I do not have the 120 and 135 but I have passed up opportunities to buy because I do not use the Hasselblad for close ups.
I loved that 135mm lens/bellows set-up, it was very sharp, and if you took your time, delivered great photographs.
It remains on my short list of Hasselblad lenses, together with the 350 mm or 500mm for landscapes.
This does no include the SWC, camera, lens set-up that would almost complete my bucket list, with, hopefully enough time to enjoy them.
The 135mm simply rocks when you need sharp details, period.
Isn't the CFE 40mm IF one of the sharpest lenses?
By MTF diagrams alone, the 100 and 250 Superachromat are likely the highest resolving; the 60 enjoys less distortion than the 100 and is one of the better performers as well.
Both originally built on contract for NASA.
from a technical point of view ,it's probably the 180 but, they are all excellent performers.
Does it matter if one lens is sharper if it is the wrong lens to create the intended image?
By MTF diagrams alone, the 100 and 250 Superachromat are likely the highest resolving; the 60 enjoys less distortion than the 100 and is one of the better performers as well.
The 60mm Biogon that is, not the Distagon.
No need to inflate the price of the "mere mortal" Hasselblad lenses any further
Also the Biogon can only be used on the MK70 photogrammetric camera, so in all fairness should probably be excluded from this discussion.
The Biogon is on the SWC cameras, which you may have noticed are also Hasselblads and therefore must be keep in this discussion.
There are two Biogons made for Hasselblad: the 38mm and the 60mm. Only the former is on the SWC (and also on the MKWE). The 60mm was made specifically for the NASA space missions, to be used in the MK70 camera which had a Réseau plate with etched gridlines, and no reflex mirror. The MK70 had interchangeable lenses and could also mount the 100mm Planar. Later an EL version of the MK70 was released for the commercial market.
The MK70 / Biogon 60mm isn't really part of the V-series (the topic of this thread), which is why I suggested possibly excluding it. Splitting hairs I suppose.
Technique might be more important than MTFs.
This is so true with medium format in general and with Hasselblads in particular. If one wants to realize the promises their MTFs make, a tripod + MLU is a must. When people express disapointment with Zeiss V-glass, I assume they tried it handheld.
I almost never use a tripod with the Hasselblad and have never has a blur, shake, or vibration problem hand held even for enlargements
Here comes the big reveal: you always had blur, shake and vibration problems. But your standards are too low to notice. Even for enlargements.
It has never been a problem for any of my enlargements. I have checked with a magnifying glass. I do not make billboard sized enlargements.
I do very well using my Hasselblad handheld with my 60mm lens. But in my experience the best handheld medium format cameras are the Mamiya 6 & 7. Those shutters seem to make no commotion what-so-ever.
Still, I've been reading Barry Thornton's excellent "Edge of Darkness," which has a profound examination of sharpness. Among other things he says that all enlargements require a glass carrier to provide an absolutely flat negative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?