Hasselblad C T* vs CF or CFI

[eli griggs]

As far as filters buy step up/ step down threaded filter adapters to each Bay size and some bay adapters to bay filters, slowing you to use what you've got.

I have a C, in 150mm C t* in 150mm and, 50mm, CF, in 80mm and 150 mm, plus the 180 CFi and the 250 CFi and I love them all.

(The first two 150s were bought to have spare parts and practice lens CLA/Repairs), and I do make portraits.

I look at the 500 Series camera's AND lenses as being slow to operate, at least in the begining of the relationship, so you can adopt the modular box system into a modular approach to setting up and taking a quality image, with quality tools.

Just as you decide the lens, viewfinder, magazine and film, screen, tripod, monopod or none, and the lens hood, hard shell or pro-shade, you must also chose, filters, shutter release type, time and aperture, etc.

This deliberate way of working does no suffer, if done correctly, from the use of older lenses, that require separating speed and aperture rings and no every shot requires multi-coated lenses, and the change to later built lenses work just as well in the same bag, with the Elder Generations.

If you've good glass and shutter, changing to latter kit is no priority to worry about and, if you happen to have the newest and shiniest kit, you won't be slumming or letting the end down by trying the Elder lenses, say for example to see if the 60mm or 500mm are really tools you'll want and use, before dropping a large part of your camera budget on the newer stuff.

In the end, I don't believe I've ever heard a photographer complaining that because his/her Hasselblad wore the older version of a focal length, that they 'missed' the shot.

Think about it.

IMO.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi friends,

I have been shooting with old beaten up 50mm C T* and 150 mm C T* lenses with my Hasselblad 500 cm. Needless to say I simply enjoy the whole process of shooting medium format film and has opposed moving to digital ever since I held a Hasselblad in my hands.
However, am thinking of upgrading my lenses to Cf or CFI . Mainly looking at 50 mm CF , 120 mm CFI and 180 mm CF ..
However, before I take any decisions I wanted to know what you experienced Hasselblad shooters think about the advantage of CF or CFI over C T * lenses .. Is it worth the expense of 2k by selling the existing C T * lenses ?

can only speak to the 180mmCF; never seen a sharper Hassy lens.

 

[mpirie]

It'd be interesting to find out which hoods are being used?

Fixed or compendium?

Mike

 

[eli griggs]

Both.

I use both types with several types of filters, rounds in bay 60, or 100mm/4 inches with Kodak gels, in the bellows, if needed.

Currently, I have the 80mm plastic type, and the 250mm, IIRC, plastic, which I believe fits the 180mm as well.

I will likely get a metal, Heavystar for the 50mm and metal for the range of focal lengths you because never know when you'll want to go walkabout with a single lens/no bag kit.

I like the bellows just fine, having had one years ago with my first Hasselblad system.

As it reads, having both has advantages, but if you're stressed for budget, the bellows gives the best service and should be a first purchase.

If you do drop a camera, that bellows will take a lot of energy out of a lens first fall.

IMO.

 

[BrianShaw]

Fixed or compendium?

Fixed

 

[Sirius Glass]

You guys are missing out. All of these were taken on a modern Fuji X-glass without hoods and none of them is possible with Hasselblad-CF lenses I have. The light source is in the frame, with no loss of contrast whatsoever. If CFi/CFE lenses can do this, the upgrade will be worth it for me.

View attachment 263622 View attachment 263623 View attachment 263624 View attachment 263625 View attachment 263626 View attachment 263627

I would not have a problem using the CF lenses taking those photographs. In fact I have, but I refrain from aiming any lens directly at the midday sun.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It'd be interesting to find out which hoods are being used?

Fixed or compendium?

Mike

Fixed

 

[etn]

Figured I'll revive the old thread instead of creating a new one. I am a recent Hasselblad convert, shooting only CF lenses. As I am learning, they are significantly more prone to flare and contrast loss than my modern glass (contemporary lenses from Leica, Fuji, Canon and Voigtlander). Here's a typical example taken with 150mm CF f/4 with a lens hood on. This sun is not in the frame, and actually not that close, yet I couldn't get rid of that internal reflection. I like backlit subjects so I bump into this a lot.

I read somewhere that CFi/CFE lenses have improved internal anti-reflective coatings, but they are also significantly more expensive. Did anyone upgrade a CF lens to a CFI and how noticeable is the improvement?

This pcture is absolutely fantastic! Not sure what you don‘t like, the pentagon shapes? I think they add an artistic element to the picture (and a distinctive recognition element to Hassy connoisseurs) but I agree that it might not be to everyone’s taste,

CFi lenses have the same optical formula and coatings as CF lenses. „New anti reflective coatings“ are just on the sides, not in the optical elements themselves - and mainly marketing if you ask me. A CFi would not have prevented the reflection in the above mentioned picture.

Not saying that CFi are a total waste of money - they have a few improvements, mainly smoother helicoids and flash sockets (if you use that a lot) - but the sweet spot in terms on price/features lies in the CF series in my opinion.

In any case, Hassy lenses are „previous generation“ compared to modern digital lenses, which benefit from several decades of technological improvements. We cannot expect the same level of performance. But this is also what makes Hassy pictures so interesting and less „sterile“ than the technically perfect images we see today. Again, matter of personal taste...

 

[Richard Man]

Yes, the older Hassy lens are more prone to flare. Some people like flares, but most don't. YMMV

 

[Sirius Glass]

This pcture is absolutely fantastic! Not sure what you don‘t like, the pentagon shapes? I think they add an artistic element to the picture (and a distinctive recognition element to Hassy connoisseurs) but I agree that it might not be to everyone’s taste,

CFi lenses have the same optical formula and coatings as CF lenses. „New anti reflective coatings“ are just on the sides, not in the optical elements themselves - and mainly marketing if you ask me. A CFi would not have prevented the reflection in the above mentioned picture.

Not saying that CFi are a total waste of money - they have a few improvements, mainly smoother helicoids and flash sockets (if you use that a lot) - but the sweet spot in terms on price/features lies in the CF series in my opinion.

In any case, Hassy lenses are „previous generation“ compared to modern digital lenses, which benefit from several decades of technological improvements. We cannot expect the same level of performance. But this is also what makes Hassy pictures so interesting and less „sterile“ than the technically perfect images we see today. Again, matter of personal taste...

if you ask me ... so for the record I asked you.

 

[etn]

Yes, the older Hassy lens are more prone to flare. Some people like flares, but most don't. YMMV

In particular the C without T* coating, i.e. all the silver C lenses.

 

[etn]

@etn thank you, I like that photo too. It was a bit of symbolism as it was the last time I pressed the shutter button in 2020 (sunset of 12/31/2020, a few hours before new year's), but flare doesn't always look so nice TBH I prefer the look & feel of CF lenses as they seem to fit more organically to my 501 body. I feel the same about the older PME51 finder vs the newer PME45 which is more round.

@Richard Man thank you for confirming this.

Agree that CF lenses look much better than CFi. They are my favorites too.
I prefer the camera without prism and any prism will make it look fat and ugly - but so much more practical. Since entering the age of reading glasses I cannot use it wihout a prism anymore. I compared several at the local store and settled on the PME45, seemed like it had a lower weight, slightly higher magnification (don‘t nail me on that, it was several years ago) and a much better feature set, in particular spot metering. I hope it will last a long time, as its price was in a different league than the others!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agree that CF lenses look much better than CFi. They are my favorites too.
I prefer the camera without prism and any prism will make it look fat and ugly - but so much more practical. Since entering the age of reading glasses I cannot use it wihout a prism anymore. I compared several at the local store and settled on the PME45, seemed like it had a lower weight, slightly higher magnification (don‘t nail me on that, it was several years ago) and a much better feature set, in particular spot metering. I hope it will last a long time, as its price was in a different league than the others!

While it adds weight and you might think that it is ugly, I always use the 45° PME prism. My only problem with it is that it cannot be adjusted for the Accumat D screens and I have to set the light meter to half the ISO to read correctly. That was the best that Hasselblad New Jersey could do during recalibration. I talked to my Hasselblad repairman and the said the later metered prisms were so complicated that he has trouble using them and I should stick with the PME. That said, which I just did, the 45° PME gets rid of the left-right reversal, and is easy to use with eye glasses or contact lenses.

 

[eli griggs]

As my vision is getting worse and I continue to enjoy no-longer-manufactured equipment, I feel the need to develop a "viewfinder strategy". Currently the most eye-friendly solution I have is the waistlevel finder with a -2 diopter, simply because of superior magnification. The second best is the chimney. It features a generous +4/-4 diopter adjustment (so I have some room to "grow") but does not magnify the picture as much as the WLF. The worst one is the PME51, the older 45-degree finder type, but mine is optimized for Accumatte-D screens. This is probably what Sirius would have preferred. The magnification is rather paltry compared to two others, and I cannot find -2 diopter for it anywhere. So I am beginning to realize that bulk, weight and style are of lesser importance, I just want to be able to focus!

Right now I have Nuclear Cataracts, from my time on the Enewetok Atoll, and they have somewhat dimmed my low light vision, though I can still get around the house at night.

This has caused me trouble, as has Isolating from most of the Wuhan 19 Pandemic, which means sometimes weeks of indoors only, and that, in it's turn, makes my eyes weaker with no Distant Horizons to exercise my eyes, and that means trouble in the viewfinder when I do go on a drive to do some landscape shooting.

I have the old style WLF, and the magnifier is just barely able to help, with the WLF, but I recently started putting my eye so close to the WLF folding hood, that I'm actually, with no glasses, able to get a really good, clear look-see, without the pop-out lens, on whatever I'm looking at.

I also have a 90 and 45 degree finders, no meters, which is the way I like it, but I'm thinking of finding, with a bit of luck, a really good used loop and using the ground glass that my Flexbody wears when necessary.

I have to ask though, are there any members here that have had to try using hand held, magnifying looking glasses to see and focus their cameras?

How about lessening distance vision due to isolation due to the Pandemic?

Cheers

 

[etn]

While it adds weight and you might think that it is ugly, I always use the 45° PME prism. My only problem with it is that it cannot be adjusted for the Accumat D screens and I have to set the light meter to half the ISO to read correctly. That was the best that Hasselblad New Jersey could do during recalibration. I talked to my Hasselblad repairman and the said the later metered prisms were so complicated that he has trouble using them and I should stick with the PME. That said, which I just did, the 45° PME gets rid of the left-right reversal, and is easy to use with eye glasses or contact lenses.

Strange that you cannot get a precise exposure with the prism. Are we both talking about this one? Which focusing screen are you using?

I could not find a manual on internet, and (obviously) I could not find the paper copy I had... but the PME90 manual (available on HasselbladHistorical) should apply.
For the record, I used a 42215 screen and recently moved to the 3042264 (for the digital back) - both have micro-prism + split image.
I have always had precise exposures, using spot about 1/3rd of the time and integral meter 2/3rds of the time. (Incident meter is too cumbersome, when I need this I grab my handheld meter).

In my case the prism did not require any re-calibration. (The previous owner might have done it, I do not know.)
If it helps, you can also program a permanent exposure correction into the meter.

EDIT: I assume that the max aperture of your lens is set correctly?

Hope this helps

 

[etn]

I have to ask though, are there any members here that have had to try using hand held, magnifying looking glasses to see and focus their cameras?

How about lessening distance vision due to isolation due to the Pandemic?

Cheers

A hand held magnifying glass is too much hassle to me, I prefer a prism. I think large format photographers commonly use them, you might want to ask the question there.

About the 2nd question, do you mean the eyes not „focusing to infinity“ because of staying inside all the time? I remember a former colleague of mine, ex submariner, telling me that the most disturbing thing after two months underwater was to adapt to the higher light levels of daylight as well as watching in the distance. In the present pandemic case, I go out for fresh air (alone with my kid) for at least one hour daily and this takes care of the issue.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Strange that you cannot get a precise exposure with the prism. Are we both talking about this one? Which focusing screen are you using?

View attachment 264031

I could not find a manual on internet, and (obviously) I could not find the paper copy I had... but the PME90 manual (available on HasselbladHistorical) should apply.
For the record, I used a 42215 screen and recently moved to the 3042264 (for the digital back) - both have micro-prism + split image.
I have always had precise exposures, using spot about 1/3rd of the time and integral meter 2/3rds of the time. (Incident meter is too cumbersome, when I need this I grab my handheld meter).

View attachment 264032

In my case the prism did not require any re-calibration. (The previous owner might have done it, I do not know.)
If it helps, you can also program a permanent exposure correction into the meter.

EDIT: I assume that the max aperture of your lens is set correctly?

Hope this helps

I have this one

and it reads accurately. It does not replace the spot meter nor the incident meter when those are needed.

 

[eli griggs]

Cheers, for the Feedback.

All of it is good and interesting.

As to the Metered Prism, the two that I have, and use, do no have meters, and I generally use a Pentax V spotmeter or one of my other regulars, the Luna Pro F, or the Weston V, one British Built, the other New Jersey.

The Prisms work well, however, in general, I do prefer the more traditional TLR/Hasselblad hood viewing position and am simply curious as to other photographer's techniques and practices.

Yes, I should be going out more and I hope to be doing this as soon as my car is running, but for now, I really do no have a good, distant horizon to see from my house, so even outside, there is no enough 'room' to properly exercise my vision.

The Ground Glass Option, is OK, but again, I need to look for a good quality photographer's loop, that will deliver clean images, from under a darkcloth, (my view camera needs this too.) so I can eliminate the glare.

Be Well, Be Happy and Godspeed to you all.