Early Hasselblad 60mm lenses

[Oldwino]

I have become an aficionado of older lenses on my Leica, and am wondering how the older Hasselblad 60mm lenses stack up. While I realize that they will be imperfect, sometimes those imperfections are exactly what are needed. These old "character" lenses can be special.
Regarding the 60/5.6, 60/4 and 60/3.5...Zeiss claims a "significant" improvement with the f3.5 lens over the f4, but how, exactly? Was the f5.6 just really poor? Was the f4 version any better? Is the f3.5 version just sharper further into the corners? What got improved along the way?
Anyone with experience with these older lenses?

I will say the f4 version seems to be pretty rare, judging by the prices on the auction site.

 

[bdial]

I have the 60/3.5, mine is a C model T*, it’s scary sharp, but i’ve never compared it to later versions.

 

[MarkS]

The f/5.6 version was replaced... because it was f/5.6, and faster = better. f/4 or f/3.5 would be easier to focus on the (dim) 500C screen, too.
I'd say just buy one and try it- and sell it if you don't like it.
The big difference/advantage of the later multi-coated lenses is their noticeably higher contrast compared to the older chrome lenses.
Never used a 60mm but I did mix'n'match 1960s and 1990s Hasselblad lenses on the job for many years.

 

[Arthurwg]

Not exactly what you are asking for, but my F3.5 60mm CB lens is superb. I believe the lens is optically identical to the CF version, but with simplified bells and whistles. I also think that all C lenses are risky because of their age and difficulty getting parts for repair.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not exactly what you are asking for, but my F3.5 60mm CB lens is superb. I believe the lens is optically identical to the CF version, but with simplified bells and whistles. I also think that all C lenses are risky because of their age and difficulty getting parts for repair.

In spite of my fears and advice about avoiding the C lenses because of a scarcity replacement springs, I have yet to have a problem with my two C lenses.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The 60mmF 3.5, even in the C version, is one of the best retrofocus wide-angles made for Hasselblad!

 

[warden]

I have become an aficionado of older lenses on my Leica, and am wondering how the older Hasselblad 60mm lenses stack up. While I realize that they will be imperfect, sometimes those imperfections are exactly what are needed. These old "character" lenses can be special.
Regarding the 60/5.6, 60/4 and 60/3.5...Zeiss claims a "significant" improvement with the f3.5 lens over the f4, but how, exactly? Was the f5.6 just really poor? Was the f4 version any better? Is the f3.5 version just sharper further into the corners? What got improved along the way?
Anyone with experience with these older lenses?

I will say the f4 version seems to be pretty rare, judging by the prices on the auction site.

I can't compare because I have only the 3.5, but damn that's a fine lens. I'd enjoy seeing the differences between the new and older ones too.

 

[etn]

I have the 60/3.5, mine is a C model T*, it’s scary sharp, but i’ve never compared it to later versions.

No need to. The C, CF, CFi and CB versions of this lens are identical.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I have the 60/3.5, mine is a C model T*, it’s scary sharp, but i’ve never compared it to later versions.

My 60 3.5 C T* is my favorite lens across all cameras. I have heard many reports of agreement on this, but for whatever reason, I have never met or heard from someone on a forum who has the 60mm 3.5 CF that loves it as much as people who have the C. I don't know if there was an unannounced change in glass that happened between versions (like the 38mm, when they could no longer get a certain arsenic containing glass), or a minor calculation error in the CF, but it is certainly odd.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Grim, I never liked the CF's exterior (operating-) design, some call it "the Japan look", that's perhaps the reason why?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Maybeee, but I certainly hear lots of raving about the 50mm CF FLE which has that design, and in my tests is only a tiny hair sharper than my 60mm. Both are noticeably sharper than the sample I had of the chrome 50.

 

[DonW]

I have used a chrome 50mm since the 70's and have never been wanting for more sharpness when photographing models, architecture, products and landscapes.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I was told (by a former Hasselblad Belgium technician) that the chrome lenses were mainly corrected (made) for B&W, not that much for colour film, which was not so common at the time these lenses where introduced.
And that correcting for colour was more difficult than for monochrome only, due to more complex and combined (chromatic) aberrations to be handled.
Introducing the T* coating was one of the ways to solve that, and the 'black' lenses are corrected for both B&W and colour.
But, I really don't know that for sure and I can't check that.
Perhaps that's why the 50mm CFi has two focussing rings, one for 'normal' and one for close?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I was told (by a former Hasselblad Belgium technician) that the chrome lenses were mainly corrected (made) for B&W, not that much for colour film, which was not so common at the time these lenses where introduced.
And that correcting for colour was more difficult than for monochrome only, due to more complex and combined (chromatic) aberrations to be handled.
Introducing the T* coating was one of the ways to solve that, and the 'black' lenses are corrected for both B&W and colour.
But, I really don't know that for sure and I can't check that.
Perhaps that's why the 50mm CFi has two focussing rings, one for 'normal' and one for close?

I think that technician may have been a little mixed up, because the world was in color before they invented color film, and therefore chromatic aberration (different wavelengths of light focusing on different plane) existed then too! I think it is more likely that the T* coating was just a little bit better at flare resistance than the previous coating.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was told (by a former Hasselblad Belgium technician) that the chrome lenses were mainly corrected (made) for B&W, not that much for colour film, which was not so common at the time these lenses where introduced.
And that correcting for colour was more difficult than for monochrome only, due to more complex and combined (chromatic) aberrations to be handled.
Introducing the T* coating was one of the ways to solve that, and the 'black' lenses are corrected for both B&W and colour.
But, I really don't know that for sure and I can't check that.
Perhaps that's why the 50mm CFi has two focussing rings, one for 'normal' and one for close?

The lens prescriptions have not changed. All the lenses work of black & whit and color, even Infrared, but not so well at HF, UHF and VHF.

 

[outwest]

I have a chrome 60mm f/4 and it is one of my favorite lenses. Actually, I prefer it and my 100 to my 50 and 80 as a short pair.

 

[Oldwino]

I have a chrome 60mm f/4 and it is one of my favorite lenses. Actually, I prefer it and my 100 to my 50 and 80 as a short pair.

I love my old chrome 100 C lens, so I think I will look for a 60 C lens to pair it with.