Hasselblad & Zeiss Lens ratings question

[Graham_Martin]

Having just taken delivery of a Hasselblad 500 C/M and my first lens (a Zeiss 100mm f/3.5) I am wondering if there are any websites where the lens that are used on the 'blads are rated? I am looking for something similar to the website of Bjorn Rorslet http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html who ranks Nikon lenses.

Of course these ratings are somewhat subjective but I have found his website enormously helpful when deciding on a "new to me lens". I vary rarely buy new glass simply because I can't afford it. I prefer to buy the older lenses that have stood the test of time.

In addition to Zeiss and Hasselblad are there other lens manufacturers for the V system cameras?

Thanks

 

[mike c]

You've got one of the most wanted lens that Hasselblad offers, 100mm. The most sharpest and corrected of their lens line up,don't know of web site,but who needs one with that lens just go out and photograph.

Mike C.

 

[david b]

Only Zeiss makes glass for the V series.

What do you hope to find on a site that subjectively rates a lens?

If you are looking for another superb lens, get the 60mm lens. But that is just my opinion

 

[BrianShaw]

If I recall correctly, the Zeiss site has OBJECTIVE data for all of the Hassy lenses. But this notion of finding the "best" is really a matter of "nits" if you ask me. There may be variations in condition based on usage, but in general I doubt there are any significant quality problems with any of the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. One would have to be exceedingly picky to find flaws in quality.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like the 50mm better than the 60mm, but that may be because I have the 80mm lens.

Steve

 

[keithwms]

Photodo has MTF charts, if that's what you're looking for. Click browse lenses.

There are also some comparisons between the Zeiss and Mamiya lenses here, containing chart data. Pop. photo has various ratings, you can find them by google.

Generally I don't care much about the charts except when somebody makes some horseshit statement about brand X being much better than Y etc, with no justification given except the pedigree.

 

[Q.G.]

The problem with the objective data Zeiss provides is that it is not comparable to any other data.
The numbers depend very much on the way the test was done.

And that is a big problem with PhotoDo. How they test is a bit of a mystery, but it is obviously not done in a way that makes their and Zeiss figures directly comparable.
Which in itself is not a big thing.
The bigger thing is that their test method produces some strange, unexpected results, that are very much different from other test results.

So what we have to do is either find someone who performed a direct comparison test between lenses, using a method that is beyond doubt (like the Popular Photography thingy), or trust what people say about a particular brand, and compare lenses within that brand alone, using the charts the manufacturer provides.

In the case of Zeiss lenses, you can indeed trust that they are quite good. And then use the Zeiss charts to compare different lenses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Pointing out the obvious: Only Zeiss makes Hasselblad lenses [ignoring the Russian ones, who wants to take a chance that the product is good] so your only choices are focal length, APO or not, C or CF or CFi or CFE, macro or not. If you get CF or newer lenses, the filters are Bay 60 [yes, a few exceptions]. Bay 60 accessories are much easier to get than Bay 50. There are not many trade offs, some lenses are not as sharp as other focal lens. You do not need a lot of data to make a decision.

Steve

 

[david b]

And this all comes back to a variety of things such as:
- will you be using a tripod?
- what speed of film?
- what film developer?
- how big will you be printing?
- darkroom or digital output ?
- what enlarger lens?

If you are only making 8x10, or even 11x14 prints in the darkroom, none of this matters.

 

[Q.G.]

Pointing out the obvious: Only Zeiss makes Hasselblad lenses

With one exception (as far as the 500 series is concerned): Schneider made a 140-280 mm zoom for Hasselblad.

When using 200- or 2000-series cameras, there is one other exception: a "Hasselblad" 60-120 mm zoom lens, most likely designed by Hasselblad, made by Fuji.



Mind you, Graham: the 60-120 zoom has no shutter, and can for that reason not be used on your camera.
And the Schneider comes in both shutterless and shuttered versions, so make sure you get the right one if ever you would go looking for one.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Photodo has MTF charts, if that's what you're looking for. Click browse lenses.

Thanks for the information. This is an interesting site, although slanted - heavily - toward d*****l (not to be mentioned here).

Rather "odd" MTF charts, athough apparently fairly accurate, if studied closely.

I do wonder about the use the average - to advanced- photographer will derive from these, though. Reverting back to the old system for illustration only, one mey be able to discern whether one lens will resolve more than another, but how many will find the difference between 95 l/mm and 100 l/mm of any real consequence?

Modular Transfer Functions are definitely the way to go. Having been in the Optical Bench Testing soup, I can well remember - have nightmares of - the controversies, arguments and general misery caused by "grain-of-rice" distortion in determining resolution - that and many other problems caused by subjective evaluation have been lessened greatly.

MTF is not easy for the casual photographer ( and then some). However,
The "nutshell" description of MTF on photodo (from canon) is one of the better ones I've read.

 

[keithwms]

Yep, how much one gets out of the MTF charts depends on how much time one is willing to invest learning what they say... and also what they do not say.

Personally I don't place too much importance on lp/mm nor the absolute values attained at frame center on the MTF charts. Far more important, in my opinion, are: how the radial/tangential (or sagittal and meridional) curves track each other, how smoothly they vary, and that they don't crash away from frame center. It has been a [not quite proven] theory of mine, for some time, that this is the key to pleasing out of focus rendering.... and smooth bokeh overall.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Personally I don't place too much importance on lp/mm nor the absolute values attained at frame center on the MTF charts.

My point exactly! I don't either. These are filed under "Interesting But Relatively Usless Information"

Far more important, in my opinion, are: how the radial/tangential (or sagittal and meridional) curves track each other, how smoothly they vary, and that they don't crash away from frame center. It has been a [not quite proven] theory of mine, for some time, that this is the key to pleasing out of focus rendering.... and smooth bokeh overall.

I'm going to have to "chew" on that for a while.

I think I agree - although there is NO WAY I'm going to be drawn into aa discussion of "Bokeh"!

IMHO - I just put on a flak jacket - there has been WAY too much importance placed on the aesthetics of "out-of-focus fuzzines". There are those who are obsessed with the idea of "good bokeh", to the exclusion, or near exclusion of everything else. I am NOT one of them.

Undoubtedly, it IS a factor influencing the perception of a photographic image, but like all aesthetics, how and why, to what extent ... I doubt that there ever will be any concrete solution/s to THAT problem.

Hmmm ... did I just allow myself to be drawn in ...???

 

[Q.G.]

MTF curves are a record of how an image point, or black-white transition is rendered when a lens is focussed on it, i.e when it should be sharp.
Who knows what happens if the thing retreats to outside the plane of focus?

I don't think you can tell from MTF curves. We would need MTF data for unfocussed lenses. A few, for different degrees of unfocus.

 

[Venchka]

I don't photograph MTF charts. Do you?

Enjoy your camera. Wear it out using it.

 

[keithwms]

IMHO - I just put on a flak jacket - there has been WAY too much importance placed on the aesthetics of "out-of-focus fuzzines". There are those who are obsessed with the idea of "good bokeh", to the exclusion, or near exclusion of everything else. I am NOT one of them.

We'll have to agree to bring this up in another thread, I suppose! But suffice it to say that the goal of front-to-back sharpness is, to me, also quite stale.

To put it another way: any computer can calculate the hyperfocal distance and focus in such a way that a whole scene will be within the DOF.*** But it takes a human to think about the role of the focus in the scene and how that affects the way the scene is perceived.


***In fact, I think the future will bring us precisely that: all photographs will eventually be taken via multiplexed pinholed sensors with extreme sensitivity, and then a computer will be used to emulate focus blur. In other words, shoot everything so that the whole scene is in focus, and apply blur later. And no, I am not saying that I like this idea!

 

[MattKing]

To put it another way: any computer can calculate the hyperfocal distance and focus in such a way that a whole scene will be within the DOF.*** But it takes a human to think about the role of the focus in the scene and how that affects the way the scene is perceived.

I happen to be re-reading a bunch of Isaac Asimov right now, including "I Robot".

I'm reading from a compendium that I was given for Christmas in 1982.

The phrase "it takes a human to think about..." made me smile.



Matt

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is nothing like a classical reference.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

I don't photograph MTF charts. Do you?

I don't think anyone does.
But, with respect, there is no point in pointing that out.

MTF measurements are measurements of how your lenses perform when you photograph absolutely anything.
So quite relevant/usefull/[etc.] if you want what you can and cannot expect when you do take pictures of absolutely anything.

But i don't photograph absolutely anything either.
Yet i might.

 

[Q.G.]

***In fact, I think the future will bring us precisely that: all photographs will eventually be taken via multiplexed pinholed sensors with extreme sensitivity, and then a computer will be used to emulate focus blur. In other words, shoot everything so that the whole scene is in focus, and apply blur later. And no, I am not saying that I like this idea!

We're much closer to that already, without needing very sensitive multiple pinholed sensors.
Multifocal stacks are already very simple to create in software.
All that is needed next are cameras that offer this 'in camera', that shift focus while taking a series of pictures, and stacking those on the fly with in camera software.

 

[Q.G.]

There is nothing like a classical reference.

Indeed.
So it should be noted that Asimov's quote 'plagiarizes' Fritz Lang's Metropolis.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't photograph MTF charts. Do you?

Enjoy your camera. Wear it out using it.

I do not photograph MTF charts. On occasion I will look at them for amusement.

Steve

 

[WRSchmalfuss]

When using 200- or 2000-series cameras, there is one other exception: a "Hasselblad" 60-120 mm zoom lens, most likely designed by Hasselblad, made by Fuji.


This is not correct, the "Hasselblad" 60-120mm zoom lens was designed and manufactured by KYOCERA!