Nothing in wanting to find out if others know of a scant, no well known possible feature is "stridently wanting that", just a bit of bristling that rather than a authoritative answer, the question elicits negitive reactions that the question is somehow no worth questioning.
I come to Photrio.com and other knowledgeable sites to learn new things and discover old ones as well.
Perhaps Zeiss is the right place to ask questions, but, if anyone else knows for certain, Photrio has members that should be able to share answers too the question, in question.
EV lock & C vs CF:
The CF lenses were an improvement on the C lenses, in that you could adjust the exposure, or change the shutter/F-stop combo with EV locked easily. The C lenses were just mildly fiddlier, but also worked well. I thought it was a better implementation than Rolleiflex. In the studio, you just learned to use the equipment and got on with it. The CF lenses were easier to service.
APO:
APO was short for apochromatic, which implies an optical correction where where 3 wavelengths focused on the same plane. Most lenses (ie: all those that were not labelled apochromat) are IR820 rolls, where 2 wavelengths focused on the same plane. It is an optical term with a very specific meaning. A well designed achromat can be sharper than a poorly designed apochromat. Most of the Zeiss lenses were achromats, unless specified in the name. It is questionable if the modern lenses with the APO label mare actually apochromats, but most optics firms are sticklers about using the correct definitions.
By most measures your Zeiss lenses are all apochromatic.√
I have never had a need for an APO and I am happy with my Zeiss non APO lenses.
By most measures your Zeiss lenses are all apochromatic.
This was the point I was trying to make about the use of "APO", by any measure, most of your Zeiss lenses are NOT apochromats.By most measures your Zeiss lenses are all apochromatic.
But we should get back on topic. A 500c is a worthy piece of equipment, but may need a service to work properly after all those years.
This was the point I was trying to make about the use of "APO", by any measure, most of your Zeiss lenses are NOT apochromats.
Zeiss is very specific,
They specify that this must be true for both Lateral and Longitudinal CA (ie: 3x TCA=0 and 3x LCA=0).
- Achromat: a lens which corrects light so that two colours lie in the image plane together (two LCA zeroes),
- Apochromat: a lens with correction such that three colours lie together in the image plane (three LCA zeroes)
In addition, the lens must perform well in photography before they will put the APO label on it - because meeting the above requirements (which is the definition of the apochromat) does not necessarily guarantee a good lens.
Zeiss only lists one lens for Hasselblad as APO (Tele-ApoTessar 8/500). Except for the 3 SuperAchromats (which have 4 colours on the same plane, but are corrected into the UV and IR), the rest are achromats.
Now Zeiss does say that all Batis lenses are all apochromats, and thus do not need to be labelled such.
But we should get back on topic. A 500c is a worthy piece of equipment, but may need a service to work properly after all those years.
I just bought a 500c body and A12 from 1963
Apparently it was recently serviced and works well. The seller accepts returns.
It's to use with a 80mm f2.8 CF I picked up locally a few weeks ago.
There are a few portraits I want to make on medium format and since I have a nice old Rolleiflex 2.8F for the last twenty or more years the Hasselblad system seems the logical step to take.
I will track down a 150mm Sonnar before the summer is over.
Hopefully I will get along with it....
Clive, I understand the words but not the idiom. That’s a good thing, I hope?
A Hasselblad is the Rolls Royce of cameras, which is also a systems camera. That means it gives you complete flexibility to switch film backs, lenses and viewfinders. Probably more of a studio camera, but it's Zeiss Planar lenses are the dogs bollocks.
This was the point I was trying to make about the use of "APO", by any measure, most of your Zeiss lenses are NOT apochromats.
Zeiss is very specific,
They specify that this must be true for both Lateral and Longitudinal CA (ie: 3x TCA=0 and 3x LCA=0).
- Achromat: a lens which corrects light so that two colours lie in the image plane together (two LCA zeroes),
- Apochromat: a lens with correction such that three colours lie together in the image plane (three LCA zeroes)
In addition, the lens must perform well in photography before they will put the APO label on it - because meeting the above requirements (which is the definition of the apochromat) does not necessarily guarantee a good lens.
Zeiss only lists one lens for Hasselblad as APO (Tele-ApoTessar 8/500). Except for the 3 SuperAchromats (which have 4 colours on the same plane, but are corrected into the UV and IR), the rest are achromats.
Now Zeiss does say that all Batis lenses are all apochromats, and thus do not need to be labelled such.
But we should get back on topic. A 500c is a worthy piece of equipment, but may need a service to work properly after all those years.
Yes, I've wanted one but have resisted. Great design concept but difficult to service or repair, not to mention rather expensive.
Did Hasselblad make a right-hand grip? I haven't seen one.
I just bought a 500c body and A12 from 1963
Apparently it was recently serviced and works well. The seller accepts returns.
It's to use with a 80mm f2.8 CF I picked up locally a few weeks ago.
There are a few portraits I want to make on medium format and since I have a nice old Rolleiflex 2.8F for the last twenty or more years the Hasselblad system seems the logical step to take.
I will track down a 150mm Sonnar before the summer is over.
Hopefully I will get along with it....
Sonnar 150 is a beatiful lens, pariculary suitable for portrait: not too sharp and a creamy bokeh. For head portraits I use it with a 8mm extension tube in order to reduce the minimum distance focus.
I have both CT* with Synchro Compur Shutter and CF version.
IMHO CT* version is the best value for money now; the focus ring is harder to turn compared to that of CF, but the CT* overall built quality and handling is better. Even one of the best repair technician confirms that from a mechanical point of view the CT* is better than CF (more plastic here). CT* are priced around 200 eur, very fair price for that glass
Hi Thomas, thanks for taking the time to share your advice. It will be a few more weeks before I start looking for a Sonnar 150. I didn't really plan to buy a Hasselblad until next year so my bank balance needs a little time to recover.
For now I'm enjoying the experience of using the camera with the 80mm lens and gathering a few of the little accessories like filter adapters, lens hoods, straps and a comfortable way to carry it.
Best wishes...
Sonnar 150 is a beatiful lens, pariculary suitable for portrait: not too sharp and a creamy bokeh. For head portraits I use it with a 8mm extension tube in order to reduce the minimum distance focus.
I have both CT* with Synchro Compur Shutter and CF version.
IMHO CT* version is the best value for money now; the focus ring is harder to turn compared to that of CF, but the CT* overall built quality and handling is better. Even one of the best repair technician confirms that from a mechanical point of view the CT* is better than CF (more plastic here). CT* are priced around 200 eur, very fair price for that glass
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?