[KGH]

I use the 75 FA 75% of the time for portraits. It has great bokeh and is very sharp in the center. I use the 45 FA four groups. I have others for sparring use including the 135LS which is sharp also, and perfect for single portraits and head and shoulders.

[algrove]

Not that I read it here, but the 90 also has SR which can come in handy for hand held shots assuming no mirror lock up or tripod use.

Also rental is an option before laying out the funds in full.

[gavincato]

Theres nowhere here in Sydney that rents them, but I have been in contact with my local pentax rep and they are organising me 1 to borrow for a (brief) bit.

[gavincato]

hi guys

I'm having 2nd thoughts on the 90.

If I get this adapter ;

https://www.fotodioxpro.com/fotodiox-pro-lens-adapter-hasselblad-v-lens-to-p...nt-adapte.html

And a 110mm f2 hasseblad from ebay - thats the right combo?

I've never used a blad before so my knowledge of them is zero

cheers

[algrove]

I used that Fotodiox adapter with Hasselblad V lenses like the CF100, CF150 and CF250. The focus confirmation helped but I usually kept the f-stop at higher numbers just in case. They worked great.

Curious as to what you did not like about the loaner 90 for your purposes.

[Kolor-Pikker]

Curious as to what you did not like about the loaner 90 for your purposes.

Ditto. For the prices these lenses are going for on eBay, I'm getting fairly tempted here.

[gavincato]

hey guys. a friend got a 90 and it looks very nice, but not stunning. On the other hand the blad 110/2 sample shots on flickr really click to me.

Ideally I'd have both - but in terms of allocating money i'm thinking i might be better with the blad now and add the 90 later.

[algrove]

hey guys. a friend got a 90 and it looks very nice, but not stunning. On the other hand the blad 110/2 sample shots on flickr really click to me.

Ideally I'd have both - but in terms of allocating money i'm thinking i might be better with the blad now and add the 90 later.

Not doubting what you say, but what about the 90 is not stunning. Kindly explain for all of us.

[gavincato]

It just didn't have that magic look to me like some of the older lenses do. My opinion only, I'm sure others would disagree!

[Kolor-Pikker]

It just didn't have that magic look to me like some of the older lenses do. My opinion only, I'm sure others would disagree!

Hmm. That's a lot of magic to give up AF, SR and macro capabilities over, but of course the other lens is of a wider aperture and is longer, so I'm sure there's something to it's look.

In any case, there are only two aspects that matter to me in terms of "look", how well a lens performs wide open and whether the bokeh is totally round and buttery smooth. Doesn't matter what the actual aperture and focal length is otherwise.

[Stan43]

I have the 90 macro, love it for portraits. Easy to blur the background and good for close up details. It's worth the money.

[gavincato]

Yes no doubting the 90 would be a million times better usability wise.

Anyway I'll have a 110mm blad in about 5-7 days, I'll do a direct compare to the 90mm. I'll post here after it.

I'll then return/sell the blad if the 90mm proves better. Gut feel is I'll prefer the ultra low dof aspect of the blad.

[Kolor-Pikker]

Yes no doubting the 90 would be a million times better usability wise.

Anyway I'll have a 110mm blad in about 5-7 days, I'll do a direct compare to the 90mm. I'll post here after it.

I'll then return/sell the blad if the 90mm proves better. Gut feel is I'll prefer the ultra low dof aspect of the blad.

While I love the wide open look of my 150mm 2.8, and even the 55mm, something has to be done about the absurd amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration; anything even remotely specular or high contrast is green behind the plane of focus and magenta in front. While it is fixable in Lightroom to an extent, there are subjects it just ruins, place too low a setting and it's still there, too high and it starts eating into things that are actually supposed to be green and red.

Try to shoot some subjects that are back-lit, specular or just really high-contrast, here is the killer test for the 150mm - at f/4 even: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/_IMG1991.jpg

[ColColt]

Back in the 90's I did a fair share of weddings/portraits and of course, bridal shoots. I had two 6x7's and did all I needed to do at weddings with the 90 and 165LS lens. I found both were superb for 98% of all weddings whether indoors or out.

[Lacunapratum]

The 110mm Planar is just pure magic, one of those lenses that is just made for portraits, that is sharp but not too sharp, and just provides sufficient glow to compliment your subject without losing detail or obscuring lines. It adapts very nicely to the 645Z with the Fotodiox adapter.

I have one for my Rolleiflex Hy6, and Zeiss modified the design ever so slightly to fit the leaf shutter of the Rolleiflex 6000/Hy6 line. They are the same lenses more or less though.

I'd use it for a shoulder or torso portrait or for a couple indoors. In fact, it is ideal for your indoors application because of its exceptional speed. Knowing its advantages, you still want to be careful though in just a few instances. While better than the 90mm, 110mm is still a short focal length when it comes to tight head shots, and not all faces do well with such a close angle. Thus, as I said, you may want to have a slightly wider frame.

Second, F2.0 at 110mm results in a really narrow depth of field. You will often find the eyes to be sharp, one eye perhaps, not even the eyelids, and the tip of the nose already substantially out of focus. Some faces do well with this, but not all. Thus, you may want to stop down just a little bit, not much. This lens only sharpens up at F4. While F2 is fairly soft, even F2.8 still gives you somewhat of a portrait feel, and depth of field is often easier to handle. Also the stops in between F2 until F4 all have their own characteristics, and all are perfectly usable.

It's a magic lens and well worth its price. Good light!