Best/Worst Hasselblad Lenses For V Bodies

[dokko]

one of the problems of discussing things like apparent sharpness that it's a multi facet thing and a lot of factors are involved. basically it depends on the whole pipe line.

for example:
let's say we take the same image once with a Pentax 67 and once with a Mamiya 7 on a fine grain film.
if we print the negatives 60cm wide, the Pentax 67 will usually look sharper because the lenses have a lot of punch.
if we print the same negatives 150cm or wider, the Mamiya 7 will look more detailed, because the lenses actually have quite a bit more resolution.
same thing will happen with scans - at lower resolutions the Pentax 67 usually looks sharper, while at higher resolution the Mamiya 7 lenses are clearly sharper.

the Hasselblad lenses are somewhere in the middle of the above - they have some nice punch while still having very good resolution.

 

[Steven Lee]

I just find this thread funny, but not pointless. Photrio needs 300% boost of volume for Hasselblad-related threads. Even the silly ones.

 

[dokko]

I just find this thread funny, but not pointless. Photrio needs 300% boost of volume for Hasselblad-related threads. Even the silly ones.

Opposed to more Xtol vs D-76 or Leica M2 vs M3 threads?

The problem with best/worst questions is that there usually are no simple answers. Like, the 150mm Hasselblad lens might be the „worst“ in resolution, but I still prefer it over the much „better“ 100mm for closeup portraits.

For those who are looking to print big this threads might be quite informative though.
I always believed that all the medium format cameras have lenses of similar resolution, but after scanning a lot of negatives of different systems, it‘s clear to me that in really big enlargement the differences are very clearly visible and can give a picture quite a different look.

 

[GLS]

Like, the 150mm Hasselblad lens might be the „worst“ in resolution, but I still prefer it over the much „better“ 100mm for closeup portraits.

Unsurprising, as 100mm doesn't produce a very flattering perspective on a tight headshot. Also female subjects in particular probably won't appreciate being that highly resolved.

 

[skahde]

This thread really makes me miss the 2000fcw I sold in 2012l good job, guys.

 

[Steven Lee]

Opposed to more Xtol vs D-76 or Leica M2 vs M3 threads?

Yes, because all developers are the same, and jewelry discussions should have no place in a photography forum!

 

[chuckroast]

Yes, because all developers are the same, and jewelry discussions should have no place in a photography forum!

Well, that and everyone KNOWS the M2 is better and Pyrocat-HD is the only developer anyone would ever need doing only standing development...

 

[skahde]

Thats what I call spraying a thread with WD40: Now things start to get slippery and smell funny.

 

[Nokton48]

Back to the original topic. I'm a camera collector/user, and I purposefully went out to gather the original black C T* "V" lenses that match in vintage my 500C/M and 500EL/M. Ended up with the 30mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 100mm, 120-S, 135/Bellows, 150mm, 250mm, 350mm, and 500mm Opton. Not expensive and great users all. I do use them all with regularity, they are all superb for my uses. I could care less which is the sharpest! They are all perfectly fine for me, I'm very content. IMO all Hasselblad V lenses are perfectly usuable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Back to the original topic. I'm a camera collector/user, and I purposefully went out to gather the original black C T* "V" lenses that match in vintage my 500C/M and 500EL/M. Ended up with the 30mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 100mm, 120-S, 135/Bellows, 150mm, 250mm, 350mm, and 500mm Opton. Not expensive and great users all. I do use them all with regularity, they are all superb for my uses. I could care less which is the sharpest! They are all perfectly fine for me, I'm very content. IMO all Hasselblad V lenses are perfectly usuable.

I standardized on CF lenses, and I agree with your your comments and find all the Hasselblad lenses sharper than any other equivalent focal length lenses that I have used.

 

[Nokton48]

I standardized on CF lenses, and I agree with your your comments and find all the Hasselblad lenses sharper than any other equivalent focal length lenses that I have used.

Not to gibe but I'm not sure in my case I'd agree with that. My Mamyflex stable of Olde C22/C33 Bodies and modern black Mamy lenses cut the mustard too, I'm been fooled in side by side shoots, I thought afterwards it's Blad, and it's actually Mamy. Definate advanages to having both types around. And not 'spensive, it's to me what I get for what I paid, I have a definate budget. And Large Format is my go-to for uber resolution. Only so much you can do with a 2x2" piece of film. But I'm glad I have my Blads, and Mamys too. Happy Happy. CFV16 Hassy is new and exciting to me, I'm a digital Dodo.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not to gibe but I'm not sure in my case I'd agree with that. My Mamyflex stable of Olde C22/C33 Bodies and modern black Mamy lenses cut the mustard too, I'm been fooled in side by side shoots, I thought afterwards it's Blad, and it's actually Mamy. Definate advanages to having both types around. And not 'spensive, it's to me what I get for what I paid, I have a definate budget. And Large Format is my go-to for uber resolution. Only so much you can do with a 2x2" piece of film. But I'm glad I have my Blads, and Mamys too. Happy Happy. CFV16 Hassy is new and exciting to me, I'm a digital Dodo.

I had a Mamiya C330 with three lenses which I traded for the Hasselblad. It would be counter productive for me to buy any Mamiya lenses since I do not have any Mamiya bodies.

 

[Arthurwg]

IMHO, I generally think Mamiya lenses have better contrast than Zeiss, but that Zeiss has better tonal separation.

 

[Steven Lee]

Zeiss has better tonal separation.

Unfortunately there is no such thing in real life. Tonal separation does not exist outside of the Internet. It's a purely psychological phenomena similar to 3D pop and microcontrast. If it existed (and mattered) it would have been measured and listed in a Zeiss datasheet.

On the other hand, reading discussions about 3D pop, microcontrast, tonal separation or tonality is adorable. A bunch of adults discussing things nobody can describe the same way, with emotions involved, it's almost spiritual in nature. That's why I come here!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Unfortunately there is no such thing in real life. Tonal separation does not exist outside of the Internet. It's a purely psychological phenomena similar to 3D pop and microcontrast. If it existed (and mattered) it would have been measured and listed in a Zeiss datasheet.

Zeiss seems to have been one of the first lens manufacturers to realise that very high low frequency MTF/ OTF in optics mattered a lot to our perception of 'sharp', rather than simply lots of contrast and/ or resolution. Everyone else essentially caught up to (overtook?) them over a sequence of product cycles (10-20+ years) - but a lot of the classic Zeiss Hasselblad/ Contax designs are quite old (50s-70s) compared to the late-film-era lenses from the competition.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Lachlan Young What do you mean by "simply lots of contrast"? Very low frequency MTF **is** what most people will describe as "contrast". My bigger point is that MTF is all that matters, instead of quasi-religious terms that everybody understands differently.

 

[chuckroast]

Not to gibe but I'm not sure in my case I'd agree with that. My Mamyflex stable of Olde C22/C33 Bodies and modern black Mamy lenses cut the mustard too, I'm been fooled in side by side shoots, I thought afterwards it's Blad, and it's actually Mamy. Definate advanages to having both types around. And not 'spensive, it's to me what I get for what I paid, I have a definate budget. And Large Format is my go-to for uber resolution. Only so much you can do with a 2x2" piece of film. But I'm glad I have my Blads, and Mamys too. Happy Happy. CFV16 Hassy is new and exciting to me, I'm a digital Dodo.

My experience is rather different:

I have shot with a wide variety of Mamiya optics from the Universal Press lenses, to multiple generations of TLR lenses, to the 645 family, to the Mamiya 7s.

In my experience, none of them, except the M7, perform anywhere near the Hassy Zeiss optics when pushed to large magnification, not for sharpness nor contrast. At 8x10, you can't see a ton of difference. At 16x20 you absolutely can. The M7 comes closest and performs well at high magnifications.

The other optics I've found that stand up well against the Zeiss lenses are the Fuji glass found in the GA-645Zi and GA690II cameras. Again, they are very fine performers.

I've also shot a fair bit with Kodak Ektar and Commercial Ektar lenses and they are every bit the equal of the Zeiss lenses. The 101mm f/4.5 Ektar on a 2x3 Graphic is an absolute razor sharp lens with contrast to burn.

The TLR lenses were fine for their time. But they were primarily designed for wedding and portrait work and I've never seen any of them, at any aperture, deliver the way a Zeiss does. In fairness, I've never used any of the Blue Dot lenses which, I suppose, could be much better.

Note that in all cases here, I am talking about monochrome film. With color film or digital film scanning, the results might be closer. Film scanning, especially, is going to mask a multitude of sins because - unless you have a drum scanner - you're going to be scan-limited in what you can see.

 

[dokko]

Zeiss seems to have been one of the first lens manufacturers to realise that very high low frequency MTF/ OTF in optics mattered a lot to our perception of 'sharp', rather than simply lots of contrast and/ or resolution. Everyone else essentially caught up to (overtook?) them over a sequence of product cycles (10-20+ years) - but a lot of the classic Zeiss Hasselblad/ Contax designs are quite old (50s-70s) compared to the late-film-era lenses from the competition.

that's a very good point.
the problem with describing sharpness is that it's not something that can be easily measured since it's a visual experience that depends on a lot of factors.

let's take an example of of two lenses with different MTF curves:
lens1 shows 95% at 10cycles/mm and 50% at 40cycles/mm
lens2 shows 90% at 10cycles/mm and 75% at 40cycles/mm

if we choose a grainy film and make a small print, lens1 will very likely look sharper than lens 2.
same thing if we choose a poor enlarger lens or low resolution scanner.

the same comparison with a fine grain film and a large, high-quality print or high-resolution scan will show a different picture and lens2 will outperform lens 2.

it's probably best to imagine the sharpness as a result of the product of the MTF of each component in the imaging chain:
subject -> lens -> camera shake -> emulsion -> enlargement or scan -> paper -> viewing conditions/distance -> observers eyes etc

 

[Arthurwg]

Unfortunately there is no such thing in real life. Tonal separation does not exist outside of the Internet.

Funny. I have not seen "tonal separation" mentioned on the internet, except perhaps by me. When I use the term I'm referring to a pallet of subtle and distinct grey tones, which I imagine could be measured and quantified if somebody wanted to go to the trouble. But my point has more to do with an impression I get. Better blacks with Mamiya, better grey scale with Hassy. I shoot both and that's what I see.

 

[dokko]

My experience is rather different:

I have shot with a wide variety of Mamiya optics from the Universal Press lenses, to multiple generations of TLR lenses, to the 645 family, to the Mamiya 7s.

In my experience, none of them, except the M7, perform anywhere near the Hassy Zeiss optics when pushed to large magnification, not for sharpness nor contrast. At 8x10, you can't see a ton of difference. At 16x20 you absolutely can. The M7 comes closest and performs well at high magnifications.

The other optics I've found that stand up well against the Zeiss lenses are the Fuji glass found in the GA-645Zi and GA690II cameras. Again, they are very fine performers.

that's interesting, my experience is rather different again. just shows how difficult the topic is:

In medium format, for me the lenses with the most resolution are those for the Mamiya7 and Mamiya6, hands down.

Zeiss lenses (Hasselblad CF and Contax 645) are a bit lower resolution but have more snap, resulting in sharper looking images on lower magnification.

I've scanned a lot of images from Fuji GA645Zi (and GA645) and they never had the resolution or sharpness of the above.

the Fuji GW690 and GWS690 are really sharp, but lack fine-detail resolution on big enlargements (they look a bit like an unsharp mask has been applied).

the Pentax 67 lenses are similar.

the Mamiya 330 lenses (I've only shot with the blue dot versions) are rather high resolution, but have less sharpness. they are rather special wide open since they show a lot of detail with a soft image overlay, giving them a glow, which makes them great for portraits (there's a reason wedding photographers liked them)

Note that in all cases here, I am talking about monochrome film. With color film or digital film scanning, the results might be closer. Film scanning, especially, is going to mask a multitude of sins because - unless you have a drum scanner - you're going to be scan-limited in what you can see.

agreed that most consumer scanners will make sharpness comparisons completely useless, but if we go over 8000ppi they can rival analog prints and at over 10'000ppi, they can actually show more details than in the best analog enlargements.

 

[chuckroast]

How you develop and print matters. The following are all scans of physical silver prints:

Hassy:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/19970327-2-01-Banff_Barking.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/19970927-1-04-Coiled.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230811-1-12-Symphony_In_Mud_Flat.jpg

Mamiya TLR:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20200627-1-03-Big_Sky_Wisconsin.jpg

Mamiya 645:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20240106-1-05-Ducking_Out.jpg

101mm Ektar:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230803-1-19-Truncated.jpg

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230803-1-22-Paper_Route.jpg

Fuji GA-645Zi:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20191230-1-15-LoggedIn.jpg

Fuji GW690II:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230325-1-08-Swamped.jpg

 

[chuckroast]

that's interesting, my experience is rather different again. just shows how difficult the topic is:

In medium format, for me the lenses with the most resolution are those for the Mamiya7 and Mamiya6, hands down.

Years ago, all my Hassy stuff was stolen in Barcelona. While I waited for the insurance money to come through, I rented an M7 with lenses. The first time I saw what the 43mm could do, I about fell out of my chair. That camera and lens family was easily the equal of all things 'Blad. I have often wondered if I made a bad choice replacing the 'Blad and perhaps should have gotten the M7 instead.

 

[dokko]

Years ago, all my Hassy stuff was stolen in Barcelona. While I waited for the insurance money to come through, I rented an M7 with lenses. The first time I saw what the 43mm could do, I about fell out of my chair. That camera and lens family was easily the equal of all things 'Blad. I have often wondered if I made a bad choice replacing the 'Blad and perhaps should have gotten the M7 instead.

I like both, but for different subjects:

for portraits, the Hasselblad is my all time favorite - the lenses are just great for portraits and framing on the ground glass is a joy.
similarly, it's a great camera for macro and products shots (not doing many of those though)

for traveling I usually prefer the Mamiya 7, both for the 6x7 format and the crystal clear rendering of the lenses (only used the 65mm and the 80mm, but planning to get the 50mm or 43mm soon).

 

[Arthurwg]

Just remember, "apparent sharpness" is often a product of higher contrast.