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.

 

[Alexander6x6]

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.

The differences are clearly to see on the digital sensor. I have compared the Distagon 50/2.8 from 1980s with the one from 1990s. The difference was in much less chromatic aberrations of the newer version.

 

[chuckroast]

The differences are clearly to see on the digital sensor. I have compared the Distagon 50/2.8 from 1980s with the one from 1990s. The difference was in much less chromatic aberrations of the newer version.

I'm sure that's true. But you may note that your are in the "Analog Equipment" section of this Forum and anything discussed here is in that context. not in context of anything digital.

(Personally, if I were inclined to pursue digital seriously (I am not), I'd prefer an entire ecosystem optimized for that task rather than try to repurpose older analog glass. But that said, I've had good outcomes shooting older Nikon AIS glass on a 24 Mpix D750 body.)

 

[cowanw]

Chromatic aberrations were used in some soft focus lenses a century ago. one should see these even on a B&W analogue print.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The differences are clearly to see on the digital sensor. I have compared the Distagon 50/2.8 from 1980s with the one from 1990s. The difference was in much less chromatic aberrations of the newer version.

They seem to have quietly slightly revised the 50/2.8 at the point it shifted from F to FE. The 50mm FLE for the leaf shutter cameras also appeared around the same point.

Given the pretty low production volumes of the focal plane Hasselblads and Zeiss' quite large minimum order demands, it's entirely likely that each batch of glass for the 50/2.8 lasted for several years' production - and at the point that a new batch of glass needed to be ordered for the 50/2.8, Hasselblad asked for some slight adjustments to be made, coincident with introducing a databus into the lens (it's also worth remembering that Hasselblad were already deeply involved in digital imaging by that point around 1990). In other words, it still stands that while a few lenses got some slight adjustments and a few got redesigned, the majority of Hasselblad lenses did not get significantly revised after the majority of them had been launched by the early 1970s.

 

[Slixtiesix]

The differences are clearly to see on the digital sensor. I have compared the Distagon 50/2.8 from 1980s with the one from 1990s. The difference was in much less chromatic aberrations of the newer version.

This was the version with the shorter barrel that is more rounded at the front?

 

[Alexander6x6]

This was the version with the shorter barrel that is more rounded at the front?

Exactly this one.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Chromatic aberrations were used in some soft focus lenses a century ago. one should see these even on a B&W analogue print.

Chromatic aberrations are caused by the cover glass and sensor stack, which significantly increase CA that appearing at the edges of the image frame. Additionally, the high thickness of film emulsions tends to exacerbate these effects.

 

[Alexander6x6]

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.

You are right about the budget options like CB series, but it affected just 3 lenses (60, 80 and 160). I am still convinced that Zeiss was constantly developing and improving its lenses, and did not stop in late 60's as you suggest.

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.

Here is the list of the lenses which were designed/improved for Hasselblad after 1972:

F-Distagon 24/3.5 IHI
Distagon 40 FLE
Distagon 40 IF
Distagon 50/2.8 FLE (two optical designs)
Planar 110/2
Sonnar 150/2.8
Tele-Tessar 250/4
Tele-Tessar 350/4
Superachromat 300/2.8 FLE
Superachromat 350/5.6 FLE
Tele-Apotessar 500/8

Makro Planar 120 was further developed resulting in apochromatic version with the FLE for Contax 645.

I suggest that the zoom lenses did not align with Zeiss's philosophy of providing high-quality lenses ("prime lenses are always better than zoom lenses"). That's why both zoom lenses were produced by other companies: The 60-120 was produced by Fujifilm, and the 140-280 was produced by Schneider Kreuznach.

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).

I heard from a German professional photographer that in the 1980s and 1990s, the main competitor of Hasselblad was the Mamiya 67. The resolution of Mamiya lenses was close to Hasselblad, but the 6x7 format had more potential comparing with the 6x4.5 crop of Hasselblad images.

Couple years ago I have seen side-to-side comparison of Pentax 55mm shift with Mamiya ULD 50mm on medium format sensor. Pentax lens was generally not as good as ULD 50: it was not as sharp and had a bunch of chromatic aberrations.

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.

Regardless of this, these lenses (together with the Distagon 40 IF) are considered to be the sharpest in the Hasselblad system.

 

[Alexander6x6]

I'm sure that's true. But you may note that your are in the "Analog Equipment" section of this Forum and anything discussed here is in that context. not in context of anything digital.

(Personally, if I were inclined to pursue digital seriously (I am not), I'd prefer an entire ecosystem optimized for that task rather than try to repurpose older analog glass. But that said, I've had good outcomes shooting older Nikon AIS glass on a 24 Mpix D750 body.)

I have already asked the forum moderator about this issue with their policy, and he is fine with it.
From my experience, it doesn't make much sense to start such kind of discussion in the digital section of this forum because the main reason people use MF lenses there, is usually budget-related, not analog medium format legacy-related. I would rather hear the opinions of people who used their MF lenses for years before buying digital cameras.

 

[Alexander6x6]

They seem to have quietly slightly revised the 50/2.8 at the point it shifted from F to FE. The 50mm FLE for the leaf shutter cameras also appeared around the same point.

Almost all improvements were made by Zeiss quietly. We should thank Pentax for its extensive SMC advertising; otherwise, we would never have learned about the Zeiss T* coating.

Given the pretty low production volumes of the focal plane Hasselblads and Zeiss' quite large minimum order demands, it's entirely likely that each batch of glass for the 50/2.8 lasted for several years' production - and at the point that a new batch of glass needed to be ordered for the 50/2.8, Hasselblad asked for some slight adjustments to be made, coincident with introducing a databus into the lens (it's also worth remembering that Hasselblad were already deeply involved in digital imaging by that point around 1990). In other words, it still stands that while a few lenses got some slight adjustments and a few got redesigned, the majority of Hasselblad lenses did not get significantly revised after the majority of them had been launched by the early 1970s.

The newer 50/2.8 has a shorter helicoid extension meaning the the whole lens design was completely revised.

In addition to the list of newly developed and improved Hasselblad lenses I previously posted, in 2005 Sinar introduced 4 Sinaron Digital AF lenses for its Sinar M system. These lenses, which were certified by Sinar for digital photography, were further improvement of Distagon 40 IF, Planar 80, Makro Planar 120 and Sonnar 180.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/EiUAAOSwNKBneXf0/s-l1600.webp

 

[chuckroast]

I have already asked the forum moderator about this issue with their policy, and he is fine with it.
From my experience, it doesn't make much sense to start such kind of discussion in the digital section of this forum because the main reason people use MF lenses there, is usually budget-related, not analog medium format legacy-related. I would rather hear the opinions of people who used their MF lenses for years before buying digital cameras.

Fair enough.

 

[Arthurwg]

You are right about the budget options like CB series, but it affected just 3 lenses (60, 80 and 160). I am still convinced that Zeiss was constantly developing and improving its lenses, and did not stop in late 60's as you suggest.

Note that unlike the other CB lenses, the 60mm is optically identical to the CF version, but lacks a few bells and whistles.

 

[cowanw]

I suggest that the zoom lenses did not align with Zeiss's philosophy of providing high-quality lenses ("prime lenses are always better than zoom lenses"). That's why both zoom lenses were produced by other companies: The 60-120 was produced by Fujifilm, and the 140-280 was produced by Schneider Kreuznach.

Or possibly the 60-120 FE f4.8 was by Kyocera

 

[Slixtiesix]

Alexander, you forgot the Sonnar 180/4 in your list, it was introduced around 1990.

The 110/2 Planar, which all in all underwent five generations, was also slightly redesigned in 1999. Two elements that had been air spaced in the previous design were now cemented together. According to Zeiss, this had been done to make centering easier and more reproducible. I once tested a 1st, 4th and 5th generation 110/2 Planar (from a friend's collection) with a digital sensor and we were surprised that the 1st and 5th generation proved practically indistinguishable. The 4th generation was very slightly behind at full aperture, but probably because it was a bit of a "beater" lens.

 

[Lachlan Young]

F-Distagon 24/3.5 IHI

This was an ultra specialist lens, thus of limited relevance

Distagon 40 FLE
Distagon 40 IF

These became more important, not least because the competition started to make more compact ultra-wides with floating elements, and then digital sensors required lenses more like these, as the Biogon isn't ideal. The Biogon got a significant performance change late-on to make it unleaded. The same overall comments may have relevance to the late era Sinar branded lenses that got adjusted - it may have had as much to do with removing leaded glass (the 80 was a full redesign as I understand it) and adjusting spacing of elements to better suit the sensor size. Batch sizes and more efficient production (and not having to deal with a fixed spacing for a leaf shutter mechanism) all will have made such things more feasible, rather than the large volumes (thousands of a given lens at a time) that Zeiss seemingly demanded in an earlier era.

While you mention alterations to the Makro-Planar, you seem to have omitted the two most important revisions within the mainstream of the Zeiss/ Hasselblad system - the Makro-Planar 120 replacing the S-Planar 120, and the major redesign of the 50/4 Distagon to deliver FLE correction.

Those two lenses, plus the revisits to the 40 Distagon were the really major redesigns within the time period on lenses that mattered to the real-world professional end users, rather than the tiny market halo-lenses that existed mainly for marketing and a tiny number of specialist users.

The other point is that by the time that Zeiss themselves seem to have wanted to revise some of the older designs (or effectively did so for the Contax 645) by the late 1990s, Hasselblad had jumped ship to Fuji. There is probably a reasonable conjecture about whether some of the lenses for the Contax 645 had originally been intended for a Hasselblad collaboration instead.

Distagon 50/2.8 FLE (two optical designs)
Planar 110/2
Sonnar 150/2.8
Tele-Tessar 250/4
Tele-Tessar 350/4

Again, these did not sell a great deal to the mainstream of Hasselblad's customer base who might otherwise buy an RB or RZ - when you look at it rationally, it was clearly an attempt to respond to both the advent of focal plane shutter 645 systems and the Pentax 67's fast glass. The TCC/ FCC was pretty clearly an attempt to rebrand them for a well-heeled sector who might otherwise spend their hobby money on a 4x5. And if you bought an RZ you got a bigger neg that would not tempt art directors to make ill-informed crops, a lens almost as fast as the 110 from Hasselblad and a leaf shutter.

Superachromat 300/2.8 FLE

Tiny numbers made, designed by a member of this forum.

Superachromat 350/5.6 FLE
Tele-Apotessar 500/8

Again, specialist glass - how many were sold to working professionals other than as tax write-offs? Hasselblad had other markets that wanted the performance, but these weren't the lenses that mattered in the competition for the sales volumes that made a difference to the bottom line. They were up against Mamiya and Pentax who had shown they were perfectly capable of delivering just as fast or faster lenses loaded with ULD glass. However, the market that bought blimped, motorised, 70mm backed Hasselblads would have had interests here.


The reality is that up until the launch of the RZ67 (and the Bronica SQ getting more market penetration and the PS revisions), Hasselblad unquestionably had the better set of mainstream lenses within the leaf shutter 120 SLR market - not the whole 120 SLR market. I think they got a bit complacent, their interests went to other sectors, and by 1990 they were starting to have to play catch up as their competitors were equalling/ besting them on a couple of the key focal lengths. Within a few years, they had clearly decided that the limitations of the Zeiss system were not particularly worth their while. By the end of the 1990s pretty much anyone was capable of making the same standard of lenses, and very quickly compared to even a decade earlier - which meant that the environmental recalculations were more feasible (or at least their costs could be amortised reasonably).

Couple years ago I have seen side-to-side comparison of Pentax 55mm shift with Mamiya ULD 50mm on medium format sensor

Not an equivalent test by any measure - if it was the 75mm shift Pentax, that lens is designed to cover a lot more than a regular 50 - and if it was the 55mm Pentax 67 lens, there's 3 quite different ones. In other words you are trying to make a judgement about these lenses on the same basis that you are intent on not having applied to the mainstream 'set' (50/80/120/150/250, with 60 & 100 as less common alternatives) of Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses.

you forgot the Sonnar 180/4 in your list, it was introduced around 1990.

Unlike all the specialist market lenses, this one was clearly aimed at the professional market as a necessary gap-filler.

The 110/2 Planar, which all in all underwent five generations

The real question is if those generations simply signified each time Zeiss made a batch of the glass components - with whatever adjustments for external factors those time intervals had caused.