Bronica SQ (with a PS lens) vs Hasselblad C T* or CF

[rayonline_nz]

Just curious about this one. On one hand there is the Hasselblad 500 series camera with an affordable C T* or CF lens and on the other hand there is the latest PS lens to go with the Bronica SQ. Both sport 6x6. Anyone seen how these two lenses perform?


Cheers

 

[Chris Livsey]

Which two lenses, you don't state any focal length?

The consensus seems to be on the usual suspect lenses one may shade the other, and vice versa, based on different subjects and lighting, may be micro contrast and flare differences but they are really close.
On the other hand the Hasselblad/Zeiss 100mm Planar, the 180mm and the 40mm IF are not the usual suspects and are pretty special. There may be stars in the Bronica world I am not as familiar with.

I think the ergonomics of the two systems, and which you find most comfortable/inspiring/confident with, should be a larger factor than the lens differences. Should you wish to tread the di****l path, of doom, the Hasselblad is straightforward and the early backs are no longer silly money.

BTW on affordable glass I recently purchased a C 50mm Hasselblad lens and under benign conditions it is indistinguishable from my CF 50mm FLE, where is does fall, if it is a fall because that is why I bought it, is for flare being a non T* example it was £179 UK pounds, with a pro hood I suspect the difference would be taken out other than the close range correction of the FLE.

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

What do you want yourself? I'm very happy with by SQ-Ai system which I've paid pennies for compared to what a comparable Hasselblad system would have cost me. Also, a electronic controlled shutter rather than an old mechanical one.

If you want the Hasselblad and can live with the cost, just go for it. I highly doubt that anyone will even notice any difference in results even when enlarged big - for a truly sharp print you will use a tripod, medium aperture and cable release anyways...

 

[Colin Corneau]

What do you want yourself? I'm very happy with by SQ-Ai system which I've paid pennies for compared to what a comparable Hasselblad system would have cost me. Also, a electronic controlled shutter rather than an old mechanical one.

If you want the Hasselblad and can live with the cost, just go for it. I highly doubt that anyone will even notice any difference in results even when enlarged big - for a truly sharp print you will use a tripod, medium aperture and cable release anyways...

This is what I'd say. I've owned the SQ-Ai and now have a 501cm. Both are great systems but honestly, I couldn't tell the negs apart. Both lenses offer top quality and the differences are almost certainly on the micro level. The Bronica will offer the advantage of much lower cost - I only switched to my current system because I wanted a camera that didn't use batteries. And really, that's a very minor quibble.

 

[jspillane]

This MF lens resolution chart has been floating around for years:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

It doesn't do a 1-1 comparison of every lens, but it gives you a brief overview, and you can see that from a brute resolution perspective, the Hasselblad lenses come out on top. They also seem to be calibrated for extremely high levels of performance at a particular F stop, whereas the Bronica lenses stay fairly even throughout their range. Of course, you are unlikely to see any resolution advantage the Hasselblad might have unless you are locked down on a tripod.

Of course, there are a lot of other concerns other than resolution, including rendering, price, handling... I am a Hasselblad shooter and my most used lens it the 120 S-Planar (macro). I often am envious of the 1:1 macro that exists for the Bronica system. Also, I have a 4 lens kit of old C T* lenses... if I was a Bronica shooter I except I would own every lens for the system!

 

[TSSPro]

I've been more than happy with my Bronica SQ systems over the years. I cant tell the difference b/w the negative in the darkroom when shot under the same conditions. Perhaps I'm less discerning, but I had the fortune of working with Hassy systems professionally on both D*G*T*L and film platforms. They produced great images, but nothing so dramatic that it made me ditch my Bronicas. It wasn't worth the investment for the little gains I could perceive.

 

[norphot]

Even if money is no object, I would go for the Bronica and spend money on more lenses, workshops or travel, without worrying about sharpness. Remember, e.g. the 80mm PS originally was about 60% of the Zeiss C 80mm 2.8, and not a cheap lens by any means (about the same as Pentax and Mamiya lenses). Now it can be had for about 10% (or less?) of the Zeiss price! Of course the technical value did not decrease by the same amount, here is a overlaid graph from Pop. Photo comparing the older S (not PS!) 80mm (blue) and the Zeiss F 80mm (red).

 

[Chris Livsey]

I am not here to defend Hasselblad/Zeiss against all comers and I have never shot Bronica glass but the technical posts, which are appreciated, do test the Zeiss glass against charts at fairly close distance, in the case of hevanet stated to be 8 - 10 ft. Now I know testing is almost without exception at these distances but the Zeiss glass is optimised for infinity, other than the obvious exception of the Macro Planar, and the differences were clearly demonstrated when Hasselblad compared the Zeiss glass against the Japanese built HC lenses on their introduction. The difference being that the HC glass is optimised for near to mid focus anticipating the "studio" conditions they were expected to be used under.

I would therefore be very cautious drawing conclusions of a definitive nature from any of these tests, usually performed on a single sample which could well be an outlier for good or bad, and not looking at sample variation. As pointed out above unless you are going to be locking down and using very careful technique the differences are mute anyway.

The value in bang for buck must lie with the Bronica but other factors intervene such as a requirement for the lens shutter to sync flash at all speeds for some and more ephemerally the cachet or heritage of shooting Hasselblad.

I can only quote myself ( such bad form I know) I think the ergonomics of the two systems, and which you find most comfortable/inspiring/confident with, should be a larger factor than the lens differences.

 

[brofkand]

I'm sure the lenses for Bronica SQ system aren't as good as the Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad - but the Bronica lenses sure are nice in my view, and the whole system is so cheap nowadays and easily available. I love my Bronica SQ-A, great system in my opinion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use the Hasselblad and therefore some would say that I will always push them. Most important is which camera, Bronica or Hasselblad, are you more comfortable in your hands? Next is the question of cost. It is important to remember that with the exception of certain lenses the optics are comparable and that how the camera handles in YOUR HANDS is all that matters.

 

[mrosenlof]

I'm a Hasselblad user. Have never touched a Bronica. I would expect that you can get extremely nice photos out of the Bronica. Where you point the camera and when you push the button is more important.

 

[wiltw]

Attending a convention of the Wedding Photographers of America, and talking during lunch to a pro from FL, he said, "In FL a lot of us shoot with Bronica because we want to keep more of our money as Income, rather than as sunk cost in capitol equipment." Their clients did not go to a Hasselblad shooter simply because of brand name panache, and they could not see a difference in the quality of the photos.

 

[brofkand]

They could not see a difference in the quality of the photos.

I shot a test roll on my new Bronica SQ-A last night, Acros 100 with a Zenzanon-S 50 3.5, perfectly sharp and the AE Prism gave me great exposures. Frame spacing is impeccable, the camera handles well and is easy to use. What more could you want? The only thing I could want is 220 to come back...but since that won't happen, I'm happy as a clam.

 

[mweintraub]

I'm a Hasselblad user. Have never touched a Bronica. I would expect that you can get extremely nice photos out of the Bronica. Where you point the camera and when you push the button is more important.

OMG. The most sensible comment from a Hasselblad user. We must be friends STAT!

 

[ruilourosa]

i own 3 hasselblads and 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150 and 250 all CF and the 80mm is a cfe or cfi i can´t remember

i own 2 bronicas gs and 50, 65, 100, 110, 150 and 250


all good some better than others but all very good... i wonder why this resolution craze... it´s not a big deal... most are better than needed


use a tripod... it´s your best bet! and if you want crispness use slow film and develop in fx1, for color try velvia

there is one i like better: rolleiflex F 3,5 planar in terms of detail

 

[Sixbysixjan]

Recently returned to the Film medium & already heavily committed to the Bronica SQ & 645 systems... I work in Software Engineering and this analogy my not be apt (Engineering vs. Art) but you can hire a software programmer off the street, give him the best hardware your company can afford and unless you lucked out and the person turns out to be "a good choice", it won't make any difference to the end result. The equipment is no guarantee of success, else I'd be mortgaging the house to buy my way to excellence!

I find myself reading more and more material on Composition and I have an underlying fear that I'm more of a Technician than an Artist - that worries me way more than the resolution of a PS lens vs an equivalent Zeiss, as interesting as the comparison may be from a technical POV.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
I shoot Bronica, 6x6 & 6x7. I went that direction because of the cost. If your making a mural and sharpness is the most important aspect of your image, the Hasselblad optics are the best. In a well exposed, focused 16x20" print, using f5.6-f11 (the best for each lens) I doubt you'd see a difference. My 75mm f2.8 Nikkor HC is just as good as the Zeiss 80mm, but I think your comparing SQ series here.
ruilourosa hit the nail on the head. I agree with his comment about the Rollieflex F3.5 Planar, I'm sorry I sold mine.
You might find this interesting but I don't think his methods were perfect.
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

The best camera is the one you will use the most.
Rick