Anton Lineus , Feb 09, 2012; 02:18 a.m.
Being happy owner of GS-1 with two lenses (100 mm and 50 mm) I am going to get telephoto lens which will be used mostly for landscapes. After googling 200 and 250 mm Zenzanons I got an impression that they are both great lenses in terms of sharpness. Personally I'd go for 250 mm but would love to hear recommendation from people who used one (or both) of these lenses for landscape photography. Extra weight and 50 mm of focal length (as well as minimum f/stop) is not very important for me. Thanks in advance!
Andre Noble , Feb 09, 2012; 12:02 p.m.
Yes, research this carefully. I had the PS lenses (for the 6x6 SQ-Ai, and the PS 200 was noteworthy for being a genuine dog in terms of landscapes but i concede its low lp/mm performance would make it an outstanding portrait lens.
David Smith , Feb 09, 2012; 01:54 p.m.
Actually, the OP wanted comments from people who have experience of PG lenses, so why post irrelevant comments about PS lenses?
john photos , Feb 09, 2012; 08:51 p.m.
Either would be great for landscape. I own a GS-1 though not the 200mm or 250mm (and have owned at one time or another an ETRSI, Mamiya 7, Contax G etc..). Personally, I would go for reach leaning towards the 250mm.
In regards to the Andre Noble comment: all one has to do is look at this clowns website to ascertain he knows nothing about photography. His constant posting about about the sharpness (or lack thereof) of Bronica glass is amusing. Clearly he has never sold a photograph or worked professionally.
Personally, I feel Bronica glass is top notch.
Anton Lineus , Feb 10, 2012; 02:22 a.m.
Andre Noble , Feb 10, 2012; 01:06 p.m.
David Smith, who are you? (Other than the the of guy who gets his @#$ kicked in dark alleys)
David Smith , Feb 10, 2012; 04:36 p.m.
Andre Noble, who the hell are you - other than an equipment fondler with a chip on his shoulder who never posts an image.
Anton Lineus , Feb 11, 2012; 09:42 a.m.
Hey guys, I would greatly appreciate if you keep fighting in some other thread.. thanks!
Jim Peterson , Feb 14, 2012; 10:35 a.m.
I have the PG200 but will confess that I've still not used it enough to have a very clear opinion of it. It is fairly compact for a 200mm and significantly shorter than the PG250. I have a photo of it here: http://chemicalcameras.wordpress.com/bronica-gs-1/
boris de swan , Feb 21, 2012; 03:00 p.m.
If it is any worth to you I have a 200mm PG lens and it is incredebly sharp and consistently so through all the f stops. If Landscapes are your thing I would assume you'd like it a lot. For say, portrait work an ext. tube would be in order as the min. focusing distance is not too close. I have heard excellent reviews on the 250. f 5.6 , but, heavier , slower costlier.I also have the 100, 110 65 and 50 and the 200mm performance is quite stellar. But I am a firm believer that PG lenses are extremely underrated mostly because people don't know just how good they are. Cheers.
