Is The Hasselblad 100mm f/3.5 Worth Owning?

[Alexander6x6]

I never said it performs poorly, I said „It has good sharpness up to the corners, quite low distortion and as mentioned a nice rendering, but in terms of resolution it can’t match the best lenses.“

The Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7 lenses are noticeably higher resolution, unfortunately they do not work on a Hasselblad and are not macro lenses

Can you provide any sources that prove this through side-by-side comparisons? I am asking about that, because this is the first time I have seen this opinion.

From what I have read, the Hasselblad Planar 100 and Superachromat 250 are proven to be the sharpest lenses in the analogue era of professional photography. The Hasselblad Distagon 40 IF, released in 2003, has a proven resolution of up to 200 lpmm on microfilm.

The Mamiya 67 was the main competitor of the Hasselblad. Although this system's resolution was not initially as high as Hasselblad's, professional photographers preferred it just for its larger 6x7 frame compared to the 6x4.5. However, the RZ system was continuously improved, resulting in extremely good floating-system lenses.

The Contax 645 120mm macro also is higher resolution than the Hasselblad 120mm macro.

No wonder, this lens was the improvement of Hasselblad Makro Planar by adding the apochromatic lens elements and floating system.

For digital medium format sensors, there are quite a few modern lenses with significantly higher resolution on macro distances.

I doubt it is 'significantly higher'; otherwise, it would be mentioned in the technical specifications. Image flatness is just much better improved at 1:1 scale.
Unfortunately, a smart adapter is required for aperture control when using it on mirrorless digital cameras.

I think we agree that the Hasselblad 120mm is the best lens for macro photography on a 500 series body though.

From my own experience, I would also say that the Makro-Planar is one of the best tilt-shift lenses for still life and macro photography with a digital medium format sensor.

 

[Arthurwg]

The Mamiya 67 was the main competitor of the Hasselblad. Although this system's resolution was not initially as high as Hasselblad's, professional photographers preferred it just for its larger 6x7 frame compared to the 6x4.5. However, the RZ system was continuously improved, resulting in extremely good floating-system lenses.

The later K/L series for the RB 67 are supposedly a significant improvement over the earlier lenses, and the Sekor Z series for the RZ cameras better still.

 

[Alexander6x6]

The later K/L series for the RB 67 are supposedly a significant improvement over the earlier lenses, and the Sekor Z series for the RZ cameras better still.

Both RB and RZ were improved. The RZ lenses were labeled as Mamiya M. APO versions
Some lenses were made for only one system:
K/L 90mm/3.5 and K/L 75mm/3.5 - both with the Floating System - were made only for RB system.
M ULD 50mm (FS as well) was made only for RZ system.
M 180 SOFT for RZ system only, but I am not quite sure.

All new lenses (see below), which I have tested on digital sensor, are extremely contrast, tack sharp and completely free of visual chromatic aberration:
M 50mm ULD with FS
K/L 90mm with FS
M 140 L/A with FS Macro
M 180 SOFT (starting from f8 performs as normal lens)
Z 210 APO
K/L 350 APO
Z 500 APO

 

[Lachlan Young]

the Hasselblad Planar 100 and Superachromat 250 are proven to be the sharpest lenses in the analogue era of professional photography

In the late 1960s, maybe. Within 10-15 years, everyone else was rapidly catching up on the Zeiss model of very high contrast response at low frequencies. Barring the FLE lenses and a few specialist telephotos, much of the Hasselblad/ Zeiss leaf-shutter range seems to have been set in stone by the early 1970s (effectively round about the time that the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate failed) - give or take some adjustments over the decades. That many of the lenses still hold up 50+ years later speaks very highly of how well done the designs were.

What is interesting to speculate is where things would have gone had the Zeiss/ Pentax collaboration not failed.

 

[polka]

Do you take all your lenses with you when you go shooting ? I don't.

I do not own Hassle-Blade gear, but my MF "holy lens trinity" is composed of a 50mm, a 75mm and a 150mm

Bye, POLKa

 

[Alexander6x6]

In the late 1960s, maybe. Within 10-15 years, everyone else was rapidly catching up on the Zeiss model of very high contrast response at low frequencies. Barring the FLE lenses and a few specialist telephotos, much of the Hasselblad/ Zeiss leaf-shutter range seems to have been set in stone by the early 1970s (effectively round about the time that the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate failed) - give or take some adjustments over the decades. That many of the lenses still hold up 50+ years later speaks very highly of how well done the designs were.

What is interesting to speculate is where things would have gone had the Zeiss/ Pentax collaboration not failed.

I don't know if you're joking, but Hasselblad and Mamiya with its 67 system continuously developed their lenses until around 2005, whereas Pentax stopped (with some exceptions) developing its 67 lenses around 1986. Planar lenses produced in the 2000s had almost zero chromatic aberrations comparing with the previous series.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't know if you're joking, but Hasselblad and Mamiya with its 67 system continuously developed their lenses until around 2005, whereas Pentax stopped (with some exceptions) developing its 67 lenses around 1986. Planar lenses produced in the 2000s had almost zero chromatic aberrations comparing with the previous series.

Outside of the 40 & 50mm FLE redesigns (there's a couple of others that could have done with a revision too, at least from my experience with negs/ transparencies from them) & a handful of other revisions done for either budget options or environmental necessity (in neither instance necessarily prioritising central performance over across the field performance) - Zeiss does not appear to have fundamentally updated (and it will have largely been on Hasselblad's asking, not their own volition) many of the lenses that they first drew up from the late 1950s onwards - and while manufacturing tolerances got tighter, T* coating came online and some small glass changes will have occurred, even a brief look at their own MTF's shows that the differences were often remarkably small - small enough that under a controlled test using real world imagery, most people would struggle to tell the difference - which is a different thing from the fan service some marketing departments like to indulge in.

As it stands, Zeiss got things sufficiently right from day 1, and some others took 20-30 years to really catch up (Mamiya for example). It doesn't mean that the Zeiss lenses are the 'best' under any sort of pseudotechnical test, and that a lot of the more attractive aspects of their rendering relates to the high MTF at low frequencies, but not overbearingly so (unlike some modern MTF designed lenses from the 90s onwards). It's also worth noting that the one of the last completely new lenses for the Hasselblad V system was a Fuji made zoom - on the cusp of the Fuji/ Hasselblad collaboration for the H-series/ GX645.

What I was referring to with Pentax and Zeiss was an abortive collaboration from the early 1970s (before Zeiss went with Yashica) that produced the 15mm f3.5 for 35mm and some other prototypes. I imagine that neither Hasselblad or Rollei were pleased about what the implications would mean for medium format & made their displeasure very clear to the powers that mattered at Zeiss. Pentax were apparently the company who Zeiss seemed to respect the most as a competitor at that time - and real-world, the classic P67 glass can hold up to the equivalent era Hasselblad lenses remarkably well (or best them, in the view of some who used both systems side-by-side on commercial work with decent budgets - and it wasn't to do with the P67's greater image area). And while the 100 Planar and 250 Superachromat may have been exceptional in their day, they weren't the lenses most Hasselblad users were buying.

 

[chuckroast]

Outside of the 40 & 50mm FLE redesigns (there's a couple of others that could have done with a revision too, at least from my experience with negs/ transparencies from them) & a handful of other revisions done for either budget options or environmental necessity (in neither instance necessarily prioritising central performance over across the field performance) - Zeiss does not appear to have fundamentally updated (and it will have largely been on Hasselblad's asking, not their own volition) many of the lenses that they first drew up from the late 1950s onwards - and while manufacturing tolerances got tighter, T* coating came online and some small glass changes will have occurred, even a brief look at their own MTF's shows that the differences were often remarkably small - small enough that under a controlled test using real world imagery, most people would struggle to tell the difference - which is a different thing from the fan service some marketing departments like to indulge in.

As it stands, Zeiss got things sufficiently right from day 1, and some others took 20-30 years to really catch up (Mamiya for example). It doesn't mean that the Zeiss lenses are the 'best' under any sort of pseudotechnical test, and that a lot of the more attractive aspects of their rendering relates to the high MTF at low frequencies, but not overbearingly so (unlike some modern MTF designed lenses from the 90s onwards). It's also worth noting that the one of the last completely new lenses for the Hasselblad V system was a Fuji made zoom - on the cusp of the Fuji/ Hasselblad collaboration for the H-series/ GX645.

What I was referring to with Pentax and Zeiss was an abortive collaboration from the early 1970s (before Zeiss went with Yashica) that produced the 15mm f3.5 for 35mm and some other prototypes. I imagine that neither Hasselblad or Rollei were pleased about what the implications would mean for medium format & made their displeasure very clear to the powers that mattered at Zeiss. Pentax were apparently the company who Zeiss seemed to respect the most as a competitor at that time - and real-world, the classic P67 glass can hold up to the equivalent era Hasselblad lenses remarkably well (or best them, in the view of some who used both systems side-by-side on commercial work with decent budgets - and it wasn't to do with the P67's greater image area). And while the 100 Planar and 250 Superachromat may have been exceptional in their day, they weren't the lenses most Hasselblad users were buying.

I've used one lens or another that spanned the original C lenses, through T*, through CF T*, through CFi. My experience is consistent with your commentary - even at enlargement up to 16x16 prints, I would be hard pressed to see the difference between the performance of these lenses across generations. In fairness, this was only with monochrome and I don't generally shoot into high specular reflective environments, but the differences seem minor and of interest only to lens designers and spec collectors.

I also shot with the Mamiya 7 43mm. An astonishingly good lens. But is 'better' than, say, the 40mm C Distagon? I couldn't see the difference at nominal 16x20 magnification (monochrome film again), let alone the 40mm FLE CF T*.

In any case, I seriously doubt any of us are actually limited by lens performance. Mostly, the lenses can handle anything we throw at them. And old can be very, very good. I have an uncoated 50mm Elmar for my Leicas as well as an uncoated 10.5 cm Zeiss Jenna lens on an old folder. Yeah, in certain settings, the lack of coating can show up (often as a beautiful aesthetic), but in general use, they are sharp and contrasty and entirely usable.