How much improved is the image made by Hasselblad CFi lenses over the CF lenses?

[Certain Exposures]

Are we talking about improvement visible enough for grandma to ask if we got a new camera?

Or are we talking about basement dweller pixel peeping?

Do any of you have side by sides?

I am curious about the image - not the mechanical improvements.

 

[Alexander6x6]

If you are not aware to shoot digital, then you will see no difference. CFi together with CFE have much less chromatic aberrations (if any) than the lenses from the 80s. Distagon 40 IF is exceptional.

 

[itsdoable]

... CFi together with CFE have much less chromatic aberrations (if any) than the lenses from the 80s. Distagon 40 IF is exceptional.

I was under the impression that the CFi only improved the flocking, reducing flair & ghosting. Most had the same optical design, where the CA did not change. T* did not change, nano coating was not introduced yet. CFE, which came later, had all the CFi improvements.

 

[rulnacco]

I don't think, under the vast majority of real-world conditions, you'll see any difference at all between CF and CFi lenses. As the poster above said, the only real change optically was maybe a bit better flocking to prevent stray light scattering, which *might*, every now and then, result in slightly less flare or minutely higher contrast under exactly the right conditions. There should be no difference whatsoever in the optical formula or the glass composition/coating.

I have both CF lenses (four of them) and CFi lenses (two), and I can't see any real differences in the quality of the images from the two types. I do rather like the ergonomics of the CFi lenses just a tiny bit more. But really, it's not at all a big thing, and I use both kinds interchangeably during shoots and don't, when switching from CFi to CF notice any annoying degradation in ergonomics. I really don't even at all notice the differences between the two in the heat of a shoot.

 

[Certain Exposures]

OK, thanks, everyone!

 

[mshchem]

I've got the CFi and CF I've never looked close enough to notice anything. Use a lens hood, tripod etc, you'll never see any difference. MHOFWIW
The older lenses are lovely too!

 

[Hassasin]

The lenses differ immensely in handling not in image output, which is non existent. And the handling difference is nothing trivial, it’s like an entirely different tool. If I were to choose I’d take CFi over CF even with significant price difference.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Are we talking about improvement visible enough for grandma to ask if we got a new camera?

Or are we talking about basement dweller pixel peeping?

Do any of you have side by sides?

I am curious about the image - not the mechanical improvements.

Since they have the same optics, there should not be any difference

 

[Alexander6x6]

I was under the impression that the CFi only improved the flocking, reducing flair & ghosting.

Can you show me where I can read about it? Was it in the oficial press release?

Most had the same optical design, where the CA did not change. T* did not change, nano coating was not introduced yet. CFE, which came later, had all the CFi improvements.

It probably depends on the type of digital sensor used. I checked two copies of the Distagon F 50/2.8 FLE lens, which were produced about 12 years apart. I used the combination of Fuji GFX sensor and Hartblei HV-S shift adapter. With a 12 mm shift, chromatic aberrations were visible at the edges of the image. These aberrations were much less pronounced in the Distagon produced in 1996 than in 1984.

I have the impression that Carl Zeiss was constantly improving its lenses to enhance their performance, particularly in relation to digital sensors. They just didn't see the need to announce it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Can you show me where I can read about it? Was it in the oficial (sic) press release?

There may be primary sources available (somewhere): I don't recall seeing them either. This site might be of interest for a seemingly comprehensive and well-written summary:

https://lens-db.com/articles-and-tables/the-hasselblad-cfi-cfe-lenses/#google_vignette

This is one of the are examples where Hasselblad discusses design changes on their lens data sheets. Most of the data sheets I've read are focused on the lens performance with little mention of the heritage lenses.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CB80.pdf

 

[Alexander6x6]

There may be primary sources available (somewhere): I don't recall seeing them either. This site might be of interest for a seemingly comprehensive and well-written summary:

https://lens-db.com/articles-and-tables/the-hasselblad-cfi-cfe-lenses/#google_vignette

Thanks a lot!

I would also like to find similar sources for Mamiya 67 lenses of K/L, APO and Floating System generation. In my experience, their performance on digital sensors is breathtaking. Unfortunately, my searches were unsuccessful.

 

[itsdoable]

I would be careful about reading into the re-worded press releases from Carl Zeiss, the original releases were very careful in their wording, in that they did not say the tweaked the optical formula, only that the "new internal design reduced stray light flair" and this improved optical quality. They are usually pretty clear when they tweak the optical design, as when they did with the 38mm lens. This is not to say that manufacturing and precision improvements did not happen over the years, or that optical formula was not tweaked.

Personally I have not noticed a big difference between the CFE/CFi lenses with the CF, neither in optical quality or in handling.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Personally I have not noticed a big difference between the CFE/CFi lenses with the CF, neither in optical quality or in handling.

You mentioned it already. But did you also notice no difference with the modern 33x44 mm digital sensor shifted 12 mm horizontally?

 

[itsdoable]

You mentioned it already. But did you also notice no difference with the modern 33x44 mm digital sensor shifted 12 mm horizontally?

No, I've only shifted these lenses on FF. I'm not a pixel peeper, but shifting often shows optical aberrations that don't need pixel peeping to see, and I do see them. But I can't tell if the differences are due to lens variation or optical formula changes.

I've serviced a bunch of C and CF lenses, and I usually check them with a digital sensor when I'm done (incase I've screwed up the spacing or lens element seating) and I have seen some variation. I don't have much experience with the CFi, and only a hand full of CFE (which I don't like working on because the electrical wipers are so easy to damage, and I don't have spares!), so I can't say much about them. CFi's are newer, less history of being "serviced", and use more modern manufacturing techniques, so I would not be surprise if they are statistically better optically. And like Alexander6x6 says, they may be optically tweaked to be better on digital (the most common adjustment is the spacing between the front and rear group to eliminate field curvature caused by the digital sensor cover glass).