm and the 40mm IF are not the usual suspects and are pretty special. In a well exposed, focused 16x20' print, using f5.6-f11 (the best for each lens) I doubt you'd see a difference. If your making a mural and sharpness is the most important aspect of your image, the Hasselblad optics are the best. The consensus seems to be on the usual suspect lenses one may shade the other, and vice versa, based on different subjects and lighting, may be micro contrast and flare differences but they are really close. I went that direction because of the cost. Which two lenses, you don't state any focal length?
0 kommentar(er)
