40mm Distagons

[surfotog]

I'm a Pentax 67 user, and am thinking of adding a Hasselblad modified 67 body to my gear. This body allows the use of Hasselblad lenses w/ infinity focus. I would do this primarily to use the 40mm & 50mm Distagon lenses.
I can't afford the latest IF version of the 40mm, so would probably look for a CF FLE. I'm not concerned about distortion, but would appreciate comments on corner sharpness.
As for a 50mm. I can get a 50/2.8 FE for a good price. How does it compare to the 50/4 FLE optically? I know it's bigger, requires large filters, and stops down to 22, where the FLE goes to F/32.
Lastly, the Hasselblad lenses are designed for 6X6, any educated guesses about the coverage on 6x7? They would be used primarily for landscapes, therefore at smaller apertures. I'm betting coverage won't be a problem.
Thoughts?
Thanks to all for their input,

 

[Sirius Glass]

Send the question to Q.G. [PM him]

Steve

 

[ic-racer]

I'm betting coverage won't be a problem.
Thoughts?
Thanks to all for their input,

I have heard of Hasselblad adapters to accept Pentax (or other) 6x7 lenses, but have not heard of the other way around. Do you have a link or picture of a 'Hasselblad modified 6x7?'

I'll bet the 40mm will vignette the corners of 6x7. They don't even plot the transmission numbers out to 40mm from center on the datasheet (Distagon T* 4/40 IF CFE). They also list 5.5x5.5cm as the intented format.
If you look at the transmission curve for the Distagon T 4 50 ZV, it falls off pretty sharply at 40mm from center, so I don't think it will cover all that well either.

 

[JRJacobs]

Interesting.

I own both a Pentax 67ii and a Hasselblad V system. I have a 50mm Distagon (non FLE), and when I hold it up to the Pentax, it looks like it does not cover the plane - vignettes at the corners in other words.

Why not just get the Pentax 45mm SMC lens for your Pentax? It's a fantastic lens and will work with your camera correctly without modification.

 

[RJS]

I had a 45mm Pentax 6X7 lens and it was excellent. Unless you are just looking for ways to shed money and acquire headaches I would suggest you stick with the Pentax lenses. Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss) lenses are also excellent; but unless you get a really bad example of Pentax you will never be able to tell the difference (except for possible vignetting). Hasselblad is excellent, but overrated. There are several 6X6 and 6X7 machines available equally good - they just don't impress the tourists.

 

[dougjgreen]

Pentax' 45mm and 55mm lenses are the best optics in the entire P67 system, and they are quite reasonably priced. Just get one.

 

[Smudger]

Another vote for the Pentax 45mm lus its distortion is very low.

 

[surfotog]

Thanks for the replies. My reasons for considering this:
I have had two copies of the 45/4, both were subpar. I recently picked up a cheap 3rd copy, but have yet to put it through its paces. In general I am very happy with the quality of the pentax lenses. The 300 & 400mm EDIF are superb, as is the 100/4 macro.
In addition to using the Distagon's with MF film, I would also use them with a Mirex T/S adapter with my A900 digital camera.
Mirex does not have a T/S for P67 lenses. Zoerk has a shift adapter, but it doesn't have tilt, which is very useful for landscape work.
Lastly, the 40mm & 50 mm focal lengths are more to my liking than 45 & 55.
Once again, thanks to those who have contributed.

 

[JRJacobs]

As I said before, I own both a Hasselblad and Pentax 67II.

If you are unhappy with the SMC 45mm and 55mm lenses, I seriously doubt you will be happier with the 50mm Distagon.

 

[Struan Gray]

I have mounted my Distagon F 50 f2.8 on my view camera to see if it would cover a Mamiya Press 6x7 roll film back - it doesn't. The retrofocus design also makes tilts and swings non-intuitive. On a view camera it was annoying but easy to null out the shift/rise that accompanies any angular movement, but on an adapter it might be trickier.

On the other hand, I love the lens, and the 2.8 aperture is useful for short DOF, or dull but windy days.

 

[puderse]

I've a 40mm Nikkor on my S2a right here beside me. Wouldn't trade!

 

[Q.G.]

The 40 mm CF Distagon is a good lens, but as any wide angle a bit less in the corners and near the edges.
Still good though.

But whether it will cover 6x7 ... ?

The 50 mm Distagons are not too bad either. Not as good as longer focal length lenses, but still o.k.
But if a 50 mm, let it be the FLE version, either with or without shutter. And the CF/CFi FLE is better than the F/FE lens. Lighter too (i find that an issue with the f/2.8). So the CF/CFi would be the better choice.

Again, i don't know whether they will cover 6x7.

I do agree with other answers though: why not use the Pentax lens?

 

[RJS]

Just to muddy the water a bit more: I have it on good authority that the very large 40 for the Hasselblad is a bit turkeyish; lots of flare and stuff, and not terribly sharp., The newer one, much smaller seems good. I saw one sold for somewhere close to $4000 an Ebay. I am old and stupid but not crazy.

 

[dougjgreen]

Just to muddy the water a bit more: I have it on good authority that the very large 40 for the Hasselblad is a bit turkeyish; lots of flare and stuff, and not terribly sharp., The newer one, much smaller seems good. I saw one sold for somewhere close to $4000 an Ebay. I am old and stupid but not crazy.

I have a 40mm Distagon for the Rollei SLX/600x series, which is reputed to be the same optics. It's PLENTY sharp, although it is quite sensitive to flare.
I spent around ~$900-950 for mine via ebay.