Analysis paralysis on Hasselblad lenses

[mrosenlof]

I wouldn't worry much about what's sharper than which. They're all plenty good, including the two Mamiya lenses! The classic trio is 50, 80, 150 as you probably know. But you can shift things toward longer or shorter depending on the way you tend to see things, or prefer to make pictures. I did a couple of weeks in Europe a few years ago with only the 120. Worked well. I just got back from Japan with the 40 and 100. I'm not yet sure what I think of that combo. I historically tend toward slightly longer than normal. I'm kind of trying out the 40 to see if I can learn to do interesting things with a wide lens.

Mike Johnston, theonlinephotographer, says "never sell a good lens". You'll regret it.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Thanks all for the advice and suggestions. The discussion gave me much clarity and helped me organize my thoughts. I ended up deciding to part ways with the 40 (too wide, hard to focus, mechanical issues). I'll probably end up keeping the 50mm chrome, 60mm black, 80mm CF, 150mm chrome and 250mm black...for now. Of all the lenses the 60mm produced my favorite picture of the test rolls. The 120mm CF and 50mm CF FLE are the ones I am still undecided about. I find myself uninspired by the pictures the 120 took in comparison to the 150. And though I love taking macro photos, I rarely find myself classifying them as "keepers" (I have this same "love to take, hate to see" problem with wide angle lenses). As for the 50mm FLE, I discovered a a mechanical problem that may be more worrying than I thought it would be (detailed in another thread) so I may need to rethink if I want to invest so much in that focal length that I am not sure I am in love with and is so close to the 60mm. To determine what to do I think it's time for more test rolls!

 

[jeffreyg]

My 2 cents for what it may be worth. Keep the 50FLE, 150, and 250. Sell or trade the rest for a Hasselblad 2x or a second body and back (if you don't already have one). I have two bodies, three backs, the 50FlLE, 80, 150, 250, an ancient 350 and the 2x plus some extension tubes. It gives me many combinations. Usually when traveling or out shooting I keep a short(er) lens on one body and longer lens on the other which saves a lot of fiddling around with equipment. Since I use B&W film I keep the same film in both which reduces the possibility of exposure mishaps and makes developing easier as well.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[narsuitus]

• 40mm Distagon black T* (has a loose screw in the body so resale value is lowered... Still time to return it to Adorama if I do it in five days)

• 50mm chrome

• 50mm CF FLE

• 60mm black T*

• 80mm CF

• 120mm f4 Macro planar CF

• 150mm chrome

• 250mm black T*

• Bonus system camera: Mamiya C330 with 80/2.8 and 105/3.5 D (heliar)

Here is what I would keep depending on if I wanted a one, two, three, or four lens solution:

One lens solution: 80mm Normal lens

Two lens solution: 80mm Normal and 40mm Wide

Three lens solution: 80mm Normal, 40mm Wide, and 150mm Telephoto

Four lens solution: 80mm Normal, 40mm Wide, 150mm Telephoto, and 120mm Macro

Alternate four lens solution: 80mm Normal, 40mm Wide, 120mm Macro, and 250mm Telephoto

However, I actually would probably end up keeping all the lenses, plus, I would buy a 55mm wide-angle for the Mamiya bonus camera.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Really like my 60mm - makes great photographs. I've put together a two lens kit for some landscape/cityscapes with a 60 and 250 - covers my style for the format. For super-wide I have access to an SWC/M. For the studio I have a separate kit with an 80 and 150 (portraits).

If I need to alter plane of focus and/or perspective of course I use a view camera.

 

[MattKing]

For me, a combination centred around the 60mm lens would make most sense, because that is in the range (55mm - 65mm) that I like as a "standard" lens on 6x4.5 - 6x7 120 film cameras.
Just as I use a 35mm lens as a "standard" lens on 135 film cameras.
I find that the two lens kit I use for my Mamiya C330 works really well - 65mm and 135mm.
For my Mamiya 645 Pro, a 45mm, 55mm and 110mm trio works well for me - just ignore the fact that I also have the 80mm macro and the 210mm lenses.

 

[etn]

Another vote for 1) sending back or selling the 40mm, with the ultimate goal of replacing it by an SWC when funds allow; and 2) keeping the 50mm FLE and getting rid of the other. No point in having 2* 50mm.

As for the other lenses, if you can (financially) afford to keep them, just keep them. Then you can take your time to thoroughly use them, see how they work for you, and decide. Have fun!

 

[warden]

I have the 60, 80, and 150, and find myself using the 60 and 150 most of the time. They’re all very good lenses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Another vote for 1) sending back or selling the 40mm, with the ultimate goal of replacing it by an SWC when funds allow; and 2) keeping the 50mm FLE and getting rid of the other. No point in having 2* 50mm.

As for the other lenses, if you can (financially) afford to keep them, just keep them. Then you can take your time to thoroughly use them, see how they work for you, and decide. Have fun!

Ditch the 40mm, nothing beats the SWC.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Ditch the 40mm, nothing beats the SWC.

Truth.

 

[etn]

Truth.

Absolutely. An it is a quarter of the size & weight of a 500 + 40mm!
The ultimate „point and shoot“ and travel camera in my opinion.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So a few days ago, after ignoring all the good advice in this thread, I decided to sell the 120. Then, I re-thought it all and pulled it from eBay. "It's really sharp," I thought to myself, and importantly a CF lens, and those are precious. But that left me with the somewhat silly and redundant kit of 50FLE, 60, 80, 120, 150, 250. I figured out the perfect solution today and was pleased to find a 20% off Keh coupon code that allowed me to implement it. Instead of keeping the 80, which I never found to be amazing in the same way as the 60, I'm going to sell the 80 and the 120 and turn the proceeds into a 100mm (and a little cash!), the mythical perfect hasselblad lens. That will leave my kit at 50FLE, 60, 100, 150, 250. That kit has the 1 and 2 lens solutions I prefer (60) and (60, 100), a 3 lens solution (50, 100, 150), and 4 lens solution that hits with all the best lenses at each focal length (50/60, 100, 150, 250). The 50 might get moved on from if I find myself always using the 60, and likewise I still haven't even tested the 250 so who knows. I may also want to move to the 180 from the 150/250 but for now I think I'm happy where I've landed. I will leave the SWC for when I have way too much money and don't know what to do with it all, I think it by itself would cost me more than all the money I've put into my entire Hassy system!

 

[GLS]

So a few days ago, after ignoring all the good advice in this thread, I decided to sell the 120. Then, I re-thought it all and pulled it from eBay. "It's really sharp," I thought to myself, and importantly a CF lens, and those are precious. But that left me with the somewhat silly and redundant kit of 50FLE, 60, 80, 120, 150, 250. I figured out the perfect solution today and was pleased to find a 20% off Keh coupon code that allowed me to implement it. Instead of keeping the 80, which I never found to be amazing in the same way as the 60, I'm going to sell the 80 and the 120 and turn the proceeds into a 100mm (and a little cash!), the mythical perfect hasselblad lens. That will leave my kit at 50FLE, 60, 100, 150, 250. That kit has the 1 and 2 lens solutions I prefer (60) and (60, 100), a 3 lens solution (50, 100, 150), and 4 lens solution that hits with all the best lenses at each focal length (50/60, 100, 150, 250). The 50 might get moved on from if I find myself always using the 60, and likewise I still haven't even tested the 250 so who knows. I may also want to move to the 180 from the 150/250 but for now I think I'm happy where I've landed. I will leave the SWC for when I have way too much money and don't know what to do with it all, I think it by itself would cost me more than all the money I've put into my entire Hassy system!

Not a bad choice. The 100mm is one of the best lenses for the system.

The 180mm vs the 150/250 wouldn't be a bad idea either; optically it is superior to both. If you really need the extra reach you can always use it with a 1.4x teleconverter. Supposedly the 180mm + 1.4XE still outperforms the 250mm.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Instead of keeping the 80, which I never found to be amazing in the same way as the 60, I'm going to sell the 80 and the 120 and turn the proceeds into a 100mm (and a little cash!), the mythical perfect hasselblad lens. That will leave my kit at 50FLE, 60, 100, 150, 250. ...

That's a great solution. 60 and 100 will find more use than an 80, I'll bet.

 

[MEB]

My rule of thumb is to keep older or vintage lenses from well known and desired manufacturers like Leica or Hasselblad-Zeiss. I have seen values for this kind of lenses only going up in recent years in the used market. So my advice is to keep all of them if you don't urgently need the money. I personally only have CF T* lenses of the V-system. I use them in the following order of preference:

50/4.0
80/2.8
60/3.5
180/4.0

I shoot with about the same preference of focal lengths at smaller film plane formats, too.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So I just did a lens test last weekend and it had some interesting and unexpected results. I found myself in the unique and enviable position of having all three Hasselblad Planars available for me to play with. I shot everything handheld and outside (as I always do...this is a lens test for me, not for the optical bench), 1/250 or 1/500 on FP4 and developed with HC-110 Dil B. Metered by my Sekonic incident meter. Scanned by a "biopsy" with DSLR which blows my V700 out of the water. With V700, none of the lenses are distinguishable (this is a lesson in itself). By DSLR biopsy, at all subject distances including infinity, my 80mm beat my 100mm by a surprisingly perceptible difference. The 120 came behind the 100 and 80 at all distances except ultra close & wide open. Considering the 80 is the cheapest, lightest, and fastest of the bunch this is a surprising and interesting result. All lenses were CF, though I think the shutter in my 80 is actually in-spec while all other lenses are a bit off. In any case, I am starting to consider the mythology of the 100mm to be an actual myth.

I also did the test on the distagons. The 50 FLE eeked out a victory over the 60mm Black T* at all subject distances. But they were both extremely close and very excellent. Both were also far ahead of the 50mm chrome.

So after all that, I will return the 100mm to Keh, keep my 80, sell the 120 and make myself two, two lens kits depending on my mood. 60/150 and 50/80. And maybe spend a few hundred bucks on slide film which I think is an even better investment than Zeiss lenses.

 

[MattKing]

If your test is performed handheld, any differences are not likely to be due to the lenses.
Most likely you are getting less camera movement with the lightest kit.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If your test is performed handheld, any differences are not likely to be due to the lenses.
Most likely you are getting less camera movement with the lightest kit.

Maybe yes, maybe no. At 1/500 I think the lens matters more than camera movement. Contrary to typical knowledge I have done tests where the lens clearly matters more than the camera movement at 1/125 and scanned on an Epson flatbed (Schneider Xenar vs Hasselblad Distagon...it was not a very fair comparison!)

More importantly, even if you are right, I was trying to determine which lens is worth more to me, not which lens is objectively better. I almost never shoot on a tripod, so why should I care about performance on a tripod? If a lens being lighter, or heavier helps me take sharper pictures with it, then it is the sharper lens for me.

 

[MattKing]

If the lens and camera are handheld, a resolution test doesn't make sense. There are lots of other tests that may make sense, but resolution isn't one of them.
Even at 1/500, you will be inducing resolution reducing effects due to camera movement.
It may very well be that the handling of a particular lens is better suited to your needs. It also may be that the field of view of a particular lens is better suited to your needs. And it also may be that a particular sample of a lens may perform less well than another sample of that lens.
Test for resolution on a tripod with the mirror locked up. Most likely you will find all the lenses you are considering perform very well.
Then make your decisions based on things like rendering, suitability of field of view, handling and special features (like close focus limitations and low light performance) using the lenses the way you shoot.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Scanned by a "biopsy" with DSLR which blows my V700 out of the water. With V700, none of the lenses are distinguishable (this is a lesson in itself).
...

What is a DSLR biopsy? I dont understand.

Not to derail the thread, but I would like to know what you did rather than scan. My only DSLR is a D700 (12MP full frame); my scanner is a V800 - which is not better than a V700 optically.

P S. That 100mm CF that you no longer like -give it to me.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

What is a DSLR biopsy? I dont understand.

Not to derail the thread, but I would like to know what you did rather than scan. My only DSLR is a D700 (12MP full frame); my scanner is a V800 - which is not better than a V700 optically.

P S. That 100mm CF that you no longer like -give it to me.

I used my d5500 with a Nikkor 55 f2.8 at .5:1, mounted on my enlarger's stand to take a picture of a portion of the negative on a light table. The negative is held flat by a mask from my enlarger. If I went to 1:1 it would be even more obviously different but I would start introducing potential issues due to a lack of field flatness of my macro lens at 1:1. This could be alleviated with a better macro lens. I've attached a comparison of the two, and here's an album where you can see the full image: https://imgur.com/a/JiOE5r0.



By the way, if you are serious about buying the 100mm CF, PM me. I don't think it's a bad lens, but I do not think it lives up to the mythology of being the best lens in the Hasselblad system, or to its price, being roughly double that of the 80.

 

[GLS]

What distance was your subject (was it all pictures of that car)? The 100mm is optimised for infinity, and isn't as strong for close up work.

I also own all three of those lenses, and at infinity or near-infinity distances the 100mm is significantly better than the 80mm. The 120 Makro-Planar is the strongest at close focus, as you would expect.

The other possibility is that perhaps your 100mm is slightly defective (misaligned elements etc).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

What distance was your subject? The 100mm is optimised for infinity.

I also own all three of those lenses, and at infinity or near-infinity distances the 100mm is significantly better than the 80mm. The 120 Makro-Planar is the strongest at close focus, as you would expect.

The other possibility is that perhaps your 100mm is slightly defective (misaligned elements etc).

I did this test at close, medium, and infinity distances and my 80 was slightly better than my 100 even at infinity. I just looked through the images again specifically looking for better sharpness from the 100 in the infinity image and there is none I can find. For example, a power line that is 100 ft away is lower contrast on the 100 than the 80 despite it taking up more "pixels." I will say I haven't closely examined the corners at infinity.

There does appear to be slightly better resolution of fine details at about 50 ft from the 100. All these effects are really, really minimal. Smaller than I thought they would be and much smaller than the difference between the 50 and the 50 FLE. I am open to the possibility that the 100 I have is a dud.

I would be comfortable saying the 100 and 80 are about equal in quality to me. But then I have to ask myself: is the 100 worth $400 more than the 80? For this particular test, I think the answer is no, this particular 100mm is not $400 better than my particular 80mm.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I used my d5500 with a Nikkor 55 f2.8 at .5:1, mounted on my enlarger's stand to take a picture of a portion of the negative on a light table.
...

OK, I see how this is done now. You are correct that the DSLR technique yields better results than the scanner. Thank you.

Your results comparing the 80 and 100 are interesting. I understand your point in wanting to see what are the actual handheld results you can get as opposed to a near-laboratory test because, after all, our photo albums and wall prints don't consist of test charts. That said, the 100 should've been at least as good as the 80, even handheld. Perhaps there is some dynamic at work here, as Matt suggests.

On the site linked below you can see the MTF charts for the 80/2.8 CF compared to the 100/3.5 CF. The 100 is substantially better - it is not a myth.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx

Largest differences will be seen away from center. Center is 0mm and the edge is 28mm away from center (56mm x 56mm square image). So, looking at MTF, largest differences will be from 20mm away from center out to the edge at 28mm. Comparing 80 CF and 100 CF inside of central 20mm area won't show much difference. Being that the 100 CF is intended for flat field excellence and 80 CF is not, it makes sense one would find the 100 CF superior beyond 20mm from center.

 

[GLS]

On the site linked below you can see the MTF charts for the 80/2.8 CF compared to the 100/3.5 CF. The 100 is substantially better - it is not a myth.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx

Largest differences will be seen away from center. Center is 0mm and the edge is 28mm away from center (56mm x 56mm square image). So, looking at MTF, largest differences will be from 20mm away from center out to the edge at 28mm. Comparing 80 CF and 100 CF inside of central 20mm area won't show much difference. Being that the 100 CF is intended for flat field excellence and 80 CF is not, it makes sense one would find the 100 CF superior beyond 20mm from center.

Agreed. The MTFs don't lie; the corner-to-corner performance of the 100mm is far superior, and I would go even further and say the two show an appreciable difference in performance beyond even a 10mm radius from the centre. The level of distortion of the 100mm is also far better.

There are also differences that the MTF chart doesn't reveal, such as the level of coma (wide open the 80mm has gobs of it).

Anyway, the main thing is which you will be happier using, and the choice of focal length may ultimately prove more important to you than pure optical performance, especially if you will be using it hand held.