150 lens with iq3100

[wing1]

In your opinion which is the best quality with iq3 100 among 150 2,8 blue ring, 150 3,5 blue ring and the new 75-150 br at 150 mm?
Best

[william]

Lots of info here:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59773-sk-blue-ring-150mm-f-2-8-ls.html

[Paul2660]

They are all great lenses.

I am sure the new 150mm BR is excellent. I have used the 150LS and from F6.3 to 11 it is excellent and much more compact to carry. Mine does exhibit strange magenta fringing  towards the edges which C1 can't correct.  The 150 f2.8 BR I am sure is top notch but it's too massive to carry all day for me.

The 75-150 LS non BR is stellar. Period. So it's safe to assume the BR is great.

Paul Caldwell

[E.J. Peiker]

The 75-150 LS non BR is stellar. Period. So it's safe to assume the BR is great.

I have the BR 75-150 f/4-5.6 and it is an exceptional zoom lens but it is more than a stop slower than the other 150mm options so depending on what you shoot that could be a consideration.

[DrakeJ]

They are all great lenses.

I am sure the new 150mm BR is excellent. I have used the 150LS and from F6.3 to 11 it is excellent and much more compact to carry. Mine does exhibit strange magenta fringing  towards the edges which C1 can't correct.  The 150 f2.8 BR I am sure is top notch but it's too massive to carry all day for me.

The 75-150 LS non BR is stellar. Period. So it's safe to assume the BR is great.

Paul Caldwell

LCC?

[Christopher Arnoldi]

I have the 3,5/150 LS and had the 2,8/150 LS for testing on my IQ3 100. The 2,8/150 is very huge (see attached picture with both lenses). I could hardly hold it with one hand screw it into the bayonet. The focus speed ist very good, but the focus plane is often not right. Sharpness is superb and color fringing is much less than with the 3,5/150. I wondered about how shallow depth of field is even at f8 or f11.

[E.J. Peiker]

I wondered about how shallow depth of field is even at f8 or f11.

The DOF of all three 150mm lenses at f/8 or f/11 will be identical.

[Christopher Arnoldi]

I agree with you. That was the reason I wondered about the narrow depth of field.

[E.J. Peiker]

I agree with you. That was the reason I wondered about the narrow depth of field.

Do you mean when looking through the viewfinder?  If so, you are looking at the image with the lens wide open unless you push the DOF preview button.  So when you look through the viewfinder and an f/2.8 lens is attached, you will see a lot less DOF than if you have something like the zoom attached which is f/5.6 at the 150mm end.  The lens doesn't stop down to the selected aperture until you push the shutter button and initiate a capture.  To your "the focus plane is not right" comment, did you focus trim the lens?  It is pretty important to do that...

[Doug Peterson]

One nice thing about the 150/3.5 model is that it's now sporadically available as refurbished. Phase One Refurbished Lens Sale

The f/2.8 model is very clean and extremely low in chromatic abaration, which the f/3.5 exhibited a moderate amount of when shot wide open. It comes at a higher cost (both in $ and in size/weight).

[Christopher Arnoldi]

Do you mean when looking through the viewfinder?  If so, you are looking at the image with the lens wide open unless you push the DOF preview button.  So when you look through the viewfinder and an f/2.8 lens is attached, you will see a lot less DOF than if you have something like the zoom attached which is f/5.6 at the 150mm end.  The lens doesn't stop down to the selected aperture until you push the shutter button and initiate a capture.  To your "the focus plane is not right" comment, did you focus trim the lens?  It is pretty important to do that...

I had the lens only for a few days and did no focus trim. I think this forum is not only to post facts, so I only wanted to say what I thought while testing the 2,8/150 LS. To illustrate my thoughts I have uploaded a IQII-file I took with this lens at f16. The link is active for 1 month.

https://we.tl/kdRPz6Z4ru