Hasselblad CFE 80 2.8 - bokehh

Christian Hilmersen · Aug 5, 2005

Hi, I have bought a Hasselblad 501 kit (with cfe 80 2.8) - and I must say that I am disappointed regarding the lens. The bokeh is not nice. I have developed one film taken with the camera/lens. All pictures were taken wide open (2.8) in grey weather. There is especially one picture where the focus is at apprx 1 meter and the grey sky is seen through a tree that is ugly (the rest are actually quite nice). The other lenses I have are: konica hexanon K(M?)-50 2.0 (leica mount), mamiya 645 80 2.8, old large-format lens by schneider, 50s fold camera by leitz (80mm) and a canon FD 50 1.4. If I were to rate these based on this film alone, konica would be on the the top and hasselblad and the old canon on the bottom. Have others experienced the same?
I guess I will have to test the lens a bit more - but it would be great to get some feedback. All the reviews I have seen regarding this lens has been good - so I hope it was just a bad bokeh situation.

gr82bart · Aug 5, 2005

I think Bokeh might be one of those taste situations. I honestly never considered bokeh, but reading this has made think about it a bit more. I some cases I love the 'sharp' bokeh patterns, in others I don't and would prefer a bit more 'fuzziness'.

Can you attach a representative picture for us to see what it is you don't like. I'm quite curious. Thanks.

Art.

jjstafford · Aug 5, 2005

Christian Hilmersen said:
Hi, I have bought a Hasselblad 501 kit (with cfe 80 2.8) - and I must say that I am disappointed regarding the lens. The bokeh is not nice. I have developed one film taken with the camera/lens. All pictures were taken wide open (2.8) in grey weather. There is especially one picture where the focus is at apprx 1 meter and the grey sky is seen through a tree that is ugly (the rest are actually quite nice).

You take 12 pictures, of which one us ughly and 11 are "quite nice" and you say you are disappointed?

Seriously, pictures would help a great deal. Can you scan some?

Christian Hilmersen · Aug 5, 2005

I see that my post might have been premature.... I will see if I can post an example. But, before I do that I will describe the bokeh. For larger surfaces it seems fine - they get a halo that can be quite pleasing (but "un-natural"). For the picture in question it seem like all the little leaves gets a halo, and it just does not look "natural". Hope I can learn to appreciate it. As for bokeh, I did not really notice it till I bought a Hexar RF with a Hexanon 50 f2 - outstanding bokeh IMO.

felipemorgan · Aug 5, 2005

A brief experience with the standard 80/2.8 Planar on a Rollei SL66 left me likewise disappointed with the rendition of out-of-focus areas. The OOF highlights were too "geometric," their shape resembled the hexagonal aperture of the lens, and OOF areas with lots of visual activity (I remember in particular a thin-DOF photo of some fallen leaves) had a very jarring feel. On the other hand, the in-focus areas on this lens were spectacular, and on most photos that's what really mattered!

So perhaps there's something about the 80mm Planar formulation that causes a distinctive bokeh signature across manufacturers implementations of this lens.

--Philip.

brent8927 · Aug 5, 2005

I love my 80mm CF; best lens I ever used, and I almost always use a wide aperature. I've always loved how out-of-focus areas turn out.

psvensson · Aug 5, 2005

MF leaf shutter lenses usually have a five-bladed aperture. If the lens then has neutral bokeh (as Ken Rockwell defines it on his web site), then out-of-focus highlights show up as well defined pentagons. Some like it or don't mind. Like you, I don't like it.

Konica could afford to make a more rounded aperture on your 50 because as a rangefinder lens, it doesn't have to stop down just before exposure.

Christian Hilmersen · Aug 6, 2005

And here is a crop of the tree

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
This is a crop of the picture. Actually me nerves are a bit calmer now...but I will avoid motives like this,

gr82bart · Aug 6, 2005

Hi Christian,

The picture is pretty small in size and I can't see the poor bokeh you are not liking. Any chance to post a larger size image? Sorry.

As it is though, in this small size, I kind of like it.

Art.

Christian Hilmersen · Aug 8, 2005

Well, I actually agree with you...it works when the image is small, and I also think I was a bit too quick to judge.... (I will come back to this subject...)

gr82bart · Aug 8, 2005

Aw Christian! Were you crying wolf? Hehehe...Just kidding.

Art.

skahde · Aug 9, 2005

I agree with brent. The bokeh of the 80mm planar is very good and there aren't many lenses which come close. The only weak point is the pentagonal shape of specular highlights but this only comes into play under high-contrast lighting and has little to do with the overall blurr of oof-objetcs which is awesome.
In addition it isn't very wise to expect a favourable effect on the picture from bokeh under high-contrast lighting. If you have a unpleasant high-contrast background, blurring it and hoping for a lenses bokeh to do wonders won't help much. I made a fool out of myself to often by complaning about the bokeh of lenses which I heard were highly regarded in this respect because I tried them under such conditions. If the lighting is flat it is much easier to make use of a lenses bokeh and this is were the differences will show up most pronounced. Ever tried a Rollei 2,8 with Planar at about f4? Pentagonal aperture but bokeh to die for!

best

Stefan

Christian Hilmersen · Aug 9, 2005

It might not be many lenses that come close, and I might have cried wolf when it was not...but it might have been some other canine animal I saw ;-). Why does it have only 5 aperture blades? Because of cost? Well, IMHO the lens is expensive enough and pentagons are never nice; Hasselblad and Zeiss should have gone for more aperture blades!
As for taking pictures with the lens wide open: I think I can live with the limitations and oportunities and the bokeh it provides - I can learn to use the strong bokeh and halo for artistic purposes. (The same way one can take advantage of a Holga for artistic purposes ;-) ) The bokeh was the main reason why I bought the Hasselblad - I just seems like I happened to stumble upon a situation where other lenses seems to do a better job, as I got too much of what I asked for.

Christian Hilmersen · Aug 19, 2005

UPDATE

Now I have used this lens/camera some more, and have come to the following conclusion:
- outstanding bokeh for large oof areas/low contrast situations
- horrible bokeh when stopped down with strong light-sources in the background (Pentagons)
- bad bokeh when wide open with strong light-sources in the background (my inital finding) For small enlargements this seems to be of no practical relevans, but for big enlargements it does.

I am quite pleased overall. The outstanding bokeh that I sometimes get from this lens is the reason I bought it, and it enables to get the mood I was after - but I have to remember the bad performance under certain conditions...basically there is no point in taking let's a stopped down portait if there are strong lights in the background - the pentagons are just too distracting.

Hasselblad CFE 80 2.8 - bokehh

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency