Did Ctein really say Bronica lenses are superior to Hasselblad's?

[Certain Exposures]

I've read a few comments online that Ctein did a test comparing Hasselblad V lenses to Bronica PS lenses (for the SQ). The (alleged) result was that Bronica lenses are sharper wide open. Where can I read about that test and see image examples? I didn't see an obvious article link on his site. Is the 40mm PS lens for the SQ system "better" than the Hasselblad 40mm CFE, for example?

 

[GregY]

Does sharper really mean "superior"?.... & how often is shooting wide open a limiting factor?

 

[mshchem]

Both companies lenses are amazing. I have used both and have never had a bad lens.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Sorry I can't comment on the Bronica lenses, but the more I use my Hasselblad 40mm CF FLE lens, the more I appreciate it:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2024/07/danger-gas-and-review-of-zeiss-40mm-4.html

 

[DREW WILEY]

Very few lenses are optimized wide open anyway; so blanket comparisons are potentially misleading. Often, just by limiting the largest f-stop available on a lens to something smaller improves its wide-open performance. So this all depends on how you choose to define the working parameters.

 

[mshchem]

Sorry I can't comment on the Bronica lenses, but the more I use my Hasselblad 40mm CF FLE lens, the more I appreciate it:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2024/07/danger-gas-and-review-of-zeiss-40mm-4.html

Beautiful lens. These suckers are heavy. I sold mine, just too heavy. Zeiss lenses are pretty hard to beat. I have the 50mm FLE, it's simply wonderful!!!

 

[koraks]

IDK if he did and if he did, I don't see why any particular attention should be given to such a claim. Its practical relevance is limited. Out in the field, the real limitations to image quality are usually a few orders of magnitude bigger than the minute differences in objective optical quality between reputable, well-manufactured lenses.

 

[MattKing]

In particular, you want to avoid a term as subjective as "sharper".
Sharpness being a highly subjective observation, rather than an objective measurement.
If you want something with more clarity, you could compare different resolution measurements.
You could also compare different contrast measurements.
And of course you could compare different MTF measurements - which do attempt to combine contrast ad resolution, while incorporating other factors.
Then you could compare different observations about out of focus area rendering, handling, ergonomics and other observations particular to the observer.
By the way, this is Ctein, courtesy of the Online Photographer:

 

[Certain Exposures]

Both companies lenses are amazing. I have used both and have never had a bad lens.

Good to know. I've read a few comments that it's hard to tell the difference between large prints. I was surprised.

Sorry I can't comment on the Bronica lenses, but the more I use my Hasselblad 40mm CF FLE lens, the more I appreciate it:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2024/07/danger-gas-and-review-of-zeiss-40mm-4.html

I'll check out your post

Very few lenses are optimized wide open anyway; so blanket comparisons are potentially misleading. Often, just by limiting the largest f-stop available on a lens to something smaller improves its wide-open performance. So this all depends on how you choose to define the working parameters.

Yes, I'd like to read how he tested them. I am reading his book on printing right now.

Beautiful lens. These suckers are heavy. I sold mine, just too heavy. Zeiss lenses are pretty hard to beat. I have the 50mm FLE, it's simply wonderful!!!

I bought a RB67 instead because it was lighter on my wallet. Talk about heavy!

In particular, you want to avoid a term as subjective as "sharper".
Sharpness being a highly subjective observation, rather than an objective measurement.
If you want something with more clarity, you could compare different resolution measurements.
You could also compare different contrast measurements.
And of course you could compare different MTF measurements - which do attempt to combine contrast ad resolution, while incorporating other factors.
Then you could compare different observations about out of focus area rendering, handling, ergonomics and other observations particular to the observer.
By the way, this is Ctein, courtesy of the Online Photographer:
View attachment 388290

That's a great photo! Yes, I think my provocative title could earn me a shallow grave if I'm not careful. I read a few comments with strong claims so I'd love to read his original article.

@GregY and @koraks I'll comment after I find his original report.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I can't say how he tested them. I haven't visited him for a number of years, and what I do know is based on face to face conversations. I do get his monthly letters. But if his methodology with enlarging lenses is analogous, a certain amount of extrapolation of results of just certain representative samples would have been involved, along with a fair amount of subjective opinion.

I've been accompanied by people using very expensive Zeiss wide-angle lenses for their 6x6 systems, and am quite familiar with the results in print fashion, which were pretty remarkable for such a small format. But frankly, they weren't visually any better on that scale of enlargement than what I routinely get from my own Pentax 6x7 lenses, which in certain cases, have the advantage of larger working apertures.

Therefore, unless someone is talking about older pre-70's lenses, or even earlier, this whole topic can get unrealistically nitpicky. I'd be more concerned out handling economics, realistic performance relative to budget, equipment reliability, preferred specific format, overall lens selection, etc. My brother had two superb 6X6 Rollei SLR kits, but simply preferred the handling and ease of viewing of my P67 instead, and kept borrowing it. Other people might think the P76 a bit big and clunky. I especially like its telephoto options. To each his own. Most of these pro MF SLR systems offered excellent lenses in general.

 

[Certain Exposures]

I can't say how he tested them. I haven't visited him for a number of years, and what I do know is based on face to face conversations. I do get his monthly letters. But if his methodology with enlarging lenses is analogous, a certain amount of extrapolation of results of just certain representative samples would have been involved, along with a fair amount of subjective opinion.

I've been accompanied by people using very expensive Zeiss wide-angle lenses for their 6x6 systems, and am quite familiar with the results in print fashion, which were pretty remarkable for such a small format. But frankly, they weren't visually any better on that scale of enlargement than what I routinely get from my own Pentax 6x7 lenses, which in certain cases, have the advantage of larger working apertures.

Therefore, unless someone is talking about older pre-70's lenses, or even earlier, this whole topic can get unrealistically nitpicky. I'd be more concerned out handling economics, realistic performance relative to budget, equipment reliability, preferred specific format, overall lens selection, etc. My brother had two superb 6X6 Rollei SLR kits, but simply preferred the handling and ease of viewing of my P67 instead, and kept borrowing it. Other people might think the P76 a bit big and clunky. I especially like its telephoto options. To each his own. Most of these pro MF SLR systems offered excellent lenses in general.

Thanks, Drew.

I've never use a Pentax 6x7. I have held one though. I can see the appeal because eye level makes things simple(r).

My affordable TLR just happens to win on my favorite metric...price!

 

[RJ-]

I've read a few comments online that Ctein did a test comparing Hasselblad V lenses to Bronica PS lenses (for the SQ). The (alleged) result was that Bronica lenses are sharper wide open. Where can I read about that test and see image examples? I didn't see an obvious article link on his site. Is the 40mm PS lens for the SQ system "better" than the Hasselblad 40mm CFE, for example?

That's lovely to hear in many respects

I use both the Hasseblad Zeiss and the Bronica Zenzanon PS lenses. It was certainly a thing in college where we would all debate which was better (somethings don't change). It's funny though working on the field with a Bronica SQ- many a photographer comes up and asks is that a Hasselblad and it's here we go (again)...

The 40mm f4 Zeiss Distagon CFE vs the 40mm f4 Zenzanon PS:

the Hasselblad Distagon has superior T* multicoating which shows up the difference. The Bronica Zenzanon PS coatings are no slouch however flare (not particularly elegantly, more easily too than the Distagon).

The Distagon is better corrected for rectilinear distortion compared to the Zenzanon. Edge fall off in resolution is apparent. The colours of both are incredibly pleasing as modern lenses. Most of the work I undertook to handprinting to 20x20inch with ISO 50 Velvia, Provia, Fortia or Agfa APX25. The number of viewers at exhibitions noticing the difference between the two lenses is no more than zero.

Where differences do show up fractionally in favour of the Distagon pertains to the floating element of the Hasselblad's Distagon (when used correctly).

In contrast - comparing their wide-angle Distagon 30mm f3.5 from Hasselblad's stable with the Bronica SQ 35mm f3.5 -

the Zeiss is rectilinear - and far wider. Zeiss optical technology here really is outstanding. The T* coating is magnificent for such an ultra wide angle lens taking in a 180 degree diagonal. This T* multicoating gives the appearance of a 'sharper' image due to the higher micro-contrast. This is the grail lens for the photographer who loves ultra wideangles and dislikes fisheye appearances.

The Bronica 35mm f3.5 is not rectilinear: it shows the traits of what we call a semi-fisheye or curvature of the field. What is astonishing about this, is that the edge definition appears (to me) to be higher resolving, crisper than the Zeiss Distagon. The images are less contrasty than the Zeiss Distagon (and contrast being a determinant of the perception of 'sharpness').

Both lenses are trailblazers leaving the likes of the Arsat 30mm f3.5 semi-fisheye in the dust. The Distagon 30mm f3.5 might be more suitable for medium format architectural work (with the lack of movements on the 500 series bodies) and the Zenzanon 30mm f3.5 more astonishing for its sharpness due to Bronica Zenzanon's optical engineers purposefully choosing not to go for rectilinear correction of the barrel distortion enabling higher resolving power in the peripheral field.

The Zenzanon PS 30mm f3.5 is the lens for wide-angle photographers who love the expressivity of the quirky semi-fisheye look and the high edge definition of the lens.


As for other stand out lenses in the Zeiss stable: the 100mm f3.5 CFi and th 120 f4 Makro Planar. Bronica Zenzanon never developed lenses of this calibre (the closest was the late 105mm f4.5 macro SQ lens although I'm happy enough with Ctein's take home message: Zenzanon lenses are just as optically wonderful as Zeiss.

 

[itsdoable]

That's lovely to hear in many respects

<snip>

In contrast - comparing their wide-angle Distagon 30mm f3.5 from Hasselblad's stable with the Bronica SQ 35mm f3.5 -

the Zeiss is rectilinear - and far wider. Zeiss optical technology here really is outstanding. The T* coating is magnificent for such an ultra wide angle lens taking in a 180 degree diagonal.

<snip>

Perhaps you are thinking about the 38mm Biogon? The 3.5/30 Distagon for Hasselblad V is a fisheye lens. A 180 degree field of view cannot technically be a rectilinear projection.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I remain happy with negatives I took with my 80mm Zenzanon PS a decade ago. I never did an A/B comparison with a Planar, but wish I had, especially since before last fall the only one I had was the earliest 6 element version. I really have nothing to complain about.

I also had the 50 and 150 for my SQ-a. Looking at shots with those, I find that they don’t seem to hold up as well as my Distagon and Sonnar. Mine were the S versions, but my Zeiss lenses in those FLs are not T*. The 150mm Sonnar is magical, though.

I never expanded my SQ system beyond the basic 50/80/150 set, while my initial Hasselblad kit had those lenses and a 250mm Sonnar. I’ve since added a 40, 120, and 350, all in CT*. I’ve also duplicated the 80, 150, and 250 all through kit purchases. None have let me down.

If I had to start all over again, I still would love any sleep over replacing it all with Zenzanons. I would miss the 150 Sonnar, as mentioned there’s no Bronica direct equivalent to the 120 Planar-s/makro and the 40mm Distagon is excellent. My next Hasselblad addition, not a high priority, is likely to be the 100mm Planar mostly to satisfy my curiosity.

I will say that it was nice to just not have to worry about the Seiko electronic shutters in the Zenzanons…

 

[RJ-]

Perhaps you are thinking about the 38mm Biogon? The 3.5/30 Distagon for Hasselblad V is a fisheye lens. A 180 degree field of view cannot technically be a rectilinear projection.

Not the 38mm Biogon ~ I don't use the peculiar dedicated body for it ~ only the 500C/W series bodies.

You've misread ~ its180degrees of diagonal

(https://lens-db.com/carl-zeiss-f-distagon-t-30mm-f35-cfi-1998/)

 

[halfaman]

I bought a Bronica SQ-Ai with PS 40, 80 and 180 mm lenses years ago because I coudn't afford a Hasselblad and I never looked back. Even it is not as refined as the swedish, I got much more than what I need. The 40 mm is specially good, probably one of the stars of the system.

 

[koraks]

I use both the Hasseblad Zeiss and the Bronica Zenzanon PS lenses.

And the differences you mention, i.e. flare and distortion, are far more relevant in a practical context than the 'sharpness' construct!

 

[Klaus_H]

Just my 2 cent ..

Post #62 in lets-be honest

 

[250swb]

Having used both Hasselblad and Bronica I see the difference as similar to the Leica M and Contax G lens debate. In both cases there is a different design philosophy without one being intrinsically better than the other, so it's down to matters of taste. Contax G lenses have more micro contrast than Leica M as a general rule, and this makes the images look sharper at a glance, but on close inspection the less contrasty Leica lenses are actually the sharper ones. Similar in my opinion to the Hasselblad/Bronica, and I think the Bronica lenses can look sharper because of the contrast but the Hasselblad are sharper. Of course you can always adjust contrast in a negative or the print but you can't add sharpness but it's so fine a line that deciding which outfit to keep I kept the Bronica.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Having used both Hasselblad and Bronica I see the difference as similar to the Leica M and Contax G lens debate. In both cases there is a different design philosophy without one being intrinsically better than the other, so it's down to matters of taste. Contax G lenses have more micro contrast than Leica M as a general rule, and this makes the images look sharper at a glance, but on close inspection the less contrasty Leica lenses are actually the sharper ones. Similar in my opinion to the Hasselblad/Bronica, and I think the Bronica lenses can look sharper because of the contrast but the Hasselblad are sharper. Of course you can always adjust contrast in a negative or the print but you can't add sharpness but it's so fine a line that deciding which outfit to keep I kept the Bronica.

There are other differences too, but the pertain more to color rendering than sharpness or contrast. When it comes to the way they render color I prefer the Contax G lenses by far over the Leitz lenses. But that's just me of course. Oh, and I can't complain about sharpness issues with the G lenses either. As far as Hasselblad vs Bronica? Great photos can be had with either one. My Bronica GS-1 lenses are every bit as good as my Hasselblad lenses are. I, for one, am not going to lose any sleep over which one might be better than the other.

 

[Certain Exposures]

That's lovely to hear in many respects

I use both the Hasseblad Zeiss and the Bronica Zenzanon PS lenses. [...] I'm happy enough with Ctein's take home message: Zenzanon lenses are just as optically wonderful as Zeiss.

Thanks for your reply! Would you say that both cameras are equally comfortable to use handheld?

By the way, your link in reply to @itsdoable classifies the 30mm as a fisheye lens. I looked up image samples and they're all fisheye. It could help if clarify things if you share one of your images with that lens.

I remain happy with negatives I took with my 80mm Zenzanon PS a decade ago. [....]

I will say that it was nice to just not have to worry about the Seiko electronic shutters in the Zenzanons…

Yes, everyone I've asked has said that the batteries aren't problem. However, I like the convenience (if you can call it that) of a fully mechanical camera.

My Yashica's shutter has seized up in cold weather a few times. It has always outlasted my electronic devices, though.

I bought a Bronica SQ-Ai with PS 40, 80 and 180 mm lenses years ago because I coudn't afford a Hasselblad and I never looked back. Even it is not as refined as the swedish, I got much more than what I need. The 40 mm is specially good, probably one of the stars of the system.

Thank you - how do you feel about using the camera handheld? Is it comfortable?

And the differences you mention, i.e. flare and distortion, are far more relevant in a practical context than the 'sharpness' construct!

I still haven't found his article. I'd love to read the whole thing because he probably discusses those too.

Just my 2 cent ..

Post #62 in lets-be honest

Thanks, I'll hop over.

I think the Bronica lenses can look sharper because of the contrast but the Hasselblad are sharper. Of course you can always adjust contrast in a negative or the print but you can't add sharpness but it's so fine a line that deciding which outfit to keep I kept the Bronica.

Thank you, I can understand that decision.

My Bronica GS-1 lenses are every bit as good as my Hasselblad lenses are.

Just curious - why do you keep both? Is it because you often prefer to print without cropping (6x7)? Do you still use the Hasselblad often?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think it's worth noting that the medium format cameras and lenses that Ctein seems to have actually owned circa the mid-90s was a Pentax 6x7 with the 105 and 300 (the old model), and a Fuji GS645. That's it. It can be found in the Wayback Machine (with a fair bit of digging) in one of the magazines he was heavily involved with at the time. All the other medium format lenses he might have written about were probably either review copies (with all that entails/ implies) - or rental. The list of enlarger lenses he actually owned (as opposed to the table that everyone seems to obsess over pointlessly) is equally enlightening.

With that said and done, we need to consider that at a micro level, the S/ PS Bronica lenses should be competitive with the classic Zeiss Planar 80 - they were, after all, 20 years newer in design - the Planar is fundamentally a late 50's design (albeit with some much later modifications for a couple of variants), the S is late 70's, and the PS was the end of the 80's.

The Zeiss lenses tended to aim for high MTF in lower frequencies - which often translates to more apparent 'sharpness' in viewing the image as a whole at a normal distance - but by the 1990s this had become much more standard practice across the industry (albeit with aims for more uniform performance in general) - so, while a PS might be 'sharper' in some ways, the Zeiss might have a stronger personality where it matters - and from across the room, might seem to have an edge. At least those are my feelings having worked with negs off both - you can tell them apart, but one isn't better than the other.

I'd still rather have a Rolleiflex if 6x6 & an 80 is what's needed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As a teenager I wanted a Bronica S in the worst way. As an adult I settled for Hassleblads, That said I would always choose a rectilinear lens over a non rectilinear lens. Thus in my case the Hasselblad 903 SWC 38mm lens. That alone would have driven me to Hasselblads, but it was not that that was the driver. I wants lenses, parts and service readily available.

 

[RJ-]

Thanks for your reply! Would you say that both cameras are equally comfortable to use handheld?

By the way, your link in reply to @itsdoable classifies the 30mm as a fisheye lens. I looked up image samples and they're all fisheye. It could help if clarify things if you share one of your images with that lens. ..

Thank you - how do you feel about using the camera handheld? Is it comfortable?

Here you go ~ Bronica SqAi 30mm f3.5 Fuji Acros developed in Perceptol 1:3 and printed straight under Cold Cathode.

I've used both cameras - the SqAi and 503C/W longer than I've been on APUG (sorry ~ can't stop thinking of this forum as APUG). The difference between the two: I'm on my fourth SqAi body and still on the first 503C/W body. The SqAis just rattled apart from long haul and decades of travel; battery compartment failures (inexplicably temperamental).

I think your post asked about usage of these Zeiss & Zenzanon lenses wide open. The replies have drifted - but the Zenzanons still remain at the top of the pecking order. The lesser found or known Zenzanons - like the 30mm f3.5; the 65mm f4, the 135mm f4 and the 180mm f4.5 make the Hasseblad Zeiss outlay cost look shamefully expensive for at best on par optical delivery.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks for your reply! Would you say that both cameras are equally comfortable to use handheld?

By the way, your link in reply to @itsdoable classifies the 30mm as a fisheye lens. I looked up image samples and they're all fisheye. It could help if clarify things if you share one of your images with that lens.


Yes, everyone I've asked has said that the batteries aren't problem. However, I like the convenience (if you can call it that) of a fully mechanical camera.

My Yashica's shutter has seized up in cold weather a few times. It has always outlasted my electronic devices, though.

Thank you - how do you feel about using the camera handheld? Is it comfortable?



I still haven't found his article. I'd love to read the whole thing because he probably discusses those too.



Thanks, I'll hop over.



Thank you, I can understand that decision.


Just curious - why do you keep both? Is it because you often prefer to print without cropping (6x7)? Do you still use the Hasselblad often?

Actually I bought the Bronica GS-1about a year ago and have owned the Hasselblad(s) since the late 70's or early 80's. The reason for buying the Bronica GS-1 is to find out whether I liked it better than my Pentax 6X7 camera(s). Now, to why I have two formats? I was a wedding shooter so the Hasselblads were a must for me. I tried other medium format cameras, but for weddings I never really found anything better than the Hasselblad system. And yes, I also have a SWC. But for my personal travel and horse around camera I preferred the Pentax and the 6X7 advantage, for me at least. I still shoot all my cameras from time to time and enjoy that. Also, the price of a complete camera system now is what I would have paid for just the body when these cameras first came out. If you have the money and enjoy cameras as much as I do, then why not. I don't smoke, drink, drive a luxury car or chase expensive women so a man's got to have at least one foolish habit. Besides, I can always sell them off when they aren't fun to fondle anymore.