Best/Worst Hasselblad Lenses For V Bodies

[chuckroast]

I'm just curious if the experience of others matches mine.

I've had the opportunity to shoot a wide variety of the lenses made for a V series Hasselblad body. (It was good to work for a pro rental place for a while that let us rent anything we wanted for $1/day! Yes, I know, I know, I was spoiled rotten.)

While pretty much all the 'Blad lenses are terrific - even the old 'C' style were pretty good - I have found some clear differences in lens sharpness, especially.

Hands down, I've found the 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar to be the sharpest.

A tie for a close second is either the 80mm f/2.8 Planar or the 180mm f/4 Sonnar.

The worst - at least in my observation - whether in C or CF or CFi incarnation - is the 250mm f/5.6 Sonnar. For whatever reason it seems not to live up to the 'Blad sharpness and contrast standards. Is this my imagination?

Interestingly, what I ended up buying for myself as my every day driver is 60mm f/3.5 Distagon. It's not only quite sharp, but the angle of view and speed of the lens gives it great utility for day-to-day work.

Thoughts?

 

[BrianShaw]

If your observation that the 250 Sonnar is the worst, then it's not your imagination it's your experience. I find the 250 to be a challenging lens to use because of its bulk and weight. On tripod, though, it certainly seems to me to live up to the Zeiss/Hasselblad standards per the specifications. Off tripod... there are too many other photographer-induced factors that can make that lens look bad.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If your observation that the 250 Sonnar is the worst, then it's not your imagination it's your experience. I find the 250 to be a challenging lens to use because of its bulk and weight. On tripod, though, it certainly seems to me to live up to the Zeiss/Hasselblad standards per the specifications. Off tripod... there are too many other photographer-induced factors that can make that lens look bad.

I agree totally. I have never found a bad Hasselblad lens, PERIOD! The C lenses are less ergonomic but then their cost is so low that I can ignore the awkwardness for me. I only own the 30mm Fisheye C, 38mm 903 SWC, 50mm CF, 80mm CF, 100mm CF, 150mm CF, 250mm CF, 500mm C lenses and the 2XE.

 

[Steven Lee]

@chuckroast I have the 50, 60, 80, 100, 150, and 250mm lenses. Never bothered with any kind of instrumented tests. I tag my scans with the equipment used, so I can easily look up images taken with a given lens. Can't tell the difference. What I see is that 90% of shots taken with the 250mm have a tiny bit of shake blur in them due to poor tripod discipline, or the focus point is slightly off due to the shallow DOF. Perhaps these factors also contributed to your perception of this lens?

OTOH, my 6x6 scans are 6,200x6,200 pixels. The grain is tight and sharp on them, but that's only 2,800ppi and I only shoot ISO 400 films on medium format. I wouldn't rule out the possibility to discover differences if I were shooting Delta 100 and scanning at 5,000ppi. MTF curves don't lie: Zeiss themselves say that the 250mm is less sharp than the 100mm Planar, for example.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@chuckroast I have the 50, 60, 80, 100, 150, and 250mm lenses. Never bothered with any kind of instrumented tests. I tag my scans with the equipment used, so I can easily look up images taken with a given lens. Can't tell the difference. What I see is that 90% of shots taken with the 250mm have a tiny bit of shake blur in them due to poor tripod discipline, or the focus point is slightly off due to the shallow DOF. Perhaps these factors also contributed to your perception of this lens?

OTOH, my 6x6 scans are 6,200x6,200 pixels. The grain is tight and sharp on them, but that's only 2,800ppi and I only shoot ISO 400 films on medium format. I wouldn't rule out the possibility to discover differences if I were shooting Delta 100 and scanning at 5,000ppi. MTF curves don't lie: Zeiss themselves say that the 250mm is less sharp than the 100mm Planar, for example.

I agree and I too use ISO 400 films shot at box speed with or with the Zone System.

 

[Photomultiplier]

My lineup: 50C Distagon, 60CF Distagon, 80CF Planar, 120CF Makro-Planar, 150CF Sonnar, 180CF Sonnar, 250CF Sonnar

I had most trouble with the 250, it just looks a bit "mushier" than the other lenses. A professional photographer i talked to also had the same experience.

All of the other lenses delivered very high image quality, especially the 180 Sonnar (i was very pleased with it) and the 120 Makro-Planar in close-up use, as it is better optimized for these reproduction ratios.

I am not going to say that the 250 is bad, i just do not have the feeling that it is on par with the other lenses.
If one compares the MTF diagrams of the 250, 180 and 80, it is clearly visible that the 250 practically does not really get any better by stopping down to f8 and it approximately stays at the level of the 80 Planar wide open at f2.8
while the Planar significantly improves at f5.6.
The 180 also does not really improve much while stopping down, but starts out excellent even wide open.

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

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cf/en/datasheet-zeiss-sonnar-56250-en.pdf

https://www.zeiss.ch/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cf/de/datasheet-zeiss-sonnar-4180-de.pdf

https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cf/de/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-3560-de.pdf

https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-c/de/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-450-de.pdf

https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/hasselblad-cf/de/datasheet-zeiss-makro-planar-4120-de.pdf

From what i heard, the 100 Planar should also be a stellar performer, but i do not own it (yet).

@chuckroast: I second your opinion on the 60 Distagon regarding image quality and FOV. Kind of a sweet spot between pronounced wide angle of the 50 and the normal 80 Planar. I use it with the 180 Sonnar as my lightweight minimum gear.

 

[eli griggs]

If your observation that the 250 Sonnar is the worst, then it's not your imagination it's your experience. I find the 250 to be a challenging lens to use because of its bulk and weight. On tripod, though, it certainly seems to me to live up to the Zeiss/Hasselblad standards per the specifications. Off tripod... there are too many other photographer-induced factors that can make that lens look bad.

Well, there you go, you've cracked it, directly to the meat of the nut, that, longer lenses need the steadying influence of a fixed support, tripod or monopod or a photographer that knows various anti-shake technics of body bracing, of including standing on a tension rope.

There are photographers that can get great results by hand holding long lenses, but a static brace or support gives the best results, Short or Like ng lenses, period.

One side issue I suggest folks pay attention to is, tripod harmonics.

In a wind, no matter how you've braced your tripod, and support the long lens, it's possible for harmonic vibrations to take place, which should be found out and eliminated to get the best from your set-up.

I.M.O.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, there you go, you've cracked it, directly to the meat of the nut, that, longer lenses need the steadying influence of a fixed support, tripod or monopod or a photographer that knows various anti-shake technics of body bracing, of including standing on a tension rope.

There are photographers that can get great results by hand holding long lenses, but a static brace or support gives the best results, Short or Like ng lenses, period.

One side issue I suggest folks pay attention to is, tripod harmonics.

In a wind, no matter how you've braced your tripod, and support the long lens, it's possible for harmonic vibrations to take place, which should be found out and eliminated to get the best from your set-up.

I.M.O.

IMNSHO too.

 

[Arthurwg]

My 60mm CF is my favorite lens, largely because it is tack sharp hand-held. I also love the 120mm, which I usually carry along with the 60mm. The180mm may be very sharp on a tripod, but it is too front heavy and awkward to use. And I can agree about the 250mm, which is good but not great. I don't love the 100mm CF because of the long-throw focus, which is too stiff and apparently can't be eased.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

So there were a few lenses that I was disappointed with, but first let me explain. When photographers still shot film professionally I worked as a sports photographer. One of my contracts was with TOPPS baseball cards, although I only shot the NBA in Toronto for them. If you shoot the NBA, and are renting strobes for $400 a game from the league, they expect you to set up remote cameras.
So I shot with a 70-200mm and 400mm f2.8 in my lap, and set up three 553 cameras as remotes, all hooked into the strobes.
I bought a new 40mm for placement right behind, and shooting through the glass for rim shots. The lens was just over $7000 when I bought it but there was a promo at the time that gave you a 12 back. This lens was outstanding.
I bought a new 250mm and mounted it in a stairwell so you could shoot any action in front of the basket. I also used it for some portraits on 'media day' because I like the angle of view. I thought this lens was outstanding, and my favorite, although I always had it nailed down to something, and was shooting with strobes that also make things sharper.
I bought a new 60mm CB lens, I believe this was a less costly alternative to the CFi lenses, but when I bought it, it was the only 60mm in the lineup. This was mounted on a 553 right on the pole holding the basket up. I was always disappointed with this lens. Just wasn't as sharp as it should have been.
I also bought a 160mm CB lens but rarely used it and never found it all that great.
I sometimes borrowed an old silver 150mm but didn't like it, and it wasn't mine.
The final lens in the kit was the 120mm makro, which was the most outstanding lens I owned.
I never owned the 180mm but would buy one in a minute if I still shot with a blad. It's the perfect focal length and I've only heard great things about it.
My two cents worth.

 

[Axelwik]

I've whittled my Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses down to just a few: 38 Biogon (SWC), 60 distagon, 120 Planar, 250 Sonnar, and 500 Tele-Tessar. All very good lenses in my opinion and all t* C lenses except the 38 and 500. In reference to the OP 250 comment, mine is very sharp. I prefer C lenses for their compactness and the easy depth of field scale.

There may be some very slight differences between them, but as a photographer using them for their intended purposes there's no real world practical difference. If you want sharp photos from almost any lens use a tripod and use an optimium aperture for your lens. Otherwise any comparison is moot.

 

[Ai Print]

I own and use the 40 CF FLE, 50 CF FLE, 60 CFi, 80 CFe, 100 CFi, 120 CF, 180 CFi, 350 CF and a 1.4 XE.

Out of all those lenses, the 80 needs to be stopped down a bit more than others to get the corners super sharp when doing landscapes and the 350 needs serious vibration control and perfect focus, shows a bit of CA on color film and with a D back. The rest are just outstanding in every way and are effortless to use.

I am looking to possibly replace the 350 CF with the very expensive 350 SA since I love the focal length so much, but the $6,000+ price tag used is a heck of a lot to swallow.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

If your observation that the 250 Sonnar is the worst, then it's not your imagination it's your experience. I find the 250 to be a challenging lens to use because of its bulk and weight. On tripod, though, it certainly seems to me to live up to the Zeiss/Hasselblad standards per the specifications. Off tripod... there are too many other photographer-induced factors that can make that lens look bad.

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...

 

[Nokton48]

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

I've been using my olde 70's vintage Hasselblad system in the studio for a while and now I'm getting ready to go out with it. My olde wedding cameras I used up a lot of 220 in those days. I have thinned it down a bit, at one time I had all the lenses. Now the 30 T* Distagon, the 40mm T* Distagon, the 60mm T* Distagon, the 80mm T* Planar, 100 T* Planar, and the 135 T* Bellows Planar, and the 350mm non-T*

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

First test of new to me Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back, 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.

CFV16 40mm Dist EI 200 MPEX by Nokton48, on Flickr

Went to MPEX yesterday, they wanted to play with my new Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back. He says I should keep it.
Never seen one before. "This is just too cool".

 

[Steven Lee]

Had to finish a roll today, made this image specifically for this thread. I used the 250mm CF at f/5.6 (wide open)

Here we go: 8,000x8,000px scan - supposedly the worst lens in the lineup. You need to look for the focus point due to the shallow DOF.

I don't know how big you need to print to be "limited" by a Hasselblad/Zeiss lens, any lens.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Back when I was shooting Hasselblad, I had a 50mm CF Distagon that was the only bad hasselblad lens I ever used. It was sharp in the center and by the time you got halfway to the edges the image was soft with no fine detail resolution at all apertures. I sold it and got a 50mm CF-FLE (the floating lens element version) and it was tack sharp to the edges.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

So there were a few lenses that I was disappointed with, but first let me explain. When photographers still shot film professionally I worked as a sports photographer. One of my contracts was with TOPPS baseball cards, although I only shot the NBA in Toronto for them. If you shoot the NBA, and are renting strobes for $400 a game from the league, they expect you to set up remote cameras.
So I shot with a 70-200mm and 400mm f2.8 in my lap, and set up three 553 cameras as remotes, all hooked into the strobes.
I bought a new 40mm for placement right behind, and shooting through the glass for rim shots. The lens was just over $7000 when I bought it but there was a promo at the time that gave you a 12 back. This lens was outstanding.
I bought a new 250mm and mounted it in a stairwell so you could shoot any action in front of the basket. I also used it for some portraits on 'media day' because I like the angle of view. I thought this lens was outstanding, and my favorite, although I always had it nailed down to something, and was shooting with strobes that also make things sharper.
I bought a new 60mm CB lens, I believe this was a less costly alternative to the CFi lenses, but when I bought it, it was the only 60mm in the lineup. This was mounted on a 553 right on the pole holding the basket up. I was always disappointed with this lens. Just wasn't as sharp as it should have been.
I also bought a 160mm CB lens but rarely used it and never found it all that great.
I sometimes borrowed an old silver 150mm but didn't like it, and it wasn't mine.
The final lens in the kit was the 120mm makro, which was the most outstanding lens I owned.
I never owned the 180mm but would buy one in a minute if I still shot with a blad. It's the perfect focal length and I've only heard great things about it.
My two cents worth.

Why were you shooting with a Hasselblad for sports cards? The image size is so small that 35mm would have worked fine.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Back when I was shooting Hasselblad, I had a 50mm CF Distagon that was the only bad hasselblad lens I ever used. It was sharp in the center and by the time you got halfway to the edges the image was soft with no fine detail resolution at all apertures. I sold it and got a 50mm CF-FLE (the floating lens element version) and it was tack sharp to the edges.

This must have been a bad copy or something might have happend to it.
My 'older' Distagon-C 50mmT* is one of the best I have, actually just like all the other CZ lenses:

Shot on Bergger 400 at 800ASA F8 or F11, t1/125 handheld and processed in Berspeed.

 

[Nokton48]

CFV16 ELM 80 T Star Pulso Beauty Light HoneyGrids 10 deg 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here I am playing around with my digital CFV16 Hasselblad Back on my motorized EL/M Body, with 80mm Planar at minimum focus distance. Got a Pulso Beauty Light with a HoneyGrids Ten Degree Grid Attachment straight down. A mirror just off camera left to add some kicker light. Love shooting digitally with the EL/M it's very fluid and user friendly in every way so far. Printed out the instruction book it covers a lot. Loving it works so well with my Big Broncolor Lights.

 

[Mr Negative]

I only have the 40mm distagon (massively heavy) and the 80mm CF. Both are outstanding lenses and I can’t find flaw with either (minus lugging the weight through the mountains)

 

[Lachlan Young]

Out of all those lenses, the 80 needs to be stopped down a bit more than others to get the corners super sharp when doing landscapes

I recall Zeiss (or someone with good sourcing at Zeiss) claiming something to the effect that the 80 was supposed to be better at closer ranges & that the 100 was what you were supposed to use for more optimal edge to edge sharpness at distance & wider apertures? Either way, likely field curvature (or something like that) that was the cause - hence the advent of floating elements & redesigns in the wider lenses. Not that field curvature bothers me - I like the 1st gen Pentax 6x7 55mm, which would probably set the field flatness obsessives' hair on fire - excessively deep focus (and the opposite) is overrated.

 

[Steven Lee]

Not that field curvature bothers me - I like the 1st gen Pentax 6x7 55mm, which would probably set the field flatness obsessives' hair on fire - excessively deep focus (and the opposite) is overrated.

Re: field curvature. I believe that at least some complaints of lens performance are linked to the practice of focusing and recomposing. Rangefinder patches, auto-focus points, or split/microprism focusing aids lead people to focus this way.

I found that composing-then-focusing technique works better, especially if your subject is off-center. For this reason I started to prefer the standard Hasselblad focusing screen with simple crosshairs and no aids.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Why were you shooting with a Hasselblad for sports cards? The image size is so small that 35mm would have worked fine.

That's a good question. Topps had a license to product NBA cards. Once they had made their selections all images went to NBA Photo where they were re-sold as needed to non-trading card companies. The NBA and TOPPS would split this money. (Not with the photograpehrs) The NBA required these images on 2 1/4, so we all shot, either Haselblad or Rollei 6008, but mostly Blad. Some of the guys shot with a blad in the lap, but I was never that good and needed AF for that work.

 

[Nokton48]

This must have been a bad copy or something might have happend to it.
My 'older' Distagon-C 50mmT* is one of the best I have, actually just like all the other CZ lenses:

View attachment 348035
View attachment 348036

Shot on Bergger 400 at 800ASA F8 or F11, t1/125 handheld and processed in Berspeed.

These are beautiful! I just pulled the trigger on a black Zeiss T* 50mm F4 seems to be in decent shape. I have a wide angle interest renewed, due to getting the CFV16 Hasselblad Digital Back. So now I will have the same vintage 30mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 100mm, and Bellows 135. So it makes sense to want the 50mm again.

 

[Sirius Glass]

These are beautiful! I just pulled the trigger on a black Zeiss T* 50mm F4 seems to be in decent shape. I have a wide angle interest renewed, due to getting the CFV16 Hasselblad Digital Back. So now I will have the same vintage 30mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 100mm, and Bellows 135. So it makes sense to want the 50mm again.

So now you need to get the 150mm, 180mm [heard that it is better than 150mm], the 250mm, 350mm and the 500mm. I could never find a 1760mm for sale and I gave up getting one years ago.