Hasselblad lens line up - any duds?

[Deleted member 88956]

Looking at the entire Hasselblad lens line up, although probably not as far back as before *T was added. Are there any lenses to avoid? I don't believe there are any huge underperformers, but are there any that fall out of favor for whatever reasons.

As designs have typically changed mostly in shutters and ergonomics, but hardly optically, yet current pricing suggests there may be more to their differences on top of pure age. I see some old silver lenses that cosmetically look great, better then many newer by at least couple of decades. I am of course still comparing only ones that operationally are equal (no defects that affect immediate use or need of service)

 

[John Salim]

Any of the CF range !
Buy nice clean examples, get them serviced regularly and they'll last a lifetime - you'll not want to upgrade them.

John S

 

[Ai Print]

@VTLDThe 50mm CFi upgrade was especially regrettable, because the CF FLT version of this lens uses more common B60 filters.

I was told that the only tangible benefit of the CFi redesign is a stronger "main" shutter spring, but it can be installed into CF lenses as well. Odess replaced the spring on my CF lenses but they were working fine before.

That is not the only benefit to the 50 CFi and I have considered upgrading to it for the following reason, when using more than one filter, the 50mm CF/FLE can vignette a bit where as the CFi will not and yes, you can use Bay60 filters on it with the adapter which I already have. I’m still on the fence about swapping for the CFi 50 as my lens works flawlessly. CFi lenses also have smoother focus mechanisms and in some cases, a bit better baffling to increase contrast and reduce flare and I have seen that difference in using digital backs. The downside is there are actually less parts available for CFi and CFe lenses (no more plastic sync port guards) so CF is still the best bet all around.

But as far as so called duds, none that I have experienced in my 32 years of professional use of the brand. My lineup is: 40mm CF/FLE, 50mm CF/FLE, 60mm CFi, 80mm CFe, 100mm CFi, 120mm CF, 180mm CFi, 350mm CF and 1.4XE.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Thanks for some great points, all looks good.

Just for clarification, I'm not after top resolution/contrast performance that MIGHT show up in high pixel count image making. That will never be tried in the rest of my lifetime. This is pure film shooting, and B&W in majority. Still won't go for any without T* coating.

 

[Ai Print]

Thanks for some great points, all looks good.

Just for clarification, I'm not after top resolution/contrast performance that MIGHT show up in high pixel count image making. That will never be tried in the rest of my lifetime. This is pure film shooting, and B&W in majority. Still won't go for any without T* coating.

Well sure and that is 90% of my use of it as well, it is just good info for others to have in going forward. The system is so unbelievably good that of course I have a digital back for those images that I just can’t pull off with film and for color image making for clients.

I have been using my V system all day and nearly everyday since September 22nd when I arrived in the Faroe Islands for the project I am doing, it has been by far the most fun I have had in using Hasselblad.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer to use CF and later lenses. My Hasselblad repairman advises to avoid the 200 and 2000 series bodies for part shortage and unavailability problems and many repair people will not touch them.

 

[MarkS]

40 or so years ago I worked as a b/w, and color, printer in a custom lab. That was in the heyday of advertising photography... we were very busy and I printed for most of the successful photographers in town. After awhile, I noticed that the shooters who used Hasselblads had consistently better tonality than their competition. (I could tell form the 'v' notches on the square negative.) Of course I never saw an A-B comparison, and those other photographers did produce fine work. But to my eye, the Hassy shooters had an edge.
Several years after that, I was hired as an industrial photographer at a large local corporation.... we used Hasselblads in medium format and I learned to appreciate the virtues of their Zeiss lenses. A mixture of older chrome lenses and newer ones; the 135/5.6 Makro-Planar was perhaps the highest-performing lens that I've ever seen, and its quality helped me do some significant work.
So after all this time, I think that the Zeiss lenses provide the best compromise between format size and image quality. I only shoot 4x5 now, but having used Leicas, Nikons, several other MF systems, and LF lenses from most of the top manufacturers, the Zeiss lenses are the 'best'. Lens quality is not the only choice we make in image-making, and there are obviously many fine optic out there, but I'll stand by my opinion.

 

[mshchem]

Thanks for some great points, all looks good.

Just for clarification, I'm not after top resolution/contrast performance that MIGHT show up in high pixel count image making. That will never be tried in the rest of my lifetime. This is pure film shooting, and B&W in majority. Still won't go for any without T* coating.

T* started in the 70's, Carl Zeiss makes amazing lenses.

 

[John Salim]

I remember we once did a quick side-by-side test ( studio flash - portrait setup ) between my then 80mm C chrome - non T* lens ( mid to late 1970's vintage I believe ) and a brand new 80mm CF lens my friend had just bought ( this was early 1990's ).

Using two mags loaded with EPP, I then processed both rolls side by side ( dip n dunk line ), and the results showed a very slight increase in contrast with the CF lens.

John S

 

[guangong]

I have been using Hassy cameras since 1000 F, fitted with great Kodak Ektar lens. 500 series introduced Zeiss C lenses. I have been using 2000FCM with a variety of Zeiss, Leitz, and Kilfit lenses. Waiting for demise of unrepairable FCM, was lucky o have purchases 500CM and a bunch of lenses while relatively cheap. I now use the C lenses on my 2000 camera. No better lenses.

 

[etn]

the 135/5.6 Makro-Planar was perhaps the highest-performing lens that I've ever seen

Absolutely. Due to its lack of focusing system it is of limited use for general photography, but for macro (with the bellows) it is really incredible.
I use it mainly for "DSLR scanning" ever since I've acquired a CFV 50c ii digital back and it provides great results. It requires an insane number of extension rings for anything smaller than 1:1 (the limit of the bellows), such as 35mm film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Absolutely. Due to its lack of focusing system it is of limited use for general photography, but for macro (with the bellows) it is really incredible.
I use it mainly for "DSLR scanning" ever since I've acquired a CFV 50c ii digital back and it provides great results. It requires an insane number of extension rings for anything smaller than 1:1 (the limit of the bellows), such as 35mm film.

My Hasselblad repairman recommends the Variable Focus tube with the 135/5.6 Makro-Planar

 

[calico]

I have 80/2.8 CFE, 80/2.8 F, 150/2.8 FE, and 110/2 FE.

The 80 CFE has noticeably more contrast than the others. It's interesting to me how much more contrasty it is. It seems sharper, too, but maybe it just seems so because of the contrast.

But I love the other lenses, too. Sometimes I prefer lower contrast. Also, I work in hybrid way so can always adjust contrast in Photoshop.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Looking at the entire Hasselblad lens line up, although probably not as far back as before *T was added. Are there any lenses to avoid? I don't believe there are any huge underperformers, but are there any that fall out of favor for whatever reasons.

As designs have typically changed mostly in shutters and ergonomics, but hardly optically, yet current pricing suggests there may be more to their differences on top of pure age. I see some old silver lenses that cosmetically look great, better then many newer by at least couple of decades. I am of course still comparing only ones that operationally are equal (no defects that affect immediate use or need of service)

Carl Zeiss created no duds.

 

[drmoss_ca]

No actual dud lenses, but I do have a black 80mm/f2.8 C T* where the infinity focus doesn't seem quite right. Consequently I always use my chrome version with a hood. Works well enough for me. Apart from them, I have a Distagon 50 chrome, Sonnar 150 chrome and a Sonnar 250 CF T*. No duds amongst them. I think the old chrome lenses are absolute bargains as long as you don't point them at the sun and discover why lens coatings were invented.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No actual dud lenses, but I do have a black 80mm/f2.8 C T* where the infinity focus doesn't seem quite right. Consequently I always use my chrome version with a hood. Works well enough for me. Apart from them, I have a Distagon 50 chrome, Sonnar 150 chrome and a Sonnar 250 CF T*. No duds amongst them. I think the old chrome lenses are absolute bargains as long as you don't point them at the sun and discover why lens coatings were invented.

At trip to Hasselblad New Jersey would correct the 80mm/f2.8 C T* focus problem.

 

[MattKing]

The are are lots of Hasselblad lenses out there with problems, but the problems didn't come from their design.
They were used as workhorses by many pros, and not all pros treated them appropriately. They were designed to be used heavily, and serviced regularly.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The are are lots of Hasselblad lenses out there with problems, but the problems didn't come from their design.
They were used as workhorses by many pros, and not all pros treated them appropriately. They were designed to be used heavily, and serviced regularly.

I once met a 'pro' wedding photographer in England who had his Hasselblad kit rolling around in his trunk.questioned about it, he stated"it's got to be able to take that or it's not worth the money" I think, he wasn't worth the kit.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The are are lots of Hasselblad lenses out there with problems, but the problems didn't come from their design.
They were used as workhorses by many pros, and not all pros treated them appropriately. They were designed to be used heavily, and serviced regularly.

For example my 50mm lens was well used and well taken care of before I bought it and after several years of my use it stopped working. The lens stopped down, the shutter would fire but the lens would not open. The repairman replaced the shutter shaft and it has worked perfectly ever since.

 

[DonW]

There are no dud blad lenses, only dud photographers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are no dud blad lenses, only dud photographers.

 

[Maris]

I'd avoid the 30mm. Heard it's got a lot of barrel distortion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'd avoid the 30mm. Heard it's got a lot of barrel distortion.

Especially if the subject is off axis or the camera is tilted. They can also show it you have dirt on your shoes.

 

[Slixtiesix]

They are all very good lenses. If you would want maximum sharpness then the 60mm, 100mm, 180mm and 250 SA are the way to go, but the other lenses are not really worse. You would need a sturdy tripod and careful focussing to show a difference. Since this is not important for you, it does not matter.
The 80 CB and 160 CB are slightly "inferior" when you have a look at the MTF-charts, but even these lenses are sharper and more contrasty than anything you find on old folders etc. So you may freely go with whatever lens you like.
Even the old pre-T* lenses are very good. The coating hardly makes any difference. The only point against these lenses is their old Compur shutter. These shutters were good back in the day, but they show their age and may need service sooner or later. If well maintained, they run fine. I would also recommend CF lenses as the best bargain today.

 

[ic-racer]

The newer 40mm is smaller and lighter and performs better than the older large 40mm Distagon. However, the older lens is less expensive on the used market and looks pretty awesome. I have both.