MTF of Hasselblad/Schneider Variogon CF 140-280mm f/5.6

[alentine]

Manufactured by Schneider, the first ever medium format zoom. Zeiss, which mad all Hasselblad lenses, did not accept the challenge to make this 2X long zoom lens, could it be a quality control issue?
Anyway, not the subject of this thread.
The lens has much positive personal feedback than negative. But no formal test or review I have found.
http://www.photographyreview.com/product/lenses/medium-format/hasselblad/cf-f-5-6-140-280mm.html
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/hasselblad-variogon-140-280mm-5-6-cf-lens-a-good-lens.214225/
Schneider claims it's comparable to the best equivalent fixed focal lenses. If true, it deserves every 1$ more than any Zeiss from 120mm to 300mm!
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/LDS/Variogon.pdf
Why not? Pentax 55-100 short zoom, is highly regarded even among other fixed focal length lenses in Pentax 6x7.
But, again no MTF provided for the Variogon!
Have two queries, one is the MTF to start with, at least to compare with other Schneider lenses if not Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses.
Second one is, how it compare to Hasselblad Tele-Tessar CF 350mm f/5.6?
I know they are not equivalent, but just an opinion about how sharp at 280mm compared to the 350mm lens, or linking to a test or review, is enough.
Thanks for sharing your opinions or real experiences.

 

[MattKing]

Zeiss, which mad all Hasselblad lenses

Weren't the first Hasselblad lenses made by Kodak?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Weren't the first Hasselblad lenses made by Kodak?

Yes, for the 1600 and 1000 models, not for the Series V cameras because their prices were too high.

 

[mike c]

I remember when the Varagon first came out, all most bought one but the cost back then was around $2,300.00 and it is kind of achward to use, needs a gun stock or tripod.Do not know how the lens preforms but it has some nice features .

 

[alentine]

.
Zeiss, which mad all Hasselblad lenses,
.

Weren't the first Hasselblad lenses made by Kodak?

Actually, Kodak did not make all Hasselblad V system lenses.
Schneider, did not make all Hasselblad V system lenses, also.
Zeiss, made all Hasselblad V system lenses, except Variogon and Fuji FE 60-120 - zoom lens, as far as I know.
Thanks Matt.

 

[alentine]

I remember when the Varagon first came out, all most bought one but the cost back then was around $2,300.00 and it is kind of achward to use, needs a gun stock or tripod.Do not know how the lens preforms but it has some nice features .

Thanks mike.
Still few good samples approaching 2K$ to $3K on ebay, but otherwise the price of shutterless ones is much lower.

 

[alentine]

Ok, thanks everybody.
Found this, it gives some idea, but not for the extreme FL of the lens(140mm & 280mm).
The following MTF is for the Variogon of Rolleiflex(I think the same design as for Hasselblad) and at 210mm Only.
Please correct me if it is not the same design.
Obtained from:
http://rolleiflexpages.com/lenscharts.html
http://rolleiflexpages.com/index.html
Thanks Pascal for the great work.
The lens looks better than the Tele-Tessar CF 350mm, but not confident!
Wish I have the MTF of Variogon at 280mm for a better comparison with Tele-Tessar 350mm.
I believe, Schneider is choosing the sweetest spot of Focal Length(210mm), for Variogon MTF, though mathematically, it's at the mid-point between 140mm and 280mm.
BTW, asking to compare prices, not to judge every Tele-Tessar/Variogon lens.
Will comeback again if I or someone found more useful info.
Thanks again.

 

[alentine]

For reference, MTF of Hasselblad Tele-Tessar CF 350mm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would like to see/have a pdf of the CF 50mm lens. I can only find the CFLE version which is not the same.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Manufactured by Schneider, the first ever medium format zoom. Zeiss, which mad all Hasselblad lenses, did not accept the challenge to make this 2X long zoom lens, could it be a quality control issue?
Anyway, not the subject of this thread.
The lens has much positive personal feedback than negative. But no formal test or review I have found.
http://www.photographyreview.com/product/lenses/medium-format/hasselblad/cf-f-5-6-140-280mm.html
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/hasselblad-variogon-140-280mm-5-6-cf-lens-a-good-lens.214225/
Schneider claims it's comparable to the best equivalent fixed focal lenses. If true, it deserves every 1$ more than any Zeiss from 120mm to 300mm!
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/LDS/Variogon.pdf
Why not? Pentax 55-100 short zoom, is highly regarded even among other fixed focal length lenses in Pentax 6x7.
But, again no MTF provided for the Variogon!
Have two queries, one is the MTF to start with, at least to compare with other Schneider lenses if not Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses.
Second one is, how it compare to Hasselblad Tele-Tessar CF 350mm f/5.6?
I know they are not equivalent, but just an opinion about how sharp at 280mm compared to the 350mm lens, or linking to a test or review, is enough.
Thanks for sharing your opinions or real experiences.

Simple question: what purpose do you need these lenses for & how much weight & bulk are you prepared to put up with? Have encountered a Variogon & it's a bit of a beast of a lens - is the 30% weight gain over the 350 worth being able to avoid carrying 150/250/350?

Hasselblad wouldn't have put their name on the lens if they didn't feel the lens was up to their standards at the time.

 

[Eric Rose]

The only useful test data as far as I'm concerned is a print taken with the lens in question.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have enough optics design experience to appreciate MTF curves.

 

[Eric Rose]

I have never been able to understand MTF charts. However some lens people say are dogs when they look at the MTF I find to be really great. Go figure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Look at how fast they drop off from left to right. Look at the 100mm CF lens. Then look at the 30mm fisheye to see examples of the extremes.

 

[Eric Rose]

Look at how fast they drop off from left to right. Look at the 100mm CF lens. Then look at the 30mm fisheye to see examples of the extremes.

That much I understand. I have to deal with so much techie stuff in other areas of my life I generally don't bother with it when it comes to my creative endeavors. I know I shouldn't admit to this as my Photrio / APUG cred will be destroyed lol.

 

[GLS]

That much I understand. I have to deal with so much techie stuff in other areas of my life I generally don't bother with it when it comes to my creative endeavors. I know I shouldn't admit to this as my Photrio / APUG cred will be destroyed lol.

MTFs are worth investing a bit of time in understanding, as they can tell you a remarkable amount about the performance of the lens. This is doubly true of Zeiss lenses, as unlike many manufacturers they publish the real, measured MTFs of actual lenses (rather than MTFs merely calculated from the optical formula). There's a good article on it here:

https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts

 

[alentine]

I would like to see/have a pdf of the CF 50mm lens. I can only find the CFLE version which is not the same.

It's the same as Hasselblad C, I think.
Hasselblad continued to use the same "C" design for sometime in the "CF" era, before adopting the FLE design.
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx
MTF & C design:
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/C50.pdf
Thanks Sirius for reviving the thread.

 

[alentine]

Simple question: what purpose do you need these lenses for & how much weight & bulk are you prepared to put up with? Have encountered a Variogon & it's a bit of a beast of a lens - is the 30% weight gain over the 350 worth being able to avoid carrying 150/250/350?

Thanks Lachlan.
That could be correct if weight is the only consideration, though I doubt Variogon is heavier than the three lenses.
Sonar 250 and Tele-Tessar 350 are not among the best performers.
This is the reason why MTF of Variogon at 280mm is very Important to read.

Hasselblad wouldn't have put their name on the lens if they didn't feel the lens was up to their standards at the time.

Specially with lens making, very wide spectrum of lens focal lengths, and like other manufacturer, even Leica, standards are wide enough to notice gaps in performance.
If we considered Planar 100mm and SWC at the top of performance, Sonar 250 and Tele-tessar 350 should be at the bottom of the acceptable standard zone.
MTF of Tele-tessar 350mm is attached in post number 8 above. It's clear to me at least, it will not produce as good images as usually expected from Zeiss without some sort of filteration.
Thanks indeed Lachlan.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's the same as Hasselblad C, I think.
Hasselblad continued to use the same "C" design for sometime in the "CF" era, before adopting the FLE design.
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx
MTF & C design:
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/C50.pdf
Thanks Sirius for reviving the thread.

Thank you.

 

[alentine]

The only useful test data as far as I'm concerned is a print taken with the lens in question.

Eric, that's only true if you own the lens/lenses you would like to compare or test. It could also explore sample to sample variations, when you have more than one lens.
But, if you do not have the lens! What to do?
I think the fastest way to make a trouble, is to pay much money for a lens, before looking for info about its performance.
As far as I know, Zeiss MTF is well correlated to the actual performance on film/print. Just a correct interpretation of actual MTF(not the calculated MTF) from reliable maker. It needs also a reference, a previous owned lens with its performance on print known, and MTF from the same maker.

 

[Sirius Glass]

MTFs are worth investing a bit of time in understanding, as they can tell you a remarkable amount about the performance of the lens. This is doubly true of Zeiss lenses, as unlike many manufacturers they publish the real, measured MTFs of actual lenses (rather than MTFs merely calculated from the optical formula). There's a good article on it here:

https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts

Thank you. The article and associated articles explain the basics for understanding MTF curves.