Hassy 80mm CFE: disappointment

[df cardwell]

but I also feel like people loose [sic] their objectivity...

You surely know that "ad hominem" is considered a logic error,
and doesn't constitute evidence.

And we're really short of evidence here.

First, if you're bothered by it, get rid of the lens.

If you want to stay in Hassie, get a 100. No distortion, none. It was designed as an aerial mapping lens.
Expensive ? Pah, a bargain for what it does. Don't be cheap.

If you to keep the lens, comfort yourself in the fact that designing a relatively short f/2.8 lens (and not a 3.5) with balanced performance, you have to spread the inevitable errors around. And the good news is that there are no 80mm lenses that come close to the low distortion of the Planar.

And the distortion is no secret. I mean Hassie and Zeiss have been up front about this forever. That is the beauty of the system. No secrets, perfect documentation. Lots of choices. You can have exactly what you want.

Now, I would think that if you wanted to test the performance of this lens, you are going to need to tighten up your protocol. As SK Grimes used to say, "The test tests the tester." I'd be surprised if many of us could set up a camera accurately enough to be able to get good data from a distortion test.

One of the interesting things that can happen is that one might be shooting so close to a subject that the difference in magnification between the center of the field and the edges might cause the image to be drawn in a nonrectilinear way. But magnification difference isn't distortion. Perspective error can be troublesome, too. That is magnified by being close, as well.

I wonder what would be a good working distance to compare the center to the edges, without magnification being a factor ? Well, you'd need to have a magnification difference equal to or less than the suspected distortion !

Good luck.

 

[david b]

Can we see some of your work somewhere?

Will you be shooting wide open or close to it?

 

[Q.G.]

Well I feel like it was a mistakte to start this tread since I get flamed down. I guess it is normal when you are critical of Zeiss and Hassy and their god made cameras and lenses...

No, Kris. You did not get flamed down (though it has started now).

What happened is that people mentioned that they did not see what you said was there to see.

The flaming (mild, and not malicious, all in good spirit) started when you started attributing that simple thingy to people not being sensitive the way you are.
Now you add fule to the fire by suggesting that people then perhaps do not want to see what you are seeing, because they are in some sort of awe for a great name.

Surely, you too can recognize that as complete rubbish.
(But seriously, again)

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've an old C lens and it's pretty good but it's definitely not perfect. Actually, the whole system has it's quirks.
I agree though, people flip out with zeiss and hasselblad. At first I couldn't see the distortion but the one w/ grid really helped.. That would drive me nuts if I noticed it in every frame.

I've always heard that the 80mm isn't the 'star' performer. The 100 is much tougher to find, sells for more (sometimes much more)..
Perhaps the makro-planar would be one to look out for?

Ever hear the story of Howard Stern's brand new (at the time) Bentley? He went to open the door one day and the door handle fell off.
You don't expect it to happen but anything is possible..

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

No offence, I didn't wanted to be rude.

As I said its a matter of sensitivity. As for myself, I am not really sensitive to contrast, some people like contrasty lenses, I don't really care about it for most tasks however I am able to understand that someone cares and is picky about it.

Maybe I havent made tests comparing and all and all but i used extensively other lenses: fujinon 210 never being bothered by distorsion, Tessar, again never, Elmar 2.8 a little on the edges but I don't use Leica for geometrical purposes, 40mm nokton, never, 90 Elmar, never. Only the Planar gave me this impression and I started to check my negs and found this effect, compared to others and found that yes it bothered me. Keep in mind that my original question was about the distorsion level of OTHER lenses compared to the planar 80

By the way, simply go over Flickr and have a look to planar + hasselblad shots, a lot of them exhibit the distorsion I am speaking of. It is small but there.

Unfortunately I don't have an updated website, only an old flickr account not updated for more than a year you can find it if what I do matters.

So again sorry, my exemple shot must not be a good exemple and I don't want to say that people are idiots that can't see distorsion, far the contrary. If I was thinking this I would not have asked on this forum.

 

[André E.C.]

The bottom line is, one can attach a nail with a sickle, but it will be wiser to use a hammer.

Use the right tool for the job, as said by others, get the 100 or the 120mm and go ahead!


Cheers



André

 

[fdisilvestro]

Just for the record: I think the zeiss 80 mm planar is an excellent lens and just one picture does not prove anything. Anyway, low distortion (or very low) is not the same as no distortion. If it is acceptable or not is a matter of taste and/or purpose.

I could compile a list of excellent lenses that have that level of distortion or more, starting with the leica summilux 35mm f1.4 ASPH.

Regards
Francisco

 

[eric]

I think I see Elvis
Send me the lens and I'll exchange it for a 55mm Micro Nikkor.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Man, I wish I had one of those CFEs.

 

[Q.G.]

By the way, simply go over Flickr and have a look to planar + hasselblad shots, a lot of them exhibit the distorsion I am speaking of. It is small but there.

Why do you now assume that people who give a balanced response need to go to flickr to see photos this lens produces???

 

[Slixtiesix]

"I think you are making a small mistake.... 3.13 mm from the center is far from being at the corners....."
You´re right Kris! 3,96mm is more correct.
But I keep my opinion: If something bothers you, why not changing it?
Sell the 80mm Planar, buy a 100mm Planar instead and don´t look back.
Otherwise you will argue so much about the problem that you will not like the Hassy at all anymore -
and that would be very sad, wouldn´t it?

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

"I think you are making a small mistake.... 3.13 mm from the center is far from being at the corners....."
You´re right Kris! 3,96mm is more correct.
But I keep my opinion: If something bothers you, why not changing it?
Sell the 80mm Planar, buy a 100mm Planar instead and don´t look back.
Otherwise you will argue so much about the problem that you will not like the Hassy at all anymore -
and that would be very sad, wouldn´t it?

Oh, don't worry I am far from the divorce with Hasselblad

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

"I think you are making a small mistake.... 3.13 mm from the center is far from being at the corners....."
You´re right Kris! 3,96mm is more correct.
But I keep my opinion: If something bothers you, why not changing it?
Sell the 80mm Planar, buy a 100mm Planar instead and don´t look back.
Otherwise you will argue so much about the problem that you will not like the Hassy at all anymore -
and that would be very sad, wouldn´t it?

3.96mm? I don't understand how you calculate this. Maybe it me and correct me is I am wrong I want to understand how to calculate this kind of thing.

lets say a frame is 55mm x55mm the diagonal from corner to corner should be 77,78mm divide this by two and you get the center vs corner distance which is 38,89mm

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

Why do you now assume that people who give a balanced response need to go to flickr to see photos this lens produces???

Because informing onself about something means, if possible, looking a many samples, mades by other persons, in different situations. As well as asking different persons their opinions. Opinions can change with the addition of new data/information. Thats all, nobody "need" to go over there to look at that, they can go if they are interested.

The internet is not perfect to compare pictorial qualities but it can help.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

I concur with Kristopher, there is some distortion with the 80mm planar and it appears he hit the 'agite button' with all the zeiss afficianados on this site and it was considered a blasphemy to have said sucha a thing! He was just pointing out what he saw??? It's minimal, but it's there. Is it something I can live with sure, I take pictures where this is not normally a problem, but for those that use it for technical work like Kristopher, I can see how it could be seen as a problem for them. Use the 100 or 120, or other lens as a work around if it is that much of a problem.

Zeiss have not released a crappy lens, but there are others in the zeiss/blad line up that are sharper and with less distortion. FACT.

As a system, the Zeiss/Hasselblad system is one of the best out there. Like all lens systems, there are some lenses that are not so great performance wise, some that are great, and some that are just legendary.

.02

 

[André E.C.]

Kristofer stands correct and it seems to me, nobody here told him he wasn't, but Kristofer don't know the optics available to his system, because if he did, he would use the bloody right optic for a specialized task instead of trashing a humble general purpose optic, that's a fact.

It's ridiculous an individual just pick up the wrong tool for a specific end and then blame the tool for not performing well.

If one doesn't know about the characteristics of the optic, one should maybe learn about before doing a test or taking such a strong stance, if he does know about the strengths an limitations of the Planar 80, then he just came and search for what with this text?

Again, the Planar 80 isn't a highly corrected optic, for precision work as for example, copy work, please select the Planar 100 or 120mm instead, is this difficult to understand?



Cheers



André

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

Kristofer is right and it seems to me, nobody here told him he wasn't, but Kristofer don't know the optics available to his system, because if he did, he would use the bloody right optic for a specialized task instead of trashing a humble general purpose optic, that's a fact.

It's ridiculous an individual just pick up the wrong tool for a specific end and then blame the tool for not performing well.

If one doesn't know about the characteristics of the optic, one should maybe learn about before doing a test or taking such a strong stance, if he does know about the strengths an limitations of the Planar 80, then he just came and search for what with this text?

Again, the Planar 80 isn't a highly corrected optic, for precision work as for example, copy work, please select the Planar 100 or 120mm instead, is this difficult to understand?



Cheers



André

With all due respect, I think you, and many posters haven't answered the original question: Is the planar 3.5 for Rolleiflex better corrected?

Yes, if I want better correction I will go fo the 100mm, and I told this in the original post (please read the previous posts before saying I don't know my system). However, I asked for advice about a 80 lens and there is a reason for this I prefer normal lenses. And nobody answered this or even tried to answer. All posts were about if I, and others, were right or wrong to believe that the 80 has distorsion or to suggest the 100 120 for replacement.

But everything falled into debate about beliefs about Zeiss, and I must aknowlege, partly because of one of my previous post and I am sorry for this

2nd, I never said I was doing «specialized tasks» I am shooting mainly environmental portraits, and use straight lines in compositions. I like the normal perspective of normal lenses and this is why I like the 80

Finally can we get back to the original question: is the 3.5 Rollei TLR Planar better corrected of not. If you know I would like you to tell me, If you don't know, as me, wait and listen for someone knowlegable who can compare. "Is that difficult to understand" like you say so well...

Now please can we get this thread back on track?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think df cardwell actually addressed that to some extent in his post (#26).

Quoting: "If you to keep the lens, comfort yourself in the fact that designing a relatively short f/2.8 lens (and not a 3.5) with balanced performance, you have to spread the inevitable errors around. And the good news is that there are no 80mm lenses that come close to the low distortion of the Planar."

Personally - I don't have a clue. But I wanted to point to that piece of objective data.

- Thomas

 

[André E.C.]

Kristopher, I can't address the comparison between the optics for Rollei and Hasselblad, I think Slixtiesix use both platforms, maybe he can answer that, I can't.

If you like so much to use normal lenses, then it seems to me the Planar for Hasselblad isn't good enough for you, shoot on the rollei Planar then. Or maybe other optical options, might be a wiser way.

Cheers


André

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

I think df cardwell actually addressed that to some extent in his post (#26).

Quoting: "If you to keep the lens, comfort yourself in the fact that designing a relatively short f/2.8 lens (and not a 3.5) with balanced performance, you have to spread the inevitable errors around. And the good news is that there are no 80mm lenses that come close to the low distortion of the Planar."

Personally - I don't have a clue. But I wanted to point to that piece of objective data.

- Thomas

Thanks,

I still hope that someone with hands on experience will show up!

 

[Slixtiesix]

a^2+b^2=c^2, but I assumed the negative to be 56x56mm

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

a^2+b^2=c^2, but I assumed the negative to be 56x56mm

Maybe you meant cm isteand of mm?

 

[Slixtiesix]

yes of course! made a mistake in the previous post...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with Kris that it looks like there's some barrel distortion in the original photo, and I also agree with DF Cardwell that what I'd do upon noticing that is a more careful test, and I'd also bear in mind the fact that barrel/pincushion distortion can vary with subject distance, and floating element designs can make testing even more complicated.

My solution: if this really drives you nuts as it does me, then shoot large format. Most LF lenses are designed to have very low distortion, and in situations where it really matters--copy work, architecture, and some still life--the slower practice of using a view camera is not a disadvantage, because with any camera you'll want to work carefully and deliberately in these situations, and the view camera gives you more control.

An SLR excels with portraits and dynamic subjects, where 1.5% barrel distortion isn't usually a big concern.

 

[JRJacobs]

With all due respect, I think you, and many posters haven't answered the original question: Is the planar 3.5 for Rolleiflex better corrected?

Kristopher - if this mild of a distortion bothers you, I would suggest that the parallax error in a Rolleiflex would drive you insane.

You really should consider a large format camera as I and others have suggested - it is the only way to achieve the type of perfections you seem to desire.