Poll: Which Tele Hasselblad V lenses do you own?

[BillBaileyImages]

Current kit (the 30 was years ago, the 500 was C version, and I don't plan to add newer copies, , but plans DO change ):
40 CF FLE, 60 CF, 80 CF (came with the 501CM, but I would prefer the 100), 120 Macro CF, 180 CF, and 350 CF. A few might be CFi versions, but I don't have any CFE lenses since I sold them with my 203 (should have never done that!). Also have the 1.4 and 2x telextenders along with 16, 32, and (2) 56 extension tubes for the 120.
Six A12 magazines, mostly the IV version with dark slide holders. Yikes! If my wife were still alive, she would have a few words about my GAS.

 

[chuckroast]

The 2xMutar might qualify also because it is said to cause no image degredation at all. Mine is great with enough light. The 1.4 XE converters sound really interesting if they work with the CF lenses. They are new to my needs and desires, ( and budget).

Hasselblad reps used to joke that their converters actually improved the image quality

I dunno who said there is no image degradation at all, but I'd be mighty suspicious of such claims. Adding more air and glass interfaces is bound to cause loss of image quality on some dimensions. The converter cannot correct for all aberrations across all the various lenses that can be plugged into them. The Hassy converters are excellent as such thing go, but they almost certainly have some downsides ...

 

[skahde]

I'm always a bit puzzled when people claim the 250 mm Sonnar to be an exceptional lens. The results with my 250 were more ok than outstanding and even Zeiss own MTF show that it has very even but rather low sharpness. It is one of the weakest performers in a nevertheless excellent system.

 

[chuckroast]

I'm always a bit puzzled when people claim the 250 mm Sonnar to be an exceptional lens. The results with my 250 were more ok than outstanding and even Zeiss own MTF show that it has very even but rather low sharpness. It is one of the weakest performers in a nevertheless excellent system.

I concur. I have owned the C and now own the CF T* version of this lens. My results with both generation of lenses is consistent with your observation. They're OK but in nowhere near that same league as the 60mm Distagon or 120mm Makro-Planar. Even the 80mm f/2.8, which isn't remotely Hassy's best lens, outperforms the 250.

But that's exactly why I keep one around. Because it is not so surgically sharp, it's a fine portrait lens, particularly at wider apertures. On a tripod, stopped down, it's also capable of pretty workman like results on more general subjects.

I've never had my mitts on an 250mm APO, but I'm told it's a whole other experience. Anyone wishing to donate one to me for confirmation, feel free to PM me for shipping info

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The 2xMutar might qualify also because it is said to cause no image degredation at all. Mine is great with enough light. The 1.4 XE converters sound really interesting if they work with the CF lenses. They are new to my needs and desires, ( and budget).

My 2xMutar shows clear optical degradation, and I think that's part of the physics that even Carl Zeiss cannot change.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm always a bit puzzled when people claim the 250 mm Sonnar to be an exceptional lens. The results with my 250 were more ok than outstanding and even Zeiss own MTF show that it has very even but rather low sharpness. It is one of the weakest performers in a nevertheless excellent system.

That's harsh, and I do not see where you see low sharpness in their MTF. Do we have the same understanding of 'sharpness'? The lens is truly excellent.

 

[Arthurwg]

I own um ... too many lenses. But my consistent goto for 90%+ of my Hassy shooting is the 60mm f/3.5 Distagon and the 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar.

Me too. Exactly.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I have no telephoto lenses per the list in the poll. I have just the 50/4 CF, 80/2.8 CF and 120/4 CF. When I bought the 120 instead of a 150 I told myself that when I missed an important shot because the 120 wasn't long enough I would look into longer lenses. That was about 20 years ago and it hasn't happened yet.

 

[GLS]

That's harsh, and I do not see where you see low sharpness in their MTF. Do we have the same understanding of 'sharpness'? The lens is truly excellent.

Compare it to the MTF curves of the 250 Superachromat:

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF250SA.pdf

 

[skahde]

The SA was always out of my reach but compare the non-SA 250 mm...

https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-c/de/datasheet-zeiss-sonnar-56250-de.pdf

to the humble 150 mm when slightly stopped down to f8 at higher frequency, which becomes relevant at higher magifications, where my landscapes needed sharp detail.

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cf/en/datasheet-zeiss-sonnar-4150-en.pdf

I owned both and could easily spot the difference.

Edit: Second link corrected, previously both were for the 250 mm

 

[Flashcam]

My 2xMutar shows clear optical degradation, and I think that's part of the physics that even Carl Zeiss cannot change.

Would you use your 2XMutar with an 80mm at wide aperture, or a 150 with an extension tube, for portraiture to make the background go to softer focus?

 

[Flashcam]

Would you use your 2XMutar with an 80mm at wide aperture, or a 150 with an extension tube, for portraiture to make the background go to softer focus?

Sorry to be a bit off topic on the 250 Sonar question. It's taken a while for me to make it back.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

Would you use your 2XMutar with an 80mm at wide aperture, or a 150 with an extension tube, for portraiture to make the background go to softer focus?

When shooting portraits of folks with less-than-perfect skin, I used the Hasselblad Softar lenses. They came (don't know if they are still manufactured) in three levels of "softness," and my clients appreciated the absence of razor sharpness.

 

[Flashcam]

Thanks Bill! I've used the 1 and the 2. The 3 turned out to be so diffused that it didn't seem to work with people but only for atmosphere type scenics. I was wondering about shooting more 3/4 or full length shots of some adorable subject in sharp focus with the background very soft but not a great distance away. The lighting at ISO 100 with flash is manageable but a controllably softer background would be great!
Somewhere I saw a photographer from Europe who had done that with an extension tube behind the lens so it would not focus to infinity behind the subject, causing the background to be softer. That was a very cool idea! I was trying to figure out something like it using a 2x extender Because it subtracts two stops! First time a 2x has been really useable I think.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

In the "old days," one approach was Vaseline. The intended subject area was left clear, but on a UV filter, you would smear a light coating of Vaseline. Reminds me of finger painting.
It would require several attempts to get it perfect, and the UV filter would have to be cleaned between versions--but the results were as hoped for: ethereal background with an in-focus subject. It's worth a try.

 

[warden]

Would you use your 2XMutar with an 80mm at wide aperture, or a 150 with an extension tube, for portraiture to make the background go to softer focus?

I think your overall image quality would be better with the 150 + extension tube, and you’re correct that the backgrounds can be made quite soft with that approach.

 

[bags27]

This was taken with the 250 SA and the Mutar 2x on a rock solid tripod. It wasn't with film but with the Blad 50 c digital back on the 500 c/m. The ship was around 1/4 mile away and moving. It was a hot hazy day. I'd say this is a pretty good showing for the Mutar.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

Impressive, and I hope my 350 with Mutar (have both 1.4x and 2x) will have similar results.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Would you use your 2XMutar with an 80mm at wide aperture, or a 150 with an extension tube, for portraiture to make the background go to softer focus?

I only use[d] my 2XE with my 250mm CF and later my 500mm C lenses only. I never used them on any shorter lenses. I used soft filters for soften the focus. Just a different approach.

 

[GLS]

This was taken with the 250 SA and the Mutar 2x on a rock solid tripod. It wasn't with film but with the Blad 50 c digital back on the 500 c/m. The ship was around 1/4 mile away and moving. It was a hot hazy day. I'd say this is a pretty good showing for the Mutar.

Difficult to be sure at this magnification, but to my eye it looks like the mutar is adding some CA on the high contrast edges.

 

[Flashcam]

I think your overall image quality would be better with the 150 + extension tube, and you’re correct that the backgrounds can be made quite soft with that approach.

Thanks for that. It's about time to go test.

 

[Steven Lee]

I concur. I have owned the C and now own the CF T* version of this lens. My results with both generation of lenses is consistent with your observation. They're OK but in nowhere near that same league as the 60mm Distagon or 120mm Makro-Planar. Even the 80mm f/2.8, which isn't remotely Hassy's best lens, outperforms the 250.

Either you guys are printing murals or scanning at 10K DPI or something... My 6x6 scans are 8,000x8,000 pixels. They are fairly high quality pixels (Imacon or high-end mirrorless). At the focal plane in the center of the frame I can't tell the 250mm apart from other Hasselblad lenses I have.

I do not question better MTF figures for other lenses, but all that goodness lives solidly in the domain of "unachievable excess", i.e. requiring unrealistic print sizes or unrealistic scanning equipment to see. I suspect the weaker perceived sharpness of the 250mm comes from its tiny DOF and high demands for stability. My backyard test shots always look sharper than images taken in the field, where wind and my sloppiness are factors. The 60mm is hugely easier to take sharp images with.