Best/Worst Hasselblad Lenses For V Bodies

[Nokton48]

Sirius,
I had the 150mm C, the 250mm C, the 350mm Non-C, and the 500 Non-C. I still have the 350; I love it for hand holding.
The 500 is strictly a tripod lens, so not as useful.

Actually I've been kicking around the idea of getting A16S (Suoerslide) backs. Same approx size as the 36x36 Hasselblad Kodak Digital Chip CFV16. I would load with B&W could keep same digital lens on the cameras, alternate B&W and digital. Hmmmm or Hassle??

 

[eli griggs]

Sonnar 250 mm handheld full open and at 1/500sec, on Tri-X at 1600 ASA (in X-Tol 1+1)...

There are no real 'bad' Hasselblad lenses, perhaps a bad copy or a more or less mismastered one...

View attachment 347982
View attachment 347983
View attachment 347984

Nice work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius,
I had the 150mm C, the 250mm C, the 350mm Non-C, and the 500 Non-C. I still have the 350; I love it for hand holding.
The 500 is strictly a tripod lens, so not as useful.

Actually I've been kicking around the idea of getting A16S (Suoerslide) backs. Same approx size as the 36x36 Hasselblad Kodak Digital Chip CFV16. I would load with B&W could keep same digital lens on the cameras, alternate B&W and digital. Hmmmm or Hassle??

The 500mm C lens was so inexpensive when KEH called me and offer it to me that I could not pass it up. I too use it on a tripod and it is the only one that I find I must use on a tripod.

 

[Nokton48]

The 500mm C lens was so inexpensive when KEH called me and offer it to me that I could not pass it up. I too use it on a tripod and it is the only one that I find I must use on a tripod.

Right. Pre-firing the mirror and cable release will increase your odds greatly. A difficult lens to use well IMO, so is the fishy lens. KEH and David Odess did not have the special Hasselblad tools for the 500mm when I enquired! Yeah they were dirt cheap but not fixable! I do have the Hasselblad Shoulder Stock, very 007 like Very Kewl with the EL/M and the 350mm

 

[Sirius Glass]

Right. Pre-firing the mirror and cable release will increase your odds greatly. A difficult kens to use well IMO. KEH and David Odess did not have the special Hasselblad tools for the 500mm when I enquired!

The lens initially jammed the camera. Mike at Samy's got the lens off. I sent it back to KEH, at their cost. KEH had to remove all the optics to get to the shutter. Repaired the shutter. Reassembled and collimated the lenses. Shipped it back to me. All at not cost to me and it has worked well since.

 

[Nokton48]

Wow wish they would have been able at the time to do that for me Twice what I got was a full refund :/

My Hasselblad 70's Blad Basic System by Nokton48, on Flickr

These are all good film tested lenses.

New to me Hasselblad CFV16 Digital back by Nokton48, on Flickr

New to me, 36x36cm Kodak CMOS Fat Pixel Digital Back designed specifically for V cameras. Testing AOK so far in field and studio Broncolor Big Lights as well. Very User Friendly, you can pick it up and start using it. Kinda like shooting "Kodachrome 25 Look" in instant digital square.

 

[Nokton48]

ELM CFV16 Digital Back 50mm Dist Ready To Roll by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here I've got my Hasselblad EL/M Body playing nicely with my new Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back. I am finding that I prefer the Standard Central Cross Screen, with a drop-in mask 3D printed in Italy. Easiest to see sharp focus across the entire field using these. I sold off my black T* Distagon years ago, now I have a nice one back in the fold, a 50mm Hood is coming ina few days. Batteries and CF Cards sorted, I have plenty. My olde CDS Meter works great with the CFV16, reads out directly in EV's, which was the idea with the olde lenses. Running the CDS Meter on an MR9 and 386 power combo, it seems to be TTL accurate with the CFV16. This is going to be great FUN, I'm sure I'll be using my Blads more with this fat pixel back. If I like something I might even shoot it on 120 film as a choice! The Rubber Eyecup is from the Kiev 60 Meter Prism, I gathered up a bunch of them, back in my Wedding Daze.

 

[Nokton48]

Original Orchard Apple Tree CFV16 40 Dist by Nokton48, on Flickr

Another test of the 40mm T* Distagon, some dramatic lighting on the original apple tree behind my back yard. Very little color in this one but the small green patches look good to my eye. EI 200 Anniversary 500 C/M Body Stovepipe Viewfinder. Shadow detail looks pretty good also

 

[GLS]

There aren't really any "bad" lenses in the Hassy lineup. That being said, one of the technically weakest performers is the one most people choose as their first: the 80mm Planar.

The regular 250mm Sonnar is also not stellar.

The 100mm Planar, 180mm Sonnar and 250mm Superachromat are all top of the heap.

 

[Nokton48]

OK So now I have picked up good examples of the 50mm F4 T* Distagon, the 150mm F4 T* Sonnar, and the 500mm F8 Non-T* Oberkochen Opton. All Cheap as I can find, which is how I like it. I'll prolly get the 250mm f5.6 T* as well. I already know if you get a good one, they are all great lenses. Some work better with tripod use for best results. Depends on the lens and the situation.

With the new CFV16 Digital Back, it makes sense to have all the V vintage lenses as a set. No I do not have the 250mm Apochromat.

50C ELM CFV16 EI 200 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

New to me 50mm black C T* Zeiss Distagon, Hasselblad 500 EL/M with CFV16 Digital Back set to EI 200. EV 13.5 metered through the CDS Prism Finder, produced this result.

 

[Photomultiplier]

@GLS: What are your points of criticism regarding the 80 Planar?

 

[Nokton48]

50C ELM CFV16 EI 200 by Nokton48, on Flickr

New to me 50mm black C T* Zeiss Distagon, Hasselblad 500 EL/M with CFV16 Digital Back set to EI 200. EV 13.5 metered through the CDS Prism Finder, produced this result.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There aren't really any "bad" lenses in the Hassy lineup. That being said, one of the technically weakest performers is the one most people choose as their first: the 80mm Planar.

The regular 250mm Sonnar is also not stellar.

The 100mm Planar, 180mm Sonnar and 250mm Superachromat are all top of the heap.

The f/2.8 80mm Planar is my most used lens and I strongly disagree. What do you base you opinion on?

 

[Nokton48]

CFV16 500CM 100mm Planar ISO 200 by Nokton48, on Flickr

First test of new to me Hasselblad CFV16 25th Anniversary 500C/M, 100mm T* Planar, EI 200, right out of the box. They are right, it is super easy to use right out of the gate. Ordering some CF Cards, Batteries, and a better charger.

 

[GLS]

@GLS: What are your points of criticism regarding the 80 Planar?

The f/2.8 80mm Planar is my most used lens and I strongly disagree. What do you base you opinion on?

Relatively large amount of distortion, relatively weak performance wide open (and MTF performance generally), and particularly bad coma wide open.

Note these are all relative judgments on its technical performance in relation to other Hassy lenses. I already qualified that I don't think it is a "bad" lens in absolute terms. I do own the 80mm, however ever since acquiring the 100mm Planar it has been gathering dust.

 

[Steven Lee]

I just bought my 80mm f/2.8 CFE. When it arrived I burned a test roll making sure it's not defective. Here's the full-resolution scan of a negative exposed at f/2.8. Hard to judge distortion or corner performance, but gives you a decent idea of what the center/middle area look like. I tried to set up a 3-dimensional scene to make sure slight focus errors don't get in the way - simply find the sharpest parts to evaluate. The rulers, unfortunately, are entirely in front of the focus plane, but other parts are in focus.

To my eye this is excellent.

 

[BrianShaw]

... my 80mm f/2.8 CFE. ....

To my eye this is excellent.

I would certainly concur. I can't validate the aforestated critque of this lens at all. Perhaps I need to get a degree in lens design/performance to better understand the details,

The critique against the 250 is much easier to understand.

 

[Steven Lee]

The critique against the 250 is much easier to understand.

Not for me. No. Looks equally impressive to my eye. Here's the same scene on 250mm wide-open. It is slightly cropped to fit under imgur 20MB file size limit but it's the same enlargement factor as the previous shot. You'll have to navigate the thin DOF, but the detail on the focus plane leaves very little to be desired.

Here's another shot of 250mm wide-open where DOF is perhaps easier to navigate.

All Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses are somewhere between insane and excellent.

 

[GLS]

@Steven Lee those are perfectly respectable results, and if you are happy with the lenses then all well and good. That's all that really matters. At the end of the day however, low resolution scans are not going to properly tell the story.

Shoot the same scenes with the 80mm vs 100mm, and the 250 Sonnar vs 250 SA, all wide open, on a high resolution film and inspect the results with a high quality 20x loupe or microscope. Then the relative differences should be clear as day.

I have frames of Copex Rapid exposed with the 250 SA that would blow your socks off in terms of what is resolved. As I said, reduced resolution versions online are a poor imitation of the real thing, but here is one 8000x8000 pixel example which gives some idea of what is achievable (note this is NOT oversharpened; the neg really is this biting):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52881817446_906e8744e9_o.jpg

The OP was asking about relative differences in lens performance, and those differences do exist. The data sheets don't lie. Whether those differences are significant enough to concern most people is another matter.

 

[Lachlan Young]

From what the Zeiss claims seem to have amounted to over the years, essentially the 80/2.8 was better for use at closer range and the 100/3.5 for better correction at infinity and wide apertures. Before I leave the army of the increasingly bald to finish vituperating about the evil of combs, do bear in mind that the design aim of most Zeiss lenses was to deliver very high levels of low frequency contrast response (not resolution - very high low frequency response will always look better than massive resolution and poor low frequency MTF) for images that in most real-world usage scenarios would be enlarged not more than 3.5-8x or so. The other reason Zeiss brought out newer designs is that the competition was chasing them pretty hard - especially when the 6x7's were inherently delivering a 50% bigger neg that didn't require a huge chunk cropped off for an 8x10.

 

[Nokton48]

I'm really having FUN shooting with this. In fact I'm filling in some holes in terms of my vintage "V" black lenses, just got nice 50 T*, 150 T*, and 500 Opton Oberkochen. All used but not abused. I'm on the fence about getting the 250mm F5.6 T*, eventually I will probably not resist. The 250mm f5.6 Achromat is out of my reach. Amazing how these great olde lenses are not that expensive, except for the Achromat.

 

[Steven Lee]

@GLS Great scan! No disagreement here, of course not all lenses are the same. Besides, Zeiss own datasheets claim there's difference in performance between them. But for 8,000x8,000 scanning that I do, the performance delta between 80mm and 250mm is basically irrelevant. Unfortunately imgr downsampled the images I've uploaded.

 

[Nokton48]

OPTON Oberkochen f=500mm 1:8 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is new to me and headed my way. OPTON Oberkochen f=500mm 1:8

 

[Sirius Glass]

OPTON Oberkochen f=500mm 1:8 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is new to me and headed my way. OPTON Oberkochen f=500mm 1:8

That is exactly the one I have.

 

[Nokton48]

Sirius,

So locked down, how is it? I shot some Polaroids with one from KEH and I liked it. Pity about the poor shutter. Closeups in my studio. Only has a few elements, no real point to MC T* as it was with my 400mm Leitz Telyt. Looking forward to trying it on the CFV16, there is the 36x36 crop factor. Same chip as is in the Kodak DCS Hasselblad Back, with it's lens cable. Looks like K25 and you have to expose it as such. If I can find a nice T* 250mm black I will have 'em all, excepting the UV and Acro lenses.