Re: Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
bwcolor wrote:
Tim:
I love what you do with the 50-150mm. I’ve never traveled with such a heavy/large lens, but your results are impressive. Maybe other ways to capture the flowers, but this lens sure brings the micro-contrast, colors and contrast.
Why did you choose the 50-150mm vs/or in addition to the 70-200mm GM ii? Was it simply the f/2.0, or performance with teleconverter? I appreciate your insight.
For a long time, I've generally gravitated to primes, generally smaller "f/2"'ish type lenses. The Sigma 28-45 f/1.8 intrigued me, so I bought one. Turns out I really enjoyed the flexibility of prime like performance in a faster than normal zoom lens solution. Sure it's a bit big and heavy, but it's lighter than my CV 28/35/50 trio combined. I had a lot of fun shooting that lens. So when the 50-150 f/2 was announced...I was a bit more intrigued than I would have been had I not bought the Sigma. No way I would have dropped that kind of money on more of an experiment. I don't shoot a ton of telephoto, that's more of a niche "with purpose" type shooting style for me. The difference between 50mm and 70mm as a starting FL is noticeable for me. So timing wise, we were going to Michigan for vacation...the lens was available to rent. So I figured, why not? Yes, arguably it's heavy, but it feels lighter than it looks (which doesn't matter in the bag though I guess). The rental looked brand new.....and I couldn't bring myself to send it back.... So I pulled the keep option on the Lensrentals rental.
I have a Mindshift PhotoCross 15 that harkens back to DLSR size equipment. I can put the Sigma 14-24, 28-45 and Sony 50-150 in that bag and I have arguably near prime performance in 3 lenses with a lot of flexibility. You have UW to wide in one lens, slightly wide to near normal in another, and near normal to telephoto in just those 3 lenses. All relatively fast, granted the 14-24 is just f/2.8 but for an UWA zoom lens, it has excellent performance.
I haven't used the 70-200 GM II much since buying the 50-150. But the 70-200 takes TCs (I have the 1.4x) and the 50-150 doesn't. So I hesitate to sell it. But unless I want the longer coverage of the 70-200 (with or without TC), I'll grab the 50-150 every single time.
I find the difference in f/2 and f/2.8 is noticeable from a blur perspective. It won't blow out backgrounds as much as a f/1.4, but I don't feel I absolutely need that.
I don't take it out on every outing, and I'm splitting time between GFX and Sony, but it definitely gets in the mix. I'm not taking it on vacation this year, no slight to the lens. But going to Maine this year and given my shooting there, I have a slightly different mix of equipment than what I took to Michigan last year.
I tend to be a bit "abnormal" when it comes to the amount of equipment I'm willing to carry.
Re: Hasselblad XCD 35-100mm vs 90mm vs Sony 50-150mm GM
bwcolor wrote:
Tim:
I love what you do with the 50-150mm. I’ve never traveled with such a heavy/large lens, but your results are impressive. Maybe other ways to capture the flowers, but this lens sure brings the micro-contrast, colors and contrast.
Why did you choose the 50-150mm vs/or in addition to the 70-200mm GM ii? Was it simply the f/2.0, or performance with teleconverter? I appreciate your insight.
For a long time, I've generally gravitated to primes, generally smaller "f/2"'ish type lenses. The Sigma 28-45 f/1.8 intrigued me, so I bought one. Turns out I really enjoyed the flexibility of prime like performance in a faster than normal zoom lens solution. Sure it's a bit big and heavy, but it's lighter than my CV 28/35/50 trio combined. I had a lot of fun shooting that lens. So when the 50-150 f/2 was announced...I was a bit more intrigued than I would have been had I not bought the Sigma. No way I would have dropped that kind of money on more of an experiment. I don't shoot a ton of telephoto, that's more of a niche "with purpose" type shooting style for me. The difference between 50mm and 70mm as a starting FL is noticeable for me. So timing wise, we were going to Michigan for vacation...the lens was available to rent. So I figured, why not? Yes, arguably it's heavy, but it feels lighter than it looks (which doesn't matter in the bag though I guess). The rental looked brand new.....and I couldn't bring myself to send it back.... So I pulled the keep option on the Lensrentals rental.
I have a Mindshift PhotoCross 15 that harkens back to DLSR size equipment. I can put the Sigma 14-24, 28-45 and Sony 50-150 in that bag and I have arguably near prime performance in 3 lenses with a lot of flexibility. You have UW to wide in one lens, slightly wide to near normal in another, and near normal to telephoto in just those 3 lenses. All relatively fast, granted the 14-24 is just f/2.8 but for an UWA zoom lens, it has excellent performance.
I haven't used the 70-200 GM II much since buying the 50-150. But the 70-200 takes TCs (I have the 1.4x) and the 50-150 doesn't. So I hesitate to sell it. But unless I want the longer coverage of the 70-200 (with or without TC), I'll grab the 50-150 every single time.
I find the difference in f/2 and f/2.8 is noticeable from a blur perspective. It won't blow out backgrounds as much as a f/1.4, but I don't feel I absolutely need that.
I don't take it out on every outing, and I'm splitting time between GFX and Sony, but it definitely gets in the mix. I'm not taking it on vacation this year, no slight to the lens. But going to Maine this year and given my shooting there, I have a slightly different mix of equipment than what I took to Michigan last year.
