Hasselblad v series lens with best resolution

McDiesel said:

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.

Click to expand...

The same is true of any camera or lens; a tripod or a large, steady studio stand is photographically a must, when huge, stable outcroppings of heavy stone can no be used.

Always trust a good tripod, properly massive, stable in every set-up, sharp focus, with ideal lens, film, development and printing (with technically perfect
darkroom) and handling and never take a poor picture of your cat, again,!

eli griggs said:

The same is true of any camera or lens; a tripod or a large, steady studio stand is photographically a must, when huge, stable outcroppings of heavy stone can no be used.

Always trust a good tripod, properly massive, stable in every set-up, sharp focus, with ideal lens, film, development and printing (with technically perfect
darkroom) and handling and never take a poor picture of your cat, again,!

Click to expand...

And steady hands. When one uses a prism with the Hasselblad the camera is stabilized with two hands and the head.

Quality classification of the so called 'normal' lenses (not the super-achromat or alike):
n°1a: S-Planar T* 120mm
n°1b: Biogon T* 38 mm
n°1c: Distagon T* 60mm
n°1d: All the other Carl Zeiss lenses

There is no n°2...

And think before you act, take your time, calm down, take a deep breath and hold still...

Arthurwg said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have come to use--and enjoy using once reconciled to it--a tripod or monopod with my Blad. I only use one with my Mamiya when shooting IR. The e Mamiya 7'e shutter is so incredibly discrete that I have to check that I actually took a photo.

MattKing said:

I'm going to ask a question that I often just think to myself.
If they are all good, why does it matter to you if one is slightly different than another.
In more than 50+ years of photography, I can't think of a photograph I've made that was unsatisfactory due to the optical deficiencies of a lens. And I've used lots of mid-level lenses - even a few mediocre ones.

Click to expand...

Very true. Certainly more "equipment enthusiasts" here than photographers.

Here's a piece of equipment that will lead to far sharper photographs with a crap lens, than the best possible lens without it:

s-l1600 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr

From my careful analysis, the Zeiss 100 C is the sharpest. (I only have the CF version). When NASA went out of its way to select lenses for the space program they did their homework. Their budget exceeds mine. The other fine lens is the Superachromatic 250mm in either C or CF. I have the CF. An incredible lens. Of course, the Biogon 38mm is also stellar. I have a fairly new super wide to be able to use that optic. (903). They suggest that the 905 without lead in the glass is not quite as good as the 903 and earlier.