Hasselblad F-Distagon CFi 30mm f/3.5; Edge and corner Sharpness?

[Ai Print]

The fisheye is traditionally used by skateboarding photographers (like me) just because of this, @ic-racer!

The center of the frame gets “pushed away” farther than the borders — that’s why the icicles in the top of your photo look the same size as those in the middle. In a skateboarding photo, using the right framing, the skater looks much higher than (s)he is and obstacles look bigger.

Pretty much every fisheye I have seen has this characteristic and maybe that’s why the corners are not so sharp as the center.

I have the 30mm f/3.5 for my Hasselblad, but I have never tried to assess its sharpness at all. I only use it for skateboarding and customers in this market are not interested in “technicalities”.

Edit: “assess”, not “access”!

My friend Chip Simmons did a ton of high profile advertising including a lot of album covers with that lens in the 80’s and 90’s.

 

[fdonadio]

I have shot some portraits of a friend today, that asked specifically to be photographed with a ‘Blad and the F-Distagon. We did the classics “stepping on your face” and overhead (makes the head look huge and the body tiny, in proportion) shots and had a lot of fun. Shot on expired APX400 (supplied by himself). I’m waiting for the results.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hasselblad F-Distagon CFi 30mm f/3.5; Edge and corner Sharpness?
Hello every body,
Thanks in advance for sharing your input.
What to expect in 22" square print, corners and edges, from Hasselblad Fisheye?
It's a 10.3X magnification.
Recently, was testing a clean sample of this lens.
Found that the edges(leave alone corners), are not as the lens was reputed as a super sharp corner to corner!
It's not! Sharpness at 10x starts to suffer in the last 20% or so each side.
Could it be the scale 10X enlargement?
Or a defect in the lens?
My prints are optical darkroom.
Target was more than 77 Yards away(230 feet), parallel line of buildings.
Center is super sharp.
Thanks for sharing your experience.

that's all the lens can do and all one can expect from a 10x enlargement in the corners. think about it. If the lens can resolve 40 lp/mm in the corners, which would be good, at 10x, that's down to 4 lp/mm and your eyes can do up to 7 or 8 lp/mm. result... You detect fuzziness.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

…

Every time I think about an SWC I remember the price tag to one-trick-pony ratio and scratch the idea.

One trick pony ???? Clearly you have no idea what SWC is capable of. But it takes one to understand one.

 

[MattKing]

One trick pony ???? Clearly you have no idea what SWC is capable of. But it takes one to understand one.

I think Ralph's preference for featuring the human form in much of his photography has an influence on his opinion of the SWC .

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I think Ralph's preference for featuring the human form in much of his photography has an influence on his opinion of the SWC .

I actually phrased the whole thing wrong, came out not as intended, but it's out of the bag and not going to edit that. But I will say that while SWC is surely an expensive proposition for what it seemingly is a camera with limited options, the truth is quite the other way around. Quite easy to se what it can do by simply scanning the web for users have accomplished with it. But need to stop here as this thread is not about SWC. There are threads where we can discuss how many tricks this particular pony can do.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I wish I could add some substance to this thread, but it feels like jumping into a digital forum where one of a trillion pixels went AWOL and the search is on.

However, a print is viewed from a certain distance and from my pedestal, it is all about what the naked eye can see from intended position. If the latter is objectionable, perhaps anther approach to achieving that goal is better bet than slicing and dicing MTF charts.

 

[Ai Print]

One trick pony ???? Clearly you have no idea what SWC is capable of. But it takes one to understand one.

I borrowed a friend’s once. Super sharp lens, can be hand held with an external VF but I just found it far too limiting for the space it would take up in my pack. It does that one 38mm angle of view thing extremely well but at the end of the day, it’s one thing.

I get it has a cult following, I just don’t see it ever being in my otherwise extensive Hasselblad system.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
I get it has a cult following, I just don’t see it ever being in my otherwise extensive Hasselblad system.

That is what I thought until I was offered one a price I could not walk away from. Once I started using it, I found out that it is a lot more useful than I had ever thought.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I borrowed a friend’s once. Super sharp lens, can be hand held with an external VF but I just found it far too limiting for the space it would take up in my pack. It does that one 38mm angle of view thing extremely well but at the end of the day, it’s one thing.

I get it has a cult following, I just don’t see it ever being in my otherwise extensive Hasselblad system.

the 40mm lens can't possibly be any different than the 38mm of the SWC. So having the 40 mm lens in your kit must be the better option than adding the SWC to your kit.

 

[Sirius Glass]

the 40mm lens can't possibly be any different than the 38mm of the SWC. So having the 40 mm lens in your kit must be the better option than adding the SWC to your kit.

If one does not want the rectilinear correctness and will not mind the lens weight. On the other hand, one does not carry a separate camera [the SWC]. One set of B50 or B60 filters, depending on C or CF and later will work for the SWC and the 40mm lens.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I think this lens is somewhat popular with people who use the Hasselblad digital backs were you can correct the extreme fisheye distortion in software and turn it into a somewhat normal lens.
With film I would rather prefer the SWC or the Arcbody with the 35mm lens, the latter also has shift.

 

[fdonadio]

you can correct the extreme fisheye distortion in software and turn it into a somewhat normal lens.

Sacrilege!! Burn the heretic!!

IMHO, the “charm” of the fisheye is the distortion. If you want the distortion you get the fisheye; else, get a rectilinear ultra wide.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think this lens is somewhat popular with people who use the Hasselblad digital backs were you can correct the extreme fisheye distortion in software and turn it into a somewhat normal lens.
With film I would rather prefer the SWC or the Arcbody with the 35mm lens, the latter also has shift.

The winner of the prize for the silliest idea of the year. The reason for the Fisheye lens is the photographs as taken by the Fisheye lens. Now stand in the corner for a year, facing the corner and do not come out for any reason until the end of 2022.

 

[Slixtiesix]

It wasn´t me who invented this ;-) Phocus has been offering this option for almost 15 years now. However, one should consider that especially the smaller digital backs cannot use the entire field of view of the 30mm. So basically you get a lens that, although lacking the wide field of view of a fisheye lens, still exhibits lots of distortion, which is something most people would not want.

"The reason for the Fisheye lens is the photographs as taken by the Fisheye lens"

True! I must admit, as probably was apparent in my post above, that I never particularly liked this type of lens. However, after reading this thread and having a look again at some pictures on the web, I must say that if used carefully, this lens can indeed produce a very unique look that I find appealing! I always thought the heavy distortion a fault, where it is in fact an artistic feature!

Now after this epiphany, I hope I may leave my corner!

 

[Slixtiesix]

Here are two pictures I particularly liked:

https://i.redd.it/ewxw8t42fo801.jpg

https://i.redd.it/zs8fuiovzccy.jpg

 

[Sirius Glass]

It wasn´t me who invented this ;-) Phocus has been offering this option for almost 15 years now. However, one should consider that especially the smaller digital backs cannot use the entire field of view of the 30mm. So basically you get a lens that, although lacking the wide field of view of a fisheye lens, still exhibits lots of distortion, which is something most people would not want.

"The reason for the Fisheye lens is the photographs as taken by the Fisheye lens"

True! I must admit, as probably was apparent in my post above, that I never particularly liked this type of lens. However, after reading this thread and having a look again at some pictures on the web, I must say that if used carefully, this lens can indeed produce a very unique look that I find appealing! I always thought the heavy distortion a fault, where it is in fact an artistic feature!

Now after this epiphany, I hope I may leave my corner!

I was waiting for the full 6x6 digital back. Alas it will never come so I must stay with film, laughing all the way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here are two pictures I particularly liked:

https://i.redd.it/ewxw8t42fo801.jpg

https://i.redd.it/zs8fuiovzccy.jpg

1969 Dodge Dart good eye!