Hasselblad CFE 250mm F/5.6 SuperAchromat Vs 250mm cfi T

[Scotthenrylabonte]

Is there significant difference in quality between the two to just justify the 4,000 dollar difference ?

 

[mrosenlof]

"justify" is in the eye of the cash holder.

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

"justify" is in the eye of the cash holder.

Rather is there a substantial difference between the two

 

[mrosenlof]

You can go to http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx and take a look at the MTF charts for both.

In my experience, the regular 250 is an awfully good lens. I'm not at all tempted by the fancy one.

 

[mrosenlof]

You'll need a decent tripod to have any hope of reaching the potential of the SuperAchro.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You can go to http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx and take a look at the MTF charts for both.

In my experience, the regular 250 is an awfully good lens. I'm not at all tempted by the fancy one.

I agree. That is my experience. I never felt the need to get anything better.

 

[Edgy01]

I’m more of guy who would rather save up and go with the best so of course have the CF SA 250. I believe there is a difference as you get into the longer focal lengths. Resolution of focus onto a precise point is best with the superachromatic lenses, particularly with minimal DOF. Part of the reason for shallow DOF is to achieve the isolation that such a bokeh gives you—and is lost on inferior glass. But you need to judge for yourself. A CF 250 in the SA version is about $2000 today. If you go for the CFE version then you are talking real money—$4500.

dan

 

[Slixtiesix]

The resolution of the 250 SA is way superior to the normal 250 Sonnar. I have seen a comparison of these two and the difference in fine detail was striking. However, you need to enlarge to very high scales or view your scans at full resolution to see that. Also, very fine grain film, a sturdy tripod and very precise focussing are needed to get all the benefits the 250 SA can offer.

 

[Focomatter]

The famous Earthrise shot taken on Apollo 8 was taken with the standard 250 - note the softness and poor quality of the image - not! Actually the main advantage of the SA is for IR photography due to the large focus difference between visible and IR with standard achromatic lenses.

 

[GLS]

I’m more of guy who would rather save up and go with the best so of course have the CF SA 250. I believe there is a difference as you get into the longer focal lengths. Resolution of focus onto a precise point is best with the superachromatic lenses, particularly with minimal DOF. Part of the reason for shallow DOF is to achieve the isolation that such a bokeh gives you—and is lost on inferior glass. But you need to judge for yourself. A CF 250 in the SA version is about $2000 today. If you go for the CFE version then you are talking real money—$4500.

dan

Agreed. The SA 250 is truly in a league of its own. Not even the 350 SA is quite at the same level.

Optically speaking, all the 250 SA iterations are identical. I personally saw no point in the exhorbitant extra cost of the CFE version over the CF, so I opted for the latter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agreed. The SA 250 is truly in a league of its own. Not even the 350 SA is quite at the same level.

Optically speaking, all the 250 SA iterations are identical. I personally saw no point in the exhorbitant extra cost of the CFE version over the CF, so I opted for the latter.

The same for me.

 

[GLS]

The same for me.

I'm talking about the Superachromats, not the regular Sonnar version.