Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
The short answer is that there is no appreciable difference in depth of field between an f/2.8 lens and an f/3.5 lens in medium format. In fact, at close range, it's a negligible difference between an f/3.5 and an f/2 lens. Try every combination you've seen mentioned here (75mm, 80mm, 100mm, 105mm) and every aperture, and you'll see, particularly at close range, that it's not as big a deal as you may think.
As has been explained to me by people who sold Rollei 2.8s when new, the "2.8" part was mostly for sex appeal and not for image quality. I've found it easier to focus a 3.5 because it has an f/2.8 lens - so if it looks right for viewing, it's probably right for taking. Two 2.8 lenses take away any notion of a safety margin.
And having shot one for several years, I disagree that the 105/2.4 Takumar is good for isolating subjects. It is a very highly corrected lens that excels at very close range or at middle range and medium apertures. The byproduct is that complex backgrounds can look wiry. The 100/3.5 Fujinon that Calzone mentioned is not as corrected - but it is very, very difficult to get a bad background.
Dante
As has been explained to me by people who sold Rollei 2.8s when new, the "2.8" part was mostly for sex appeal and not for image quality. I've found it easier to focus a 3.5 because it has an f/2.8 lens - so if it looks right for viewing, it's probably right for taking. Two 2.8 lenses take away any notion of a safety margin.
And having shot one for several years, I disagree that the 105/2.4 Takumar is good for isolating subjects. It is a very highly corrected lens that excels at very close range or at middle range and medium apertures. The byproduct is that complex backgrounds can look wiry. The 100/3.5 Fujinon that Calzone mentioned is not as corrected - but it is very, very difficult to get a bad background.
Dante
franciscojhh
Member
It is my understanding that Radionar has only 3 elements... Is the image quality good at big apertures? Do you guys think that I should avoid 3 element lenses in general for apertures bigger than 3.5?
hanskerensky
Well-known
Yes, the Radionar 1:2.9 has only 3 elements. Images are a bit soft though give a pleasuring appearence. When this camera came out in the 1950's the general remarks in the photo magazines of that time was that 2.9 was too large for a frontcell focusing lens. Better would be 1:3.5 or best 1:4.5.
You can find some images in my Flickr set :http://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/sets/72157622962172593/
You can find some images in my Flickr set :http://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/sets/72157622962172593/
Soeren
Well-known
Pentax 67 with a 165mm f/2,8 = stunning.
Best regards
Best regards