Best/Worst Hasselblad Lenses For V Bodies

[Sirius Glass]

There was a 80mm "C"-Lens sold as a kit lens during the 90s together with the 501C. Optically, this one is identical to the CF-Version and also features the same barrel, minus some functions. Is this the lens you have or an altogether different one?

Supplying the lens serial number will help clarify the lens identification.

 

[dave olson]

There was a 80mm "C"-Lens sold as a kit lens during the 90s together with the 501C. Optically, this one is identical to the CF-Version and also features the same barrel, minus some functions. Is this the lens you have or an altogether different one?

Being honest, I don't know. I bought it as a stand alone so I don't know if was a kit lens or something different. All the numerals and letters are filled in with white.

 

[itsdoable]

... and interesting hybrid 80 F2.8. The 80 is marked C, however it has all the properties that were incorporated into the CF. It was apparently produced with the proposed upgrades to see how users reacted. If someone has additional information I'd be glad to read it.

Being honest, I don't know. I bought it as a stand alone so I don't know if was a kit lens or something different. All the numerals and letters are filled in with white.

The Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 Planar C "New C type" was a lens that was available only as a package with the 501c and A12 magazine.

Although it uses the CF lens housing style, but it is NOT a CF lens as it does not have the "F" function. It's a "C" lens in a CF box.

Check your lens, if it should be missing the green "F" on the shutter speed ring (which should be next to "B")

 

[Nokton48]

Digital V System 30mm to 120mm by Nokton48, on Flickr

Digital Hasselblad CFV16 Back 30mm Distagon, 40mm Distagon, 50mm Distagon, 60mm Distagon, 80mm Planar, 100mm Planar, and 120mm S-Planar. A short to medium full set, all roughly the same vintages. More than I can carry around, but it's here to use. Also 2 of 4 Lithium Battery Packs, Type CF Adapter, and seven 32G Micro Cards. I now prefer this late model Magnifying Hood, and the special CFV16 Acute Focusing Screen, which makes a huge deal with critical focus with this thing. It is -very- critical and DOF seems to be less than usual with this system. But all is good here. The Rubber Eyecup is from Ukraine Kiev 88 Magnifier, also Kiev 60 Meter Prism. The Best on Hassy.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I never understood the raison d'être of the Distagon 40mm, knowing that there is a so nice Biogon 38mm.
I shot with the 40mm and I found it too heavy and big to handhold it 'relaxed'.
Perhaps the possibility of viewing trough it, as a SLR, could plead in its advantage...

But this isn't at all a negative critic on its optical performance.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never understood the raison d'être of the Distagon 40mm, knowing that there is a so nice Biogon 38mm.
I shot with the 40mm and I found it too heavy and big to handhold it 'relaxed'.
Perhaps the possibility of viewing trough it, as a SLR, could plead in its advantage...

But this isn't at all a negative critic on its optical performance.

The only advantage I see with the 40mm lens is that one can see through the lens. I greatly prefer the 38mm Biogon because of the rectilinear correctness and lighter weight.

 

[chuckroast]

The only advantage I see with the 40mm lens is that one can see through the lens. I greatly prefer the 38mm Biogon because of the rectilinear correctness and lighter weight.

I have not used the Biogon in years but I have used both the older C T* 40mm and the 40mm FLE CFi,

The 40mm C T* is a heavy beast, hard to handhold, but still a very competent lens. The FLE is a whole other planet of goodness. It's smaller, more ergonomic, behaves remarkably well with specular highlights, and - of course - the FLE feature gives you optimized optical performance at all distances. I also rather like the way it does line bending, as I find that to be a useful aesthetic tool.

Having said that, I just don't find a lot of use for an ultrawide. I'd say that better than 80% of my Hasselblad negatives are shot with either the 60mm f/3.5 Distagon or the 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have not used the Biogon in years but I have used both the older C T* 40mm and the 40mm FLE CFi,

The 40mm C T* is a heavy beast, hard to handhold, but still a very competent lens. The FLE is a whole other planet of goodness. It's smaller, more ergonomic, behaves remarkably well with specular highlights, and - of course - the FLE feature gives you optimized optical performance at all distances. I also rather like the way it does line bending, as I find that to be a useful aesthetic tool.

Having said that, I just don't find a lot of use for an ultrawide. I'd say that better than 80% of my Hasselblad negatives are shot with either the 60mm f/3.5 Distagon or the 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar.

My most used Hasselblad lenses are the 50mm, 80mm and 100mm. I do not take portraits so my least used is the 150mm lens.

 

[chuckroast]

My most used Hasselblad lenses are the 50mm, 80mm and 100mm. I do not take portraits so my least used is the 150mm lens.

Yes, I am in much the same situation. I have 5 or 6 lenses but only use a couple of them regularly. I keep thinking I should sell the 400 FLE and either the 180 or the 250, they get so little play.

 

[Steven Lee]

@chuckroast I would recommend the 150mm instead of the 180mm. Nearly identical coverage but significantly better handling and portability. Cheaper, too. I think it's possible to get a pair of 150+250 for the same budget as the 180 alone.

Nothing against the 180mm, I own one. But I can't recall a situation the 150mm couldn't handle. Essentially the only reason I use the 180mm lens is to justify owning it to myself and to exercise its shutter People say it's optically sharper than the 150mm but I don't have a scanning/printing equipment which allows me to see the difference.

 

[chuckroast]

@chuckroast I would recommend the 150mm instead of the 180mm. Nearly identical coverage but significantly better handling and portability. Cheaper, too. I think it's possible to get a pair of 150+250 for the same budget as the 180 alone.

Nothing against the 180mm, I own one. But I can't recall a situation the 150mm couldn't handle. Essentially the only reason I use the 180mm lens is to justify owning it to myself and to exercise its shutter People say it's optically sharper than the 150mm but I don't have a scanning/printing equipment which allows me to see the difference.

Back when I was acquiring these lenses, I didn't think the field of view of the 150mm was different enough from the 120mm to warrant owning it. So, I got the 180mm instead.

 

[Steven Lee]

@chuckroast somehow my brain failed and I read your earlier comment as you thinking about acquiring the 180 or the 250!

 

[Sirius Glass]

@chuckroast I would recommend the 150mm instead of the 180mm. Nearly identical coverage but significantly better handling and portability. Cheaper, too. I think it's possible to get a pair of 150+250 for the same budget as the 180 alone.

Nothing against the 180mm, I own one. But I can't recall a situation the 150mm couldn't handle. Essentially the only reason I use the 180mm lens is to justify owning it to myself and to exercise its shutter People say it's optically sharper than the 150mm but I don't have a scanning/printing equipment which allows me to see the difference.

Hmm early on I was thinking about switching from the 150mm to the 180mm lens. Since neither would get much use, it is better that I did not swap.

 

[chuckroast]

@chuckroast somehow my brain failed and I read your earlier comment as you thinking about acquiring the 180 or the 250!

No, no. I currently own the 40, 60, 80, 120,180, & 250. Of those, I use the 60 and 120 most. I bought the 180 rather than the 150 because I felt the 150 was too close to the 120.

At this point, I use the 40, 180, and 250 so rarely, that I am considering selling some or all of them, thereby keeping the lenses I use the most.

 

[chuckroast]

Hmm early on I was thinking about switching from the 150mm to the 180mm lens. Since neither would get much use, it is better that I did not swap.

If you are going to use them, they're both great lenses. I haven't used a 150mm in some years but the 180mm is just a tack sharp lens among Hassy's best, in my view.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, no. I currently own the 40, 60, 80, 120,180, & 250. Of those, I use the 60 and 120 most. I bought the 180 rather than the 150 because I felt the 150 was too close to the 120.

At this point, I use the 40, 180, and 250 so rarely, that I am considering selling some or all of them, thereby keeping the lenses I use the most.

I have the 30mm C Fisheye, 38mm CF SWC, 50mm CF, 80mm CF, 100mm CF, 150mm CF, 250mm CF, 500mm C and the 2XE extender. No 120mm nor 135mm lenses.

 

[bags27]

Is the 40mm CFE IF even stronger than the 40 CFE or are they about the same?

 

[Slixtiesix]

The 40/4 CFE IF was a completely new design compared to the 40/4 CFE FLE. It has better resolution across the entire frame, but a the cost of stronger distortion. This lens was introduced particularly for CFV backs as an alternative to the SWC, but is of course, very strong with film too. The early CFV backs had difficulties with the SWC camera because the sensor is so close positioned towards the rear lens of the Biogon, leading to exzessive colour fringing. Therefore Zeiss introduced the 40/4 IF as an alternative. It does not offer the low, practically non-existent distortion of the Biogon, but it was said this could easily be corrected in digital post processing.

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cfi-cfe/en/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-440-cfe-en.pdf

https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cfi-cfe/de/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-440-if-cfe-de.pdf

 

[Nokton48]

I like my 40mm black C T* Distagon, it was not expensive unlike the FLE. Well worth the money I paid.

Hasselblad CFV16 3D Drop In Viewfinder Masks from Italy by Nokton48, on Flickr

These are 3D Printed Drop-In Viewfinder Masks, for the Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back. I use these Masks with the Standard Cross Screen, when utilizing the F5,6 350mm Tele-Tessar, and the F8 500mm Tele-Opton. It all works very well together for certain types of shoots. Purchased from Italy. On the upper left is the Hasselblad Superwide Viewfinder Mask, specifically for the CFV16 Digital Back. Also 3D Printed in Italy. Eventually I will buy a Superwide, good to have this while it is available. Really how many accessories available for the CFV16? Not Many.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I have tried many Hasselblad lenses and am happy to add my experiences to this thread:

38mm SWC C T*: Completely worth the hype and price of entry, wonderful lens
40mm C T*: Very good, not great. IMO save up for the SWC rather than getting this.
50mm C: Very good but a bit soft along the corners. Probably my least favorite Hasselblad lens.
50mm CF FLE: Excellent, but for whatever reason I have some trouble bonding with this focal length
60mm C T*: Best medium format lens I've ever used, across all camera systems. If I had to get rid of all other lenses this is the one I'd keep
80mm CF: Excellent, but if I'm shooting 80mm I'd rather use a Rolleiflex, which costs the same as one of these lenses but doesn't have to deal with mirror slap or interchangeable back light leak problems like the Hassy
100mm: Sharp, but not as much sharper than the 80mm as it is rumored to be. I was considering getting this lens once and I shot a roll where every other shot I swapped it with the 80, and I couldn't tell which shot was taken with which. It goes without saying I returned the 100mm.
120mm Makro: Sharp but I prefer the focal length and rendering of the 150mm for portraits
150mm: Beautiful lens, and cheap for some reason!
250mm: Hard to get sharp pictures with because it's so long but not a fault of the lens. When I can hold it steady the pictures are great. Questionable if it's worth getting unless you are big into tripods

All told my favorite Hasselblad 3 lens kit is: 38, 60, 150

 

[Nokton48]

CFV16 60 DIST EI 100 Meter Prism EV16 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is a "Autumn Blaze Maple" fastest growing of all Maples. We hope it gets to be a hundred feet tall when fully grown. This is a baby. Hasselblad 500C/M 60mm C T* Distagon CFV16 Hasselblad Digital Back, full sun. EI 100 according to EV setting Hasselblad Meter Prism.

 

[Nokton48]

CFV16 60 DIST EI 100 Meter Prism by Nokton48, on Flickr

Testing the black C T* 60mm Hasselblad Zeiss Distagon CFV16 Hasselblad Digital Back 500 C/M exposed according to TTL Hasselblad Meter Prism. Key Day Full Sun.

 

[dokko]

I've shot with pretty much the full CF lens lineup from 50mm to 180mm (the exception being the 105mm UV-Sonnar and the 135mm macro) and found that if you are mainly concerned about resolution, the data sheets match the real world very well. here the full overview:

Hasselblad Historical - Zeiss Lens Data Sheets

www.hasselbladhistorical.eu

they all are great lenses in terms of rendering and sharpness.
purely from a point of resolution, the 150mm is definitely the weakest.
the 120mm macro is not not that high resolution either, but has a nice performance up to the corners on close distances.
the 100mm is the sharpest up to the corners on long distances.

the 50mm FLE, the 60mm and the 80mm are all great in the center, but drop quite a bit at the corners.

for an idea of the detail that is possible, here a developer test shot with the 80mm FE (same lens design as the CF) on TMX, with a center crop at 11'000ppi:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53274336402_f80419a990_o_d.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275232816_eeb6e8a8b0_o_d.jpg

 

[Steven Lee]

I do not have access to 11,000ppi scanning equipment and I honestly can't see any difference using equipment I have.

@dokko states that the 150mm is the weakest lens in the lineup, but you don't have his equipment. To get an idea of what you'll be getting, here's a full-sized scan of the 150mm at f/5.6, 8,000x8,000 resolution with minimal compression:

LINK TO THE SCAN - the focus point is on the Fomapan box under the ruler.

And this is only available if you have access to a high-end mirrorless, Coolscan or Imacon.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I do not have access to 11,000ppi scanning equipment and I honestly can't see any difference using equipment I have.

@dokko states that the 150mm is the weakest lens in the lineup, but you don't have his equipment. To get an idea of what you'll be getting, here's a full-sized scan of the 150mm at f/5.6, 8,000x8,000 resolution with minimal compression:

LINK TO THE SCAN - the focus point is on the Fomapan box under the ruler.

And this is only available if you have access to a high-end mirrorless, Coolscan or Imacon.

OMG Steve that's terrible performance! I think I'll stick with my Zeiss box Tengor.