Hasselblad 160mm f4.8 Tessar. Tell me about it!

[John Wiegerink]

Eventually I'm going to buy a 180mm f4 CF lens for my system. I was shopping on the big auction site and noticed more 160mm f4.8 CB Tessar lenses than I normally see there. You never hear very much about this lens and I was wondering why. It sure doesn't seem that popular on this site as I don't remember reading much about it here. How does it compare to the 150mm Sonnar that I really like. Why would Hasselblad have two lenses so close in focal length?

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm, not sure why you'd choose a Tessar over a Sonnar. What am I missing?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do a sanity test by checking the price at KEH.com.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

There's a good selection of both lenses on "the auction site". Priced decently, too. If I owned a Hasselblad.... I would probably go with the 180. From what I could gather, it's sharper, corner to corner.

 

[Alex Varas]

I have that Tessar 160, I like it a lot but I haven’t tried the Sonnar 180 so I can’t say.
The 160 is light and I have used it for portraits and landscape, good results.

 

[Oldwino]

I think the point of the CB lenses was to have a line that was less costly to build, and in many cases lighter in weight.
I've not shot with the CB 160, but the sample pictures I've seen are excellent. The 180 is almost 350g heavier than the 160.

 

[etn]

I have both the 160 and the 180. I cannot say bad things about the 160. Pics are as good as any other Hassy lens.

It is smaller and lighter than the 180, as you can see on the picture below.

I think the main reasons for buying one would be,
1) you like the field of view better than the 180mm (although the difference is minimal),
2) you find one at a price which is too good to pass (which is the reason I bought mine, and therefore I use it from time to time.)
3) you want something smaller/lighter than the 180 (but then, look more toward a Tele-Rollei or small format?)

To comment on your point "we don't hear much about this lens": true, its production was much shorter than the other two. The 150 was introduced at the beginning of the system (late 50's) in C version, the 180 sometimes in the 1980's during the "CF era", and the 160 much later (2000's maybe?).

If you already have a 150, you're probably not gaining much from the 160 - except for reason #2 above
The 180 is much more different than the 150, if you don't have infinite funds I suggest saving the money toward a 180 instead. You'll open more possibilities.
(But on a side note, if you look at my previous posts, there's one recurring line of mine: you'll end up having all Hassy lenses eventually anyway )

Hope this helps!

 

[Arthurwg]

I found the 180 too (front) heavy and awkward to use, so I sold it.

 

[Paul Howell]

As a long time Kowa 66 and super user, I find it amazing the variety of lens that were made for the Hasselbald. A 120, 150, 160 and 180, with a price range. For anyone thinking about MF SLR this is a good argument for a Hassy.

 

[David R Williams]

I found the 180 too (front) heavy and awkward to use, so I sold it.

Agreed - it's certainly quite front-heavy and it's weight and balance doesn't make for a particularly pleasant hand-held optic, but when mounted on a tripod (as it should be for optimal performance) it's pretty darn amazing.

...whereas the 160CB was designed as a lighter lens for handheld use. It may not have the optical performance of the 180, but I'd sure prefer carrying the 160 around as a casual walkabout lens than a 180!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm, not sure why you'd choose a Tessar over a Sonnar. What am I missing?

good question;in the med to long focal length territory Sonnars are known to shine. The 180mm is a gem.

 

[retina_restoration]

good question;in the med to long focal length territory Sonnars are known to shine. The 180mm is a gem.

I have the 150mm Sonnar and it's fantastic.

 

[etn]

I have the 150mm Sonnar and it's fantastic.

Certainly a good lens (they all are.) In practical use, I didn't feel too comfortable with the field of view for some reason, and much preferred the 180 (and 120). This is entirely personal of course.
As a matter of fact, the 100mm is also one of these Hassy lenses which don't "sit well" with me. I cannot really explain it in another way than, some "feel natural" to me and some don't. Maybe I am just overthinking it.

 

[rulnacco]

I have both the 150mm Sonnar and the 180mm Sonnar. The 180 has to be one of the best Hasselblad lenses ever made, it really is something special optically. However, as others have mentioned, it is front heavy and awkward for hand-held use, if that's what you're looking to do with your gear.

If you already have the 150, I'm not sure what the 160 would gain you. You lose a half stop of maximum aperture, you lose the Sonnar look, and you only gain a truly insignificant 10mm. If you don't have either yet, I can see why you're debating it; although I haven't compared prices, I can't imagine the 160 being significantly cheaper than the 150, which is one of Hasselblad's least expensive lenses, if not generally the cheapest. And it's a damn good lens.

It is nice that the 160 comes in the CFi configuration--my 120 Makro-Planar and my 180 Sonnar are both CFi lenses, and I do like that better than the CF and far better than the C versions, for ergonomics. (The 150 CF has a particular problem in that the plastic trim ring behind the focusing grip breaks frequently, which is a real pain--the rubber focus grip slides backwards in use when that happens. I got my 150 CF with the broken trim ring so it was quite cheap indeed, and was able to get a 3D-printed replacement made that has served me well for over a decade.)

If it were me, and I had neither lens yet, I'd probably go with the 150 because it's faster, optically it's probably at least a bit better than the Tessar, and there's a bigger gap between it and a 180mm lens in the event you do indeed decide to get one of them as well one day--having both a 150 and a 180 seems to make a bit more sense than having a 160 and a 180, and I find I do have different use cases for my 150 and 180. If I already had the 150, I really don't think I could make the case to justify the extra expense of the 160--which it sounds like you're not really wanting anyway and you have your eyes on the 180--and I'd just save my money to put toward the 180, which is indeed a truly outstanding lens.

 

[BrianShaw]

“Why would Hasselblad have two lenses so close in focal length?”

The CB line was a short-lived lower-cost line of lenses. Affordability seems the primary answer to the existence of those products.

 

[John Wiegerink]

“Why would Hasselblad have two lenses so close in focal length?”

The CB line was a short-lived lower-cost line of lenses. Affordability seems the primary answer to the existence of those products.

That's the only answer I can think of that makes any sense at all. I just never paid much attention to CB lenses in the first place I guess. I have had the 150mm for many years and I never had a complaint about using it or the image quality. As for my next purchase............it will be the 180mm and not the 160mm. I never really had any Idea of buying the 160mm over the 180mm, but was just curious as to why there was even a 160mm Hasselblad lens to begin with.

 

[BrianShaw]

A reasonable conclusion; The one that I would make also. The 150 Sonnar is my most frequently used lens. If money weren't an object, however, I wonder what nice imagery would result from that Tessar option. In LF, my favorite lenses tend to be Tessars.

 

[John Wiegerink]

A reasonable conclusion; The one that I would make also. The 150 Sonnar is my most frequently used lens. If money weren't an object, however, I wonder what nice imagery would result from that Tessar option. In LF, my favorite lenses tend to be Tessars.

In medium format it's hard to beat a Tessar stopped down to f8-11. They have excellent contrast and no problems in the sharpness department either. I'm talking about good copies here and I know not all Tessar lenses are created equal.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Certainly a good lens (they all are.) In practical use, I didn't feel too comfortable with the field of view for some reason, and much preferred the 180 (and 120). This is entirely personal of course.
As a matter of fact, the 100mm is also one of these Hassy lenses which don't "sit well" with me. I cannot really explain it in another way than, some "feel natural" to me and some don't. Maybe I am just overthinking it.

the 180 gets you closer while still giving the model a more comfortable distance to the photographer.

 

[blee1996]

the 180 gets you closer while still giving the model a more comfortable distance to the photographer.

That's a good point. While doing portraits, sometimes I wish the 150 can just focus a tad closer. Using extension tube or Proxar slows down the process, since I need to move closer and farther all the time.

Now I'm a bit tempted by the 180, and it won't be that front heavy with the 553ELX.

 

[etn]

the 180 gets you closer while still giving the model a more comfortable distance to the photographer.

Very true.

The 150mm also does not focus too close and often requires an extension ring for close-up portraits. The 120 and 180 allow you to go "closer" without an extension ring.

 

[John Wiegerink]

the 180 gets you closer while still giving the model a more comfortable distance to the photographer.

That's exactly why I want the 180mm.

 

[Slixtiesix]

The 160 Tessar was part of Hasselblad's "economy" line, called CB-lenses. These lenses had simpler optical formulations (apart from the 60mm) and lacked some features compared to CFi and CFE lenses.
The Tessar may need to be stopped down around two stops to reach its best sharpness and resolution. However, fewer optical elements and very good internal stray light suppression can give benefits when shooting backlit, compared to the more expensive Sonnar lenses.
This and the light weight still make for a certain fanbase of this lens.