The Zeiss 250 5.6 Sonnar for Hasselblad

brucemuir · May 22, 2010

Hey folks,

I have a 500C/M with split rangefinder & microprism and have wanted a 250 Sonnar for a few years now but managed to resist the temptation several times.

Does the 5.6 aperture black out one side of the split and how bad does the mirror vignette on the 500 C/M

I have the 150 Sonnar and have adjusted to composing despite the slight mirror vignette but am wondering how bad the 250 is without the gliding mirror system on the 501.

Thanks for sharing your experiences in advance.

Q.G. · May 23, 2010

The split image rangefinder will black out, yes.

The viewfinder vignetting is at it's maximum with this lens: an arch on the top of the viewfinder, about 5 mm in the middle, a few mm more near the edges.

I use this lens a lot, and though i do like the cameras with larger mirror for precise framing, i found it not a big problem with cameras with the old, short mirror.
Do i must admit that more than once i found afterwards that when rushed, i composed inside the visible bit of the viewfinder image...
I put marks on a focussing screen, indicating the edge of the vignetting. Put that screen in 'upside down', i.e. with the marks not on the top of the image, but at the bottom, and then knew how far to tilt the camera up to see what is covered by the vignetting, where the true cut-off of the frame would be.

This Sonnar is a very good lens.
No need to stop it down. Which is good, considering the f/5.6 maximum aperture.

brucemuir · May 23, 2010

I cant beleive I spelled Zeiss wrong and there is no way too change a title...

haha well I've done worse.

Yea I always heard the 250 Sonnar like the 203 Ektar on 4x5 performed near or at peak wide open so that's great to get confirmation.
I have adjusted using my 500c/m and 150 pretty well but I was playing with my Proxars the other day and did chop into the image a tad. I'm sure I'll get used to 250.

I just hope I don't have to spring for a Accute Matte D to focus it.

On a side note, I'm wondering why the Proxars get a bad rap and were discountinued because I was quite pleased with results on a Planar and the 150.

Sirius Glass · May 23, 2010

brucemuir said:
I have a 500C/M with split rangefinder & microprism and have wanted a 250 Sonnar for a few years now but managed to resist the temptation several times.

Does the 5.6 aperture black out one side of the split and how bad does the mirror vignette on the 500 C/M

I have the 150mm and the 250mm lenses. Yes, the one side of the split will black out if your eye is not perfectly aligned. I adjust to it, but when the local camera store was dumping its Hasselblad equipment I bought the Accumat D screen with cross-hairs and not split image for not much money. I also pick up one of each of the B60 filters and Softars for about $10 each.

I use the 250mm lens much more than the 150mm lens.

Steve

Dan Henderson · May 24, 2010

I have the 250 lens, and I think that mine, at least, is decidedly inferior to my old, chrome 150 CF lens. Negatives from this lens are not nearly as sharp as those from the 150. I only used it when there was just no way to get close enough to compose the picture with the 150. Otherwise it remains ballast in the bottom of the camera bag.

brucemuir · May 24, 2010

Dan Henderson said:
. I only used it when there was just no way to get close enough to compose the picture with the 150.

I was under the impression the minimum focussing distance of the 250 gets you the same (roughly) area so for tight portraits or flat work at minimum focus distance the only difference is perspective? ? ?

Am I correct?

Q.G. · May 24, 2010

brucemuir said:
I was under the impression the minimum focussing distance of the 250 gets you the same (roughly) area so for tight portraits or flat work at minimum focus distance the only difference is perspective? ? ?

Am I correct?

You are.
40 cm square using the 150 mm lens, 44 cm square using the 250 mm lens at their close focus limits.

The 150 mm lens is a bit better, stopped down moderately (wide open there is absolutely nothing between them), than the 250 mm lens. But really not much at all. Nothing you would notice.
So i'd certainly say that saying the 250 mm is "decidedly inferior" is decidedly way off the mark.

David A. Goldfarb · May 24, 2010

Title fixed.

BrianShaw · May 24, 2010

Herr Zeiss is resting a little easier now!

brucemuir · May 26, 2010

Okay, received my 250 C T* and glass is pristine cosmetics not bad at all.

Looks like this may be for tripod only or at least 1/500 when handheld.
Anyone shooting handheld with the 250?

How does it perform at minimum focus distance? I'm about to test mine out and if I'm correct (thanks Q.G.) I need roughly .6 exposure comp at mfd?

I have older 10 and 21mm tubes so if I use the 21mm tube at MFD 1 stop should cover me correct?
I flunked math

Q.G. · May 26, 2010

Try this online close-up calculator.

The lens itself does indeed need 0.59 stops at close focus limit.
With 10 tube (and the lens fully 'racked out'), it's 0.75 stops.
With the 21 mm tube (same) it's 0.92 stops.
Both (and the lens still fully extended) need 1.06 stops.

Having used this lens a lot (still doing so), i have indeed also used it hand held (even though i believe in using tripods whenever possible, it's not always possible).
Look for any kind of support available you can rest the lens, the camera, yourself and any combination of these on or against.
I wouldn't dare to go slower than 1/500 without support. 1/250 or slower (but not much), depending on what i can lean on and how.
But it also depends on the better-a-less-sharp-photo-than-no-photo-at-all kind of considerations.

brucemuir · May 26, 2010

Thanks Q.G., I'm shooting neg stock and rating Portra NC at 125 so I round off to the higher in half stops and get used to this thing before I do any chromes.

I just loaded the reel and will process the film shortly. I finished off some 220 I had loaded in the 500 C/M and shot wide open and stopped down to 11-16 also some tripod, some on my knee with the wlf.

Should get an idea if I did alright and I'm optimistic.

Now to source a quick focus handle and I'll be good.

Thanks again and I'll report back what I think but I doubt I'll be disappointed.

skahde · May 30, 2010

brucemuir said:
Hey folks,
Does the 5.6 aperture black out one side of the split and how bad does the mirror vignette on the 500 C/M

I use this lens on a 2000fcw (large mirror) with a first generation accute matte. If you move your eye around a bit it's not too difficult to find the point where one part of the split image is slightly blueish and the other slightly reddish but both together pretty much usable. Never bothered me.

Best

Stefan

Dan Henderson · May 31, 2010

brucemuir said:
I was under the impression the minimum focussing distance of the 250 gets you the same (roughly) area so for tight portraits or flat work at minimum focus distance the only difference is perspective? ? ?

Am I correct?

What I meant was that if I could not get close enough to my subject because a body of water or some other obstacle prevented me from getting close enough I would use the 250, not for close focusing.

The Zeiss 250 5.6 Sonnar for Hasselblad

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency