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.
That being said, one of the technically weakest performers is the one most people choose as their first: the 80mm Planar.
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?
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.
The 80mm lens is not the sharpest lens in Hasselblads line up
But I do wonder about practical implications of these differences
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.
Those three lenses of which I speak are the 50mm CF FLE, the 120mm CFi Makro-Planar, and the 180mm CFi
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>
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.
It does actually, because the residual errors across the VIS band are inevitably lower if you can get 3 or 4 crossing points.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 is my understanding that my 250mm CF's CLA required all the lens element be removed to get to the shutter to service it...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?