I'll stick to my Canon A2 for high speed work and use the Bronica for shots where I have time to meter and set things up as I want them. I don't do much flash work, and the most current aperture priority autoexposure for the SQ-Ai is about on par with my old Pentax ME from the mid-70's. I am not really interested in the metered prism finders or the OTF flash control. The 150 mm S is a f3.5, while the 150 PS is a f4.0. The S lenses are the older design, but I don't know the specific advantages of the newer PS design/manufacture. There are two "classes" of lenses, the S and the PS. This is the widest rectalinear lens for the Bronica SQ system (the 35mm f3.5 is a fish eye), and is also one of the most expensive to purchase (at the time of writing only the rare 500mm f8 appears to cost more although I couldn't find a 35mm for sale). The most commonly available lenses are the 80 mm (standard lens) and the 150 mm (equal to about 95 mm in 35 mm format). My interest is not landscapes, so I have no real interest in wide angle lenses. I may one day get one of the unmetered prisms. The waist level finder is fine for me, as most of the time the SQ will be on a tripod. I chose the SQ because I can always get a 6x4.5 film holder for the SQ but I can't get a 6圆 back for the ETRS. Here is a little of my thoughts on purchasing. I am awaiting arrival of 80 mm PS lens that I won last night for $135 in purported excellent condition. Buying on Ebay I so far have a 120 back (SQ-A), body (SQ-A), and WL finder, all in good condition for <$300. I can only quote myself ( such bad form I know) 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.I recently (a couple of weeks ago) made the same decision, choosing to go with the SQ.
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.
#Which bronica sq 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. 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. Which two lenses, you don't state any focal length?
0 kommentar(er)
