Best/Worst Hasselblad Lenses For V Bodies

[Nokton48]

Battle of the Bands Hasselblad Fujiroid by Nokton48, on Flickr

Battle of the Bands. Hasselblad 500EL/M 350mm F5.6 Tele-Tessar Fuji 400 Instant Film (came from Japan). Always liked this one, instant photography is so much fun. Nobody there had ever seen it before. BTW our Band won the competition.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I was just pointing out what great taste you have in cameras and lenses.

 

[Nokton48]

500mm Oberkochen 500ELM CFV16 EI 200 EV 14.5 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is the first test of the 500mm F8 Oberkochen Opton Hasselblad lens. EL/M Body with Olde Hasselblad CDS Meter Prism indicated EV14.5. Set that on the lens, this is the result. Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back set to Ei 200, camera/lens mounted on a Plaubel Peco 2 Way Head, attached to sturdy Manfrotto legs. The pretty new Magnolia tree is our yard was blowing visibly, the 500mm shutter seems to have frozen it, there was a lot of leaf movment in the breeze. It is fun to play with the new digital back and I am loving the saturated colors I'm getting. Hasselblad says it's the fat pixels, but also how much space is around each pixel. Anyways I'm loving the color right out of the camera. Shooting distance was 28 feet, the absolute minimum focus distance on the lens. So I will add extension tubes if needed.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

That being said, one of the technically weakest performers is the one most people choose as their first: the 80mm Planar.

This is the first time (in my recollection) that I read a criticism of the 80mm f/2.8 lens. I'm perplexed. Recall, there are 2 versions, the 7 element and the 6 element CB lens. The MTF diagrams are slightly different.

 

[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.

I have never experienced that or seen that published anywhere but from you. What do you base that one?

 

[Steven Lee]

The 80mm is my latest addition to my Zeiss lens collection, and I've been playing with it a lot. In terms of resolution, it is never a bottleneck even at f/2.8. As I enlarge the image, FP4+ grain starts to become objectionable before the detail starts to deteriorate. I would have no reservations printing a negative exposed at f/2.8 up to 30x30", and only a tiny portion of it will be in perfect focus due to the tiny DOF.

The weakest lens in the Hasselblad lineup is silly talk. It's like looking for the wettest ocean.

 

[GLS]

I have never experienced that or seen that published anywhere but from you. What do you base that one?

You already asked me that in this thread, and I already answered you: a combination of the published data and my own experience with the lens.

I'm not sure why people are fixating on that statement so much. Note I said more than once that it was a relative judgement, not an absolute one. If one lens' technical performance is merely good, but that of several others are superlative in comparison, then I fail to see the controversy in saying the former is the weaker of the bunch.

But look, if you think the 80mm Planar is beyond reproach and the best thing since sliced bread then by all means don't let me stop you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You already asked me that in this thread, and I already answered you: a combination of the published data and my own experience with the lens.

I'm not sure why people are fixating on that statement so much. Note I said more than once that it was a relative judgement, not an absolute one. If one lens' technical performance is merely good, but that of several others are superlative in comparison, then I fail to see the controversy in saying the former is the weaker of the bunch.

But look, if you think the 80mm Planar is beyond reproach and the best thing since sliced bread then by all means don't let me stop you.

The 80mm lens is not the sharpest lens in Hasselblads line up, but it is still much better than many normal lenses available for other cameras.

 

[itsdoable]

The 80mm lens is not the sharpest lens in Hasselblads line up, but it is still much better than many normal lenses available for other cameras.

It’s the sharpest CF lens at f/2.8.

 

[GLS]

The 80mm lens is not the sharpest lens in Hasselblads line up

OK. Glad we agree then

 

[Steven Lee]

@GLS I am not doubting your statement, in fact the MTF charts published by Zeiss agree. But I do wonder about practical implications of these differences. I mean how big one needs to print and how fine the grain needs to be to actually SEE the difference between V-lenses. For example, the MTF for the 120 Makro suggests a dramatic difference vs the 100mm Planar. But I am staring at identical looking high-DPI scans here...

 

[GLS]

But I do wonder about practical implications of these differences

To some extent I agree. Past a certain point it is all about chasing diminishing returns. Yet those returns can be sufficiently significant depending on the nature of the scene, and the intended output.

Re: the two lenses you mention, don't forget they are optimised for completely different applications. The 120 MP for closeup work, and the 100 Planar for distance. Shoot a subject 10 feet away and you are not really playing to the strengths of either lens.

Also, resolving power is but one part of the equation. Aberrations are another. As just one example, I mentioned the bad coma of the 80mm Planar before. Try this yourself: shoot an Xmas night scene wide open with that lens, putting lots of small point lights near the corners. I have done this, and can tell you the results are not pretty.

 

[Steven Lee]

@GLS I wil try to pay attention to that. Thank you. BTW aren't chromatic aberrations are exaggerated on digital sensors? I remember reading something about that a while ago, but I don't shoot enough color to see this myself.

 

[rulnacco]

You already asked me that in this thread, and I already answered you: a combination of the published data and my own experience with the lens.

I'm not sure why people are fixating on that statement so much. Note I said more than once that it was a relative judgement, not an absolute one. If one lens' technical performance is merely good, but that of several others are superlative in comparison, then I fail to see the controversy in saying the former is the weaker of the bunch.

But look, if you think the 80mm Planar is beyond reproach and the best thing since sliced bread then by all means don't let me stop you.

I will definitely give you support on that. I have an 80mm CF lens. It is certainly *very good*, and when I need that focal length (or that maximum aperture), I will use it without hesitation or complaint. However, when I compare it to my other four lenses, three of the four of them--at least--seem to me to have just a bit more "wow" factor than the 80mm. Which surprised me initially, as we're always told that a "normal" lens is the easiest to engineer for maximum sharpness. Those three lenses of which I speak are the 50mm CF FLE, the 120mm CFi Makro-Planar, and the 180mm CFi. And my 150mm CF Sonnar, which some people regard as "meh" (I certainly don't), is every bit as good, and possibly better.

In addition to film, I normally and very frequently shoot them on an MF digital back, so I am able to do some pixel peeping. And at 100%, I can't say the 80mm is *lacking*--it produces a very good, solid image that I would happily print at 16x20 and have. But you *can* see just a little bit of extra "pop", which I can't totally quantify, with the other lenses that brings home *just* how good the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses are.

If I had to rank them, subjectively (but for reasons I can point to on the image), I'd put the 180 first, then the 120, then the 50, and the the 80 and 150 would be tied roughly. But again, it's certainly a very good lens, and obviously I'm going to use it a heck of a lot more than the 180, especially carrying it around. And I'll be perfectly happy, even if I know that if I'm blowing it up to ungodly large sizes on my computer screen, it doesn't have *quite* the last degree of sharpness and other characteristics of the 180. When you print the image and hang it on the wall, the 80 will get, from most people, as many "ooooohs!" as the 180. They're *not* pixel-peeping obsessively.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will definitely give you support on that. I have an 80mm CF lens. It is certainly *very good*, and when I need that focal length (or that maximum aperture), I will use it without hesitation or complaint. However, when I compare it to my other four lenses, three of the four of them--at least--seem to me to have just a bit more "wow" factor than the 80mm. Which surprised me initially, as we're always told that a "normal" lens is the easiest to engineer for maximum sharpness. Those three lenses of which I speak are the 50mm CF FLE, the 120mm CFi Makro-Planar, and the 180mm CFi. And my 150mm CF Sonnar, which some people regard as "meh" (I certainly don't), is every bit as good, and possibly better.

In addition to film, I normally and very frequently shoot them on an MF digital back, so I am able to do some pixel peeping. And at 100%, I can't say the 80mm is *lacking*--it produces a very good, solid image that I would happily print at 16x20 and have. But you *can* see just a little bit of extra "pop", which I can't totally quantify, with the other lenses that brings home *just* how good the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses are.

If I had to rank them, subjectively (but for reasons I can point to on the image), I'd put the 180 first, then the 120, then the 50, and the the 80 and 150 would be tied roughly. But again, it's certainly a very good lens, and obviously I'm going to use it a heck of a lot more than the 180, especially carrying it around. And I'll be perfectly happy, even if I know that if I'm blowing it up to ungodly large sizes on my computer screen, it doesn't have *quite* the last degree of sharpness and other characteristics of the 180. When you print the image and hang it on the wall, the 80 will get, from most people, as many "ooooohs!" as the 180. They're *not* pixel-peeping obsessively.

I have the 150mm lens, not the 180mm lens. I too would not say the the 150mm is "meh" but since I do not take portraits the 150mm lens does not get used much. If I were in the position of buying a lens in that focal length I would buy the 180mm lens based on all that I have read.

 

[GLS]

Those three lenses of which I speak are the 50mm CF FLE, the 120mm CFi Makro-Planar, and the 180mm CFi

I have those lenses too, and I agree they're all excellent performers. The 180 especially.

 

[Mark J]

Speaking as a lens designer , the standard 250mm Sonnar is built with 'normal' glass and hence has quite a lot of secondary axial colour and lateral colour. I'm not saying that good pictures can't be taken with it, but there's a reason that the Superachromat version was offered.

The C/CF/CFE Planar 80/2.8 is a slightly non-standard double gauss with a flatter central doublet. I wondered about this lens form years ago, then eventually realised that it is balanced to give optimum performance at f/2.8 over the central part of the frame. The edge and corner performance suffers slightly as a result, and probably needs stopping-down a bit more than some other standard lenses.

https://www.zeiss.co.uk/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cf/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-2880-en.pdf

The 100/3.5 looks to be a peach, really sharp across the frame even at f/3.5.

 

[Nokton48]

New to Me Hasselblad 250mm f5.6 TStar Sonnar by Nokton48, on Flickr

New to me Hasselblad Zeiss 250mm F5.6 T* Sonnar lens in excellent condition. Needs a CLA but was only $100 US from MPEX. Went to pick it up but that already shipped it. Should have called first LOL. Anyways it's coming soon.

"Speaking as a lens designer , the standard 250mm Sonnar is built with 'normal' glass and hence has quite a lot of secondary axial colour and lateral colour. I'm not saying that good pictures can't be taken with it, but there's a reason that the Superachromat version was offered."

Thanks for this. I had one of these many years ago and didn't use it much. This may change with my new CFV Hasselblad Back; I'm trying to fill in the gaps.

 

[bags27]

I just snagged a great copy (I hope: haven't received it yet) of the 180 from someone local. Also got the 100 a few weeks ago, and I really like it. Thinking I'll leave the 80 at home and carry the 50, 100, and 180: almost symmetrical.

I appreciate the wisdom of the 80 as a slightly wide main lens (almost all MF--film and digital--do it this way), but this will force a slightly different POV on me.

 

[Nokton48]

My stash of 70mm 24 exp rolls 05 2022 by Nokton48, on Flickr

My recent purchase of a CFV16 Hasselblad Digital Back has renewed my interest in Hasselblads. Out in the field I can shoot digitally, then switch to 70mm, maybe one or two emulsions at a time. No need to look at frame counters, which is kinda liberating.

 

[itsdoable]

Speaking as a lens designer , the standard 250mm Sonnar is built with 'normal' glass and hence has quite a lot of secondary axial colour and lateral colour. I'm not saying that good pictures can't be taken with it, but there's a reason that the Superachromat version was offered.

<snip>

Zeiss has very specific optical definitions of apochromat and superachromat, which align with the dictionary definitions.

- achromat - 2 wavelengths to a common focal plane
- apochromat - 3 wavelengths to a common focal plane
- superachromat - 4 wavelengths to a common focal plane

The 250 super was designed for IR and UV work, the 2 extra common focal nodes are in the IR and UV spectrum, the visible spectrum has the same # of nodes as the standard 250. However, the side effect is that secondary aberrations are reduced in the visible spectrum, which is why it's a nice lens.

And note that the term "apo" has been used by marketing to mean pretty much anything. And having 3 or 4 wavelengths focus on a common focal plane does not mean the lens is sharper, but if your are going to all that extra trouble, you may as well ensure it's good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

New to Me Hasselblad 250mm f5.6 TStar Sonnar by Nokton48, on Flickr

New to me Hasselblad Zeiss 250mm F5.6 T* Sonnar lens in excellent condition. Needs a CLA but was only $100 US from MPEX. Went to pick it up but that already shipped it. Should have called first LOL. Anyways it's coming soon.

"Speaking as a lens designer , the standard 250mm Sonnar is built with 'normal' glass and hence has quite a lot of secondary axial colour and lateral colour. I'm not saying that good pictures can't be taken with it, but there's a reason that the Superachromat version was offered."

Thanks for this. I had one of these many years ago and didn't use it much. This may change with my new CFV Hasselblad Back; I'm trying to fill in the gaps.

I would suggest you checkout CLA prices. It is my understanding that my 250mm CF's CLA required all the lens element be removed to get to the shutter to service it and the lens elements required recollimating. In my case KEH covered the CLA including the recollimation and shipping at no cost to me.

 

[Mark J]

And having 3 or 4 wavelengths focus on a common focal plane does not mean the lens is sharper, but if your are going to all that extra trouble, you may as well ensure it's good.

It does actually, because the residual errors across the VIS band are inevitably lower if you can get 3 or 4 crossing points.
But otherwise I completely agree with you. Zeiss took the 'academic' version of the naming and stuck with it for most of the time ; however the use of the term 'Apo' was more loosely applied by other manufacturers. On balance though, even though a lot of 'Apo' lenses are only reduced secondary spectrum, the MTF is higher and colour rendition better, so the user is not normally short-changed.

The 250 Sonnar was designed a LONG time ago, and has a very thick central element, to avoid having extra air/glass surfaces, which made more sense in the days of single coats. With later T* versions, it should have very good 'microcontrast' around highlights, despite its limited MTF.
ps. Any lens with colour like this will get usefully sharper once you use filters, when shooting in B&W, just bear this in mind if you have a choice.

pps. I designed the 300/2.8 TSA, but i can't remember how many crossing points it has !

Cool pic of the 70mm backs from Nokton, love it !

 

[BrianShaw]

It is my understanding that my 250mm CF's CLA required all the lens element be removed to get to the shutter to service it...

I believe that all Hasselblad lenses require removal of the lens modules to access the shutter (and probably many other brands of MF lenses with shutters too).

 

[GLS]

The 250 super was designed for IR and UV work, the 2 extra common focal nodes are in the IR and UV spectrum, the visible spectrum has the same # of nodes as the standard 250. However, the side effect is that secondary aberrations are reduced in the visible spectrum, which is why it's a nice lens.

And not having to imprecisely refocus for IR work is certainly a boon for such a long focal length. Both lateral and axial CAs for the lens are reduced to the Rayleigh limit, so are effectively non-existent. As to resolution, the image center hits the diffraction limit of white light wide open.

Yes, an assuredly "nice" lens indeed