Related Links:
Carl Zeiss T* Lenses [10/2002]
Hasselblad Lens Guide by D.A. Munroe
Hasselblad Mailing List Archives (Dan Cardish)
Hasselblad Related Notes and Postings
Hasselblad Related Posts on Medium Format Digest
How to Buy a Hasselblad by Lance Karp, Mr500CM

Hasselblad lenses are known for their excellent quality and high contrast and resolution. I have five Hasselblad Zeiss lenses, so far, and can vouch for their pro performance. But I find there is a lot of hype about these lenses which seems more related to justifying their high price than explaining their real level of performance. So I am going to deal with some issues here which you probably won't see discussed elsewhere.

What has brought these issues home to me is a series of blind lens tests comparing my Hasselblad (and Rolleiflex) zeiss lenses against other pro quality lenses. The results were not what I expected. Turned out I couldn't reliably tell the high dollar lenses from the lower cost lenses. Even worse, a number of other experienced photographers also found it hard to identify the higher priced lenses in a statistically reliable fashion.

Our blind lens study suggests that people's preferences and brand choice for the top lenses were essentially random, and unrelated to price!

I cite this as a precautionary tale. These top lens ratings tests include all the lens aspects in evaluating a real-world photograph - resolution, contrast, distortion, lens coloration, flare, and subjective factors like bokeh. The most costly lenses were not selected more often than others as the best image makers during these random tests. In other words, the differences in the photos were not as obvious as you would believe if you listen to some of the hype out there. ;-)

This reality may make more sense when you learn how the big price differences are mainly the result of markups and marketing tiers below. The good news is that you can use our tips below to cut out some of those markups, and save thousands of dollars when buying a kit of new Hasselblad lenses.

So get over the idea that your photographs would be noticeably better if only you could afford the most costly lenses. For one thing, even the photos shown in the ads in photo magazines are often not shot with the equipment or brands of lenses being advertised. The people writing those glowing ads know you can't tell the difference between photos shot with their brand or other competitors brands of lenses.

Hasselblad even put little "vees" in their film backs so they could tell when photos were taken with their cameras and lenses for contests they sponsored. In other words, even Hasselblad can't reliably tell if their lenses or some other lens took a photo without having those "vees" in their backs.

So I highly recommend that you perform your own lens tests and evaluations on different brands of lenses, and select the ones that you like best. You may decide you really do like and prefer Zeiss lenses, or Schneiders (e.g., on Rolleiflex) or Bronica lenses. If so, you will have a good basis for your decision based on the tests of different lenses and the ones you own.

I offer the above quote as a warning against taking any given lens test chart or data table too seriously. The chances are very good that the lens may have been "cherry-picked" to provide a high score on these tests. Even worse, lenses vary considerably when new, and years of use and abuse and mis-repairs can cause further variations in performance.

So you really can't just pay a lot of money and rely on the prestige name on the lens to guarantee you have a top performing optic. You simply must test the lens(es) to be sure they meet your needs and haven't been damaged in transit or use.

Lens Variation Study

In our first section below, we will see how two sets of Hasselblad Zeiss lenses for the leaf shutter (500c/m..) and focal plane (200x series) bodies are different. The leaf shutter adds to the cost of the lens (about a third over a lens without leaf shutters). The leaf shutter restricts the size or speed of maximum f/stop which can be used with any given focal length. By contrast, many of the F series focal plane body lenses are up to one stop faster in many cases, thanks to not having to fit a leaf shutter internally.

You might expect that Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses (tested in 1977) and focal plane body lenses (tested in 1980) would be very similar. And as the data shows, you would be wrong. The 80mm lenses (both f/2.8) are quite different, as the graphic helps highlight. Oops! The 150mm lenses are rather more consistent, despite a one stop speed difference between them (f/2.8 vs f/4).

See the reference for a detailed review of the Hasselblad 500c/m and its lenses and accessories. Keep in mind that lens resolution is only one of many parameters that determines lens quality. We use it because it is the easiest to measure. Resolution does relates to major concerns like enlargeability and aberration control and optimal f/stops to use for best (resolution) results.

The above graphics summarize some lens test data in an easy to compare chart showing the F (focal plane body) lenses against the C leaf shutter lenses for 150mm and 80mm samples. I find it interesting that the 80mm f/2.8 lenses are quite different, despite being the same aperture speed, while the 150mm f/4 C and 150mm f/2.8 F lenses have relatively similar curves. Such lens tests can be very useful in selecting optimal f/stops for best resolution.

But this same test data helps support our contention that even new Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad varied considerably between the two F and C lens lines. Again, this isn't surprising, as the same is evidently true for Leica rangefinder (for M rangefinders) versus SLR lenses (for R, SL SLRs), as well as Contax, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and so on.

Variations in New Zeiss C Lenses

The table below is especially interesting if you are on a budget and interested in the performance of the older C series Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. As you can see, they do very well overall. However, keen eyed readers will note a number of just "acceptable" ratings (13) and "good" ratings (14). You can generally select f/stops which will provide ratings of "excellent" and/or "very good", provided you know where these performance differences are on your particular lens. To know that, you have to test your lenses!

See the references for the full review and information on lens testing procedures and standards. I thought it would be fun to provide this table to refute those who believe that expensive lenses by the big name manufacturers like Zeiss and Hasselblad do not vary but are as "alike as two peas in a pod".

The above table shows that not only do Hasselblad Zeiss lenses vary, but that they often vary by quite a lot - meaning not just one rating, but two or even three ratings difference in some caes. Why is this important? If the variations were just one step, you might think that perhaps the lenses were the same, but in one case the lens tester rounded a marginal performance up into the next higher (or lower) category. But when the lens test ratings differ by two or three steps, you can't use this explanation.

In addition, the lower scores tended to be in the same lens, rather than mixed randomly in both lens sample tests. You may also note that the lower scores tended to cluster at the ends of the lens f/stop range, as you might expect if there were some slight misalignment or similar problem.

Pareto Rules!

Pareto's 80/20 rule suggests that you will get 80% of the lens performance for only 20% of the money. The rest of that potential 20% of improved lens performance is going to cost you the bulk or 80% of the cost of the pricey lens. We will look into the cost of lenses and marketing tiers and markups below.

What I would like you to note is how much of the extra cost of better lenses goes towards issues that may be marginal to many owners. Do you really care if your 50mm lens is 50mm +/-0.5mm, or 49.5mm to 50.5mm range? Do you do a lot of shots near the lens minimum focusing distance? If so, then you may benefit from the money spent on improving closeup performance at minimal focusing distances in expensive lenses. If not, then you might not get full benefit out of these expenditures either.

I get amused when I see folks explaining how expensive lenses have been better optimized by computerized design programs and so on. My favorite Hasselblad lens is the Zeiss 38mm Biogon in the Superwide SW/C. This lens was designed without modern computers, yet can hardly be improved up. In fact, the newer versions of this lens have low pollution glasses, mandating a redesign. According to Hasselblad's own MTF charts, the newer lens is just marginally less stellar than the old lenses. Probably you would never see this small difference in your real world shots. But I cite this example as it shows that even new Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad aren't always better than the old.

A related example might be the often maligned CB lens series. I liked the idea of a less costly lens series to better compete with other lens lines. But like many Hasselblad owners, I didn't like a tradeoff where you spent 80%+ of the money to get 85-90% of the performance. From our notes about Pareto's law above, you can see why. The big 80% costs in the expensive lenses are in getting that last 10-20% of the performance. A lens with 85-90% of the performance should probably cost more like two-thirds as much as the top lens. That's about what you see with other lens lines like Bronica's Zenzanon versus Komura, or third party lenses. So getting 90% of the performance for 85% of the price just wasn't enough of a bargain for many Hasselblad buyers. But you might well find a nice but unloved 160mm CB lens at a major discount on the used market, enough to make it a bargain!

Lots of Hasselblad users secretly lust after the APO telephoto Zeiss lenses for their Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes. An APO design brings at least three colors of light together at the film plane in a precise way, rather than just two colors as with the more typical achromatic telephoto lenses designs. So the 250mm APO lens costs thousands more dollars to provide its refined optical performance.

The problem is that achieving these improvements puts a large burden on the user. As the above quote suggests, a very sturdy tripod is just the beginning. Mirror Lockup is also part of the recommended technique, but something which only a minority of photographers routinely use. Focus bracketing means taking a number of shots at slightly different focus points. This technique is necessary because focusing errors are critical in reducing maximum resolution in most shots.

Now if you are not planning on lugging around a "VERY STURDY" tripod, using mirror-lockup, and focus bracketing your shots, chances are good you aren't going to be getting the maximum benefit from the superb correction of these APO lenses. Are you the type to handhold your 250mm lens, or use a monopod instead of a bulky tripod on a climb now and again? If so, then you can join me in being happy with a regular 250mm lens, rather than feeling guilty by under-utilizing the rather more costly 250mm APO version lens.

Schneider 140-280mm Zoom for Hasselblad

See the reference for information on this lens test procedures and standards. The lens showed under 1% barrel distortion at 140mm, changing to under 1% pincushion distortion by 280mm. Overall, the lens lost circa 0.65 stops at both the 140mm and 280mm settings too. You might expect a lot out of a $3,875 zoom lens, and we see some stunning values in the above chart to justify that cost.

The zoom performance at 280mm centrally is simply amazing. As you can see from the test charts below, none of the other single focal length Hasselblad lenses reported below test above 78 lpmm centrally, so the reported 81 lpmm (at f/8) and especially 91 (!) lpmm (at f/11) are stunning. We have to wonder if these are glitches in the data, but it certainly appears that this lens is working very well in terms of central resolution at these f/stops (esp. at >200mm settings).

Unfortunately, these stunningly high central resolution values at 280mm are not matched by high corner resolution. The corner resolution seems to start out and end up rather modest, peaking inbetween (see 210mm corner data). The best balanced performance is at 210mm, where we have high central resolution (72 lpmm) and high edge resolution (45 lpmm) providing excellent overall performance.

The above image helps answer the question of how does the Schneider 140-280mm zoom compare to a fixed focal length lens such as the fast 150mm f/2.8 F series lens listed above? As you can see, the fixed focal length lens beat the zoom, at least at 150mm (280mm might be a different story, at least in central resolution!). But the zoom did relatively poorly against the prime lens in the edges, again, at 150mm settings. Except at f/22, the 150mm beat the zoom (at 140mm) by approx. 5 lpmm centrally and from 14 to 21 lpmm edge resolution (average of 18 lpmm better from f/5.6 to f/16).

An underlying question here is should you consider the zoom lens as a replacement for the Zeiss prime lenses? The answer requires that you consider carefully the impact of those sometimes low corner resolution values on your photographs. Can you live with that? How about the extra weight and bulky size of the big zoom lens? Cost of specialty filters? Do you shoot slides, where a zoom's precise cropping might be useful, or prints, where you can crop during enlarging? Finally, do you need the faster speed of the prime lenses, or can you live with the slower zoom lens (including its impact on focusing ease).

The other problem is that the zoom range is a bit restricted. At best, you might be replacing a 150mm or 180mm lens and the 250mm lens. Most Hasselblad users probably don't have every lens in this range. More problematic, the 250mm C lens was only about 7% of the lenses sold, and it is often found as one of the more affordable Zeiss lenses when bought used. Even worse, it is a surprisingly light lens, and can be used handheld in a pinch with good results. I doubt that the rather heavier and bulky zoom lens would replace it in many such situations.

The zoom does provide that unique capability to zoom in or out during a time exposure, which fixed lenses don't. But my suspicion is that many zoom lens owners already have one or more of the popular fixed lenses in this range. They are buying extra flexibility, but at a price that explains why such zoom lens sales are modest in number.

Zeiss Lenses plus Third Party Teleconverters?

Now that the Hasselblad 500mm f/8 leaf shutter lens has been discontinued, you might wonder how a typical teleconverter such as the Telemore 2X and 250mm f/5.6 standard (not APO) C series lens work as a 500mm f/11 combo? The answer depends on how desperate you are and whether you can live with corners that are marginal at best. If so, then the excellent ratings at f/22 and f/16 and good rating at f/32 might be worthwhile, especially given the modest cost (circa $100-150 US$) for the teleconverter.

We don't have data on the earlier and more pricey Zeiss 2X teleconverter, but by all reports it is rather better, especially in the edges, than the sundry Komura teleconverter variants (under names like Cambron from Cambridge Camera and Vivitar as well as Komura). So if you need or want better edge performance, look into the Zeiss teleconverter as another option.

Lens Ownership

24mm f3.5 F Distagon     - about 50          0.01%
30mm f3.5 F Distagon C   - under 1000        0.24%
40mm f4 Distagon C       - approx. 9,000     2.16%
50mm f4 Distagon C       - approx. 75,000   18.03% 
80mm f2.8 C Planar       - approx. 210,000  50.47%
120mm f5.6 S-Planar      - approx. 14,000    3.36%
150mm f4 Sonnar C        - approx. 70,000   16.82%
250mm f5.6 Sonnar C      - approx. 30,000    7.21%
350mm f5.6 Tele-Tessar C - approx. 3,000     0.72%
500mm f8 Tele-Tessar C   - approx. 4,000     0.96%

Take particular note that half of the Hasselblad lenses sold were the 80mm f/2.8 normal lens. So not every Hasselblad owner has a full kit of lenses. Many of these lenses are specialty lenses which are owned and used by only a handful of serious amateur and professional photographers. Roughly 85% of the lenses sold were either the 80mm normal lens (50.5%), the 150mm telephoto (16.8%), or the 50mm wide angle (18%).

On the basis of this production data and my ownership model, I concluded:

• the average medium format SLR owner probably owns only 2 lenses
• half of all medium format SLR lenses sold are the humble normal lens
• the majority of medium format SLR owners have only the normal lens (~2+ out of 3 owners)
• only ~ a third of medium format SLR owners have the standard lens trio of 50/80/150mm optics
• only ~1/7th or so have 4 or more lenses, and only ~1/15th have 5 or more SLR lenses

The underlying point here is that most Hasselblad owners have only the one 80mm f/2.8 normal lens that came with their camera kit. Surprise! If you have the standard trio of wide angle 50mm, 80mm normal, and 150mm telephoto lenses, you are probably in the lucky top third of Hasselblad lens owners. The obvious reason for this ownership pattern is the high cost of Zeiss lenses, which we will examine below. If you are a 35mm shooter who has grown into a full range of lenses from fisheyes and wide angles to macro and telephoto optics, you may the cost and variety of medium format lenses to be rather limiting and expensive for relatively slow lenses.

A more subtle point is that probably most medium format shooters have only one lens, typically the normal lens. In some cases, their twin lens reflex or folder cameras can't or won't take any other lenses. So you may be quite happy with just the one lens for the majority of your medium format shooting, perhaps relying on a 35mm SLR with macro zoom to handle the other shots?

I make the argument in praising the normal lens that a majority of photographers are content with using the low cost 80mm f/2.8 normal lens that came with the original camera kit. So if you want a Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses, the current cost of a used kit is only $750 on up, including the Zeiss 80mm f/2.8 C lens. If you have just the one lens, you will probably be in the same situation as the majority of Hasselblad owners.

Moreover, you can now add accessories like plain glass prisms (cf. NC-2), metering prisms, and spot metering Kiev prisms at amazingly low prices (like $50 to $150). You can buy Hasselblad compatible Kiev NT auto-backs for circa $100-150, plus polaroid backs and other items. So the cost of a pretty nifty Hasselblad kit with spare back and metering prism under $1,000 is now readily possible.

On the other hand, the Hasselblad mount lenses will still set you back serious money, even on the used market. The older C lenses are getting harder to fix. Some owners see the high price of Zeiss lenses on the used market as a positive point, providing high resale values. But others may see it as a burden to new buyers on a budget, seeking to extend their range by adding more lenses.

So be sure to do a system cost analysis before leaping into a Zeiss lensed kit such as Hasselblad or Rolleiflex.

Lens Cost Model

How can say a 250mm f/5.6 leaf shutter lens for Bronica SQAI (PS) cost only $1,800 at USA mailorder, while a similar 250mm f/5.6 leaf shutter Zeiss lens from Hasselblad cost $3,100 (CF) or a Rollei Zeiss PQS Zeiss lens cost $2,800?

        
Zeiss example-
cost to manufacture:      ~$200+ materials (German)
                          ~$300+ quality control
                          ~$200-$250+ shutter
                   total: ~$800 
             
            Zeiss sells to Hasselblad Sweden:  ~$1,200 (50% markup, $800 * 1.5)
 Hasselblad sells to Hasselblad/USA Importer:  ~$1,800 (")
Hasselblad/USA sells to wholesaler/mailorder:  ~$2,700 (")

versus:

Bronica/Tamron-
cost to manufacture:      ~$200+ materials (Japan)
                          ~$300+ quality control
                          ~$200-$250+ shutter
                   total: ~$800 
Bronica/Tamron sells to Bronica/USA importer:  ~$1,200 (50% markup, $800 * 1.5)
   Bronica/USA sells to wholesaler/mailorder:  ~$1,800 (")

Note: add another 40-50% markup for full retail pricing...

Some examples from Grey Market Guide:

Hasselblad 903SWC. US$3612 from Hong Kong,  B+H price is $4986, retail is circa $6,000
Hasselblad 40mm CF FLE $2532 from Hong Kong (1998)
Hasselblad CF 180mm f4 $1845 from Singapore
Hasselblad 503CW/80CFT* kit from NYC (grey import) $2650 vs. B+H $4211
Hasselblad 203FE body from NYC (grey import) $2850 vs. B+H $5358

Notice that it takes only a single extra 50% markup step between Zeiss and Rollei or Hasselblad to convert a $1,800 lens into a $2,700 lens. Much of the higher price associated with Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses is evidently due to this extra layer of markups rather than any huge difference in price or quality in manufacturing these lenses.

We can also compare Rodenstock lenses in shutters in both Hasselblad mounts (for arcbody) and other lens mounts. Hasselblad appears to add circa 40%+ markup on these items. The same lens and shutter costs circa $1,000 more in the Hasselblad mount from Hasselblad, rather than in another lens mount direct from Rodenstock. Again, this 40-50% markup is typical of many marketing tiers in capitalism.

Now you can use these insights to save 40% or more on your new Hasselblad lens costs. All you have to do is cut out one level of markups to drop the price of Hasselblad Zeiss lenses into the same price range as Bronica's SQ leaf shutter optics. How? Simply by avoiding the markups from the official US importer by buying grey market lenses from overseas sources (e.g., Grand Cayman, U.K., Hong Kong..). For example, a new 180mm CF lens with international warranty cost only $1,859 from Grand Cayman versus $3,000 for a USA offical import from a major USA mail order house.

Our first posting below provides an example of photo industry costs using a 35mm SLR example. The camera listed and sold for $300, but cost dealers circa $200 and less for larger quantity buys. The importer purchased these cameras for $125. But the cameras cost circa $39 off the assembly line. So the camera cost represented about 13% of the retail selling price, the rest being markups and profits! So a $3,000 list Hasselblad lens might cost $390 if these same ratios applied (or less, given an extra tier of markups by Zeiss to Hasselblad).

Hasselblad Lens Hacking

As one example, we provide information on adapting the well regarded Kiev-88 30mm fisheye lens (Arsat or Zodiak variants) to work on the Hasselblad focal plane bodies. The lens covers 6x6cm on the Kiev-88 and so will cover 6x6cm on the Hasselblad too. The Kiev-88 lens registration distance is 82.1mm, making it possible to mount the lens on a Hasselblad body. Unfortunately, you can't use an adapter in this case, but have to have a machinist rework the lens mount to fit the Hasselblad. Usually, a Hasselblad extension tube is "hacked" to mount the lens and the Hasselblad body together. The result lets you use a modified 30mm fisheye lens on a Hasselblad body, but you lose out on automatic diaphragm operation and have to use manual operation.

Why bother? The Hasselblad Zeiss 30mm f/3.5 fisheye is $5,797 at mailorder prices (B&H), even more at full retail. A converted Kiev 30mm f/3.5 fisheye costs circa $1,000, for a saving of circa 85% or roughly $5,000+ (with tax). Wow! If you don't use a fisheye all that often, and don't want to pay for renting it again and again, this may be a good option for you to investigate. On the other hand, it is cheaper to simply buy a $300+ Kiev 60 or Kiev 88 SLR and the 30mm lens and use it on that body, with full automatic diaphragm use. You can also buy a low cost mount adapter for using Kiev 6x6cm lenses on various 6x4.5cm focal plane body SLRs like the Mamiya 645 for $30 on up, if you prefer that format or brand.

You can also use a Hasselblad bellows to mount various macro lenses for use with your Hasselblad camera. If you like Zeiss, you can try to find their Luminar macro lenses (or Photar series). A leaf shutter lens for large format cameras can also be used with the bellows and a simple double cable release. Again, these many options are covered in our Hasselblads on a Budget pages.

Afocal Lens Adapters

How about telephoto lenses? In a pinch, you can use eyepiece coupling to afocal telescopes, finder scopes, or binoculars, with your 80mm lens set at infinity. Yes, you may get some vignetting, but this may be the easiest way to get a 1,000mm or longer equivalent lens view into your Hasselblad camera. You could buy the Zeiss 1000mm f/8 lens for the Rolleiflex, if you had over $10,000 to spend that is.

Hasselblad B50 Adapter Mount Fisheye Adapter

One of my favorite fun lenses is to put a modest cost 0.18X fisheye adapter onto my 80mm f/2.8 Hasselblad lens (set at infinity) using the B50 to 52mm filter ring adapter shown on the bottom of the above lens. This fisheye adapter provides a low cost way to get circular fisheye images with your Hasselblad. Again, these adapters are not as refined as the Zeiss fisheyes, especially in the edge resolution and flare resistance department. But for circa $50 to $100 or so, you can experiment with these fisheye effects. You can also use this adapter on your 35mm SLR kit, and on other prime and zoom lenses too. For most 35mm SLRs, this adapter is the only way to get a "zoom fisheye" (other than on Pentax).

Mutar 0.42X Ultrawide Adapter

The above 0.42X adapter provides an ultrawide equivalent lens view, roughly equal to the lens (e.g., 80mm) multiplied by 0.42 (i.e., 80mm x 0.42 =~34mm). In other words, for about $25-50 you can get a lot more coverage out of your 80mm lens. Since there isn't a rectilinear lens wider than 38mm in the Hasselblad lineup, this adapter trick is the only way to get these effects. Granted, the adapter is heavy and has rather more distortion and flare than a prime lens. But if you need a 34mm image (with some distortion), this may be the easiest and cheapest way to get it on film.

Adapter:                     80mm+adapter cost (used)
0.18x circular fisheye      (15mm equiv.) [$50-100+]
0.42X superwide semifisheye (34mm equiv.) [$35-50+]
0.5X very wide              (40mm equiv.) [$20-40+]
0.6X wide                   (48mm equiv.) [$20-40+]
0.75X wide                  (60mm equiv.) [$10-15+]
[80mm f/2.8 zeiss planar]
1.25X short tele           (100mm equiv.) [$10-15+]
4X long tele               (320mm equiv.) [$35 up]

Again, you can find more details on these adapter options at our Hasselblad on a Budget pages. Adapters are fun, low cost relative to Zeiss lens costs, and can offer a bit of creativity or an option that may be missing from the official Hasselblad lens lineup, such as the 15mm fisheye or 34mm ultrawide lens option highlighted here.

Lens Rentals

One reason to check out rentals is to try Hasselblad cameras and lenses before you invest a lot of money into medium format gear. It may turn out that you really don't like the feel of a Hasselblad system with a top-heavy prism, and prefer a better balanced 6x4.5cm SLR instead. Or it may be that want to see if "upgrading" to a Hasselblad will really be so much better than your old Kowa 6x6cm SLR as to justify the high costs.

Rentals also offer you the chance to try out the camera, often at low cost (esp. for weekend rates). Some sellers of used gear will let you rent a used camera or lens to try out and test. If you decide to buy it, they will also credit the rental fees towards your purchase of the camera.

A more subtle advantage of renting is that you can often rent (and tax deduct the costs) a lens for infrequent business or personal use. Many amateur photographers won't use a fisheye lens very often, so an occasional few rentals over the course of a year can be quite affordable compared to a nearly $6,000 new lens price.

Rental prices are usually anomalous. You pay a fixed amount to rent nearly any item, even the low cost items like a used back or 80mm lens. So the cost of a $6,000 fisheye rental may be only twice as much as the rental of an 80mm lens at many rental places. So it may make a lot of financial sense to buy the low cost items you need more often, and avoid paying these minimum rental fees each time. Conversely, it may be very hard to justify buying a 30mm fisheye or 250mm APO lens for the few times you need it, especially adding in lost interest costs and maintenance and insurance costs.

Similarly, you will pay by the day for each business day, when items are typically rented by pro photographers for business use. But you may be able to get a weekend rate that is little more than the day rate, but use the lens from late Friday afternoon to Monday morning for nearly the same fee as a single day's rental. This approach can be especially handy for an amateur photographer who wants a lens for just a weekend trip of shooting birds or cityscapes.

Conclusions

Hopefully, some of these points will have been of interest and use to you. Our key point here is to be sure that you check out your lens preferences and requirements carefully, before taking the leap into any medium format camera system. If you do, you will be a happier and more productive photographer. Good luck!

Deja Vu - Hasselblad Lens Prices from 1970

From p. 11, Camera Buyer's Guide - 1970 in Life Library of Photography:

40mm f/4 $885
50mm f/4 $535
80mm f/2.8 $315
100mm f/3.5 $570
105mm f/4.3 $2,900
120mm f/5.6 $550
135mm f/5.6 $490
150mm f/4 $550
250mm f/5.6 $590
500mm f/8 $960

A hasselblad 500c with 80mm was $750 in 1970 per this camera guide. These prices are reasonably close to what used older C lenses currently cost. Unfortunately, prices have gone up over 430% since 1970 (see CPI). So you would have to multiply the above prices by 4.3 to get the equivalent new prices in today's dollarettes, compared to 1970 dollars.

So both buyers and sellers may be getting a good deal. The buyers are getting a good performing compatible used C chrome lens for much less than new prices. The sellers are getting their money back, and then some, after over 30 years of use. In constant dollars, the lenses have lost about 80% of their value, but they still sell for more dollars than when purchased new. Everybody wins ;-)!

Related Postings

From: "Mike" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002


The only experience I have with cost knowledge was with the Konica T3 in the mid 70's

The end of assembly line cost was $39.00, landed in LA was $125.00 (Berkey's
cost) and retail was close to $300.00 if memory serves me.  I seem to
remember that 1 up dealer net was some where around $200.00, don't quote me
on that.

Yes polson I do understand that the T3 is not in the same league as the
Leica so before you have a heart attack remember, its only an example of the
different costs.


"John Miller" [email protected] wrote...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I wonder what the end of assembly line cost is on the newest Leica is, or
> > any other camera for that matter.
>
> Traditional production cost of manufactured items used to be about 20% of
> MSRP.  With today's flatter distribution chains, that fraction may well be
> higher, though.
>
> --
> John "way too long since those business courses" Miller




From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 28 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: stats on Kiev Re: Cheap Kievs from Russia - risk assessment

Hey Bob and Ralf,

I have a  Hartblei 65mmF3.5 PCS in HASSELBLAD 2000 mount.  This was
manufactured by Hartblei and is an option for Hasselblad users.

As for Hasselblad lens, I myself have the 50mmFLE, 60mm Distagon, 80mm, 150mm
and 180mm.

I do not have any Kiev camera bodies, but however I use the CZJ 50mm, 65mm,
80mm, 120mm, 180mm & 300mm on my Exakta 66. I also use the Kiev 30mm (a
fantasticly priced lens) and  Pentacon 500mm also.

Evan  


From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: stats on Kiev Re: Cheap Kievs from Russia - risk assessment
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 

"Robert Monaghan" [email protected] writes:

{Lots of great stuff, ruthlessly snipped}

> Moreover, it looks like the majority of folks who have hassy cameras can't
> afford a full kit of lenses (per sales # and surveys cited at above URL,
> only 2.1+ lenses/owner); while my impression is that many folks who opt
> for the Kievs can and do get a pretty good kit of lenses.

That certainly sounds right. As I just wrote someone offline, "I know
that if I had a Hassy I'd never get around to buying other lenses."

My problem with this whole discussion, though, is that the Kiev isn't
competing with the Hassy (for my money, anyway), it's competing with
Bronicas and Mamiyas and Fujis. A new 45mm/2.8 lens for the Mamiya 645 is
around US$400 (in Tokyo). That makes searching for a good Kiev wide angle
not particularly attractive. In the US, one would have to look to used or
Robert White (for reasonable Mamiya prices), but everyone says good things
about KEH, so even there, it sounds as though the Mamiya would be less of a
hassle for what I hear to be a better lens.

By the way, you said: "most of the Kiev lenses seem to get high marks and
few problems per users."

Certainly the users seem happy. Do you (or anyone else) have pointers to
discussions of Kiev lens performance? One Kiev site cites lens resolution
figures that seem painfully honest, to the point that I can't imagine the
Mamiya lenses not being significantly better...

David J. Littleboy
[email protected]
Tokyo, Japan  



From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei or Hassy
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002

> However, you may want to examine your assumption that Zeiss uber Alles is
> valid for your eyes and photo needs, esp. if price is an issue.

Certainly there are good lenses made by other manufacturers, and some
which are better than Zeiss. However, Zeiss lenses have been very
consistently excellent in both resolution/contrast *and* imaging qualities
for many many years. They also hold a high resale value, countering in
great degree some of the high price.

> And for many of us, a lens we can afford beats one we can't ;-) SOme of
> those rollei lenses cost $10,000 and up ;-)

Yes. It took me 35 years to acquire the Hassy 903SWC, but I'm very glad I did.

> Finally, some of us mix and match (see mf/value.html). I use a bronica
> S2A/EC for macro and long telephoto stuff, a kowa for ultrawide SLR (35mm
> lens), and hasselblad EL/M for remote critter shots (motorized drive) with
> 150 and 250mm. No one system can do it all  ;-)

Certainly. I shoot medium format with a '38 Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B
(uncoated Zeiss Tessar), a '50 Super Ikonta A (coated Schneider), '51
Rolleiflex 3.5MX (coated Zeiss Tessar), '96 Fuji GA645 (coated Fujinon)
and '97 Hasselblad 903SWC (coated Zeiss Biogon). Used to have Mamiya 645
SLR gear but found that MF SLRs are both noisier and bulkier than I
prefer. I will buy one again if I find I need/want it, but for the present
these cameras produce very nice photographs for my purposes and most
didn't cost the earth... the Hassy is an exception.

I'd still like that SL66 kit... ;-)

Godfrey 


Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 
From: Thomas Hahn [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] "Lens aging" of C, CF, CFI & CFE lenses?

Hi

I could use some input on a matter of "lens aging".

I bought a 503cxi not too long ago, and use an older 100 C non T* lens with
it. The results are fine (more than that I must say), and I can't say the
lens is inappropriate or unfit for everyday use just because it is not
multi-coated, or because it's thirty years old. Images are crisp, color
balance is fine, and the lens shade is always mounted, too (this is a good
list to learn things from!).


Now I am in the market for the 180mm. What I see is three versions: the CF, 
the CFI, and the CFE. This is somewhat confusing to me. I don't think I'll
go digital any time soon, so should I drop the CFE option with the databus
connection? The internal lens design appears to be identical for all three
versions, or almost at least. I need this lens to grow old with (a one-time
investment), so perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate to go for a design which
is outdated (thus disqualifing the CF version?).

As you can see, this needs to be a (more or less) rational decision...;
maybe somebody has some thoughts or pragmatic suggestions regarding these
different versions.

Aloha

Thomas in Ithaca 



Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] "Lens aging" of C, CF, CFI & CFE lenses?

cheap (or relatively in Hasselblad terms) is good. Why pay for a feature you
will never use? BTW the 100 is considered to be among the finest Hassey
lenses made (and is my favorite)

Cheap being good would a 250 C Chrome do the job for you? Mine performs
fine. And the price is unbeatable

Jake at Blue Moon Camera [email protected] 503 978 0333 has quite a
good stash of Hassey stuff. Not sure what lenses but always worth the price
of a phone call  

Mark


From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?


>Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
>From: Bob Bidniski [email protected]
>Date: 7/4/02 

>Definitely not
>better lenses. I find the Rollei licensed Zeiss lenses to be sorely
>lacking. A few of t

Lacking indeed. Some samples I have seen suffer from mild decentering.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2002 
Subject: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?



It is  interesting that the Blads use Carl Zeiss lenses, but other cameras like
the Rolleis use lenses made  by other suppliers made on Zeiss  licenses. These
are not really Carl Zeiss products. I wonder of Blad and Zeiss signed an
exclusive contract?  Anyone know?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
From: Bob [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002

ArtKramr at
[email protected] wrote 

> It is  interesting that the Blads use Carl Zeiss lenses, but other cameras
> like
> the Rolleis use lenses made  by other suppliers made on Zeiss  licenses.
These
> are not really Carl Zeiss products. I wonder of Blad and Zeiss signed an
> exclusive contract?  Anyone know?
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

I am sure you know the answer Art, but only a few Zeiss branded lenses are
made by Rollei in Braunschweig and they are marked Rollei Planar, Rollei
Distagon, etc.

Many of Rollei's optics are made by Carl Zeiss in the same factory that
Arriflex Zeiss lenses and Hasselblad Zeiss lenses are made. These are
labeled Carl Zeiss Distagon, Carl Zeiss Tele Tessar, etc.

While we have not been the distributor for Rollei since 1998 I don't believe
this has changed. The lenses made under license are the 50mm, 80mm, 150mm
and 250mm.
The lenses for Rollei made by Carl Zeiss are the 30mm, 40mm, 60mm, 120mm,
350mm, 500mm and perhaps some new ones that were in preparation like the
100.

There are probably a few specialty lenses that Contax uses that also come
out of this factory like a 500 or 1000 mirror.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings



Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
From: Bob Bidniski [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?

fotocord [email protected] wrote:

>A minute ago people are talking about doing these "blind test" and that no
>one could see the difference between a optically better schneider lens and
>a 'blad zeiss yet now all of a sudden we would all be able to see the
>difference in this one?


Did I say anything about image quality? Did I say anything about blind
tests? Nope, not me. But if you're going to compare price, compare
apples to apples. Both Rollei and Zeiss offered lenses built to lower
quality standards, so that they could be sold at a lower price. If you
want to compare a Rollei 80 2.8 to a Hasselblad for price reasons,
then why not compare the PQ, or the Schneider? If you want to compare
the EL line, then compared them to their closest equals, the Zeiss CB
series. Thats all I'm saying.


From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 05 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?


>There are
>probably as many people who see automation as a hindrance to
>dependability as there are who like it. Schneider lenses are very
>good, but so are Zeiss. You won't get 100 percent agreement that
>Schneider lenses are superior, so thats also a subjective statement.
>


Yes, Schneider lenses are excellant. But after  having tested  hundred of
lenses over many years under both lab conditions and shooting I have reached
the conclusion that Zeiss applies slightly stricter quality controls than
Shneider. Not by a lot. But the difference is there.  While bad samples of
either are rere, the QC edge goes to Zeiss. And having said that  I must admit
that I have more Schneider lenses than Zeiss lenses.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


From: "Meryl Arbing" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002

Sorry, but the similarity between the Sony/Zeiss lenses and the other brands
stops at the physical look of the lenses. They are not the same glass, not
the same coating and...what is more important...not the same performance.
When you go to the Zeiss home page (http://www.zeiss.de) you will see that
Zeiss acknowledges that the Sony lenses are 100% Zeiss and each lens carries
a Zeiss serial number. The other "look-alike" lenses may well be clones of
the real Zeiss lenses. This has certainly happened before with classic Zeiss
designs. How many Tessar clones are there?

There is no real comparison between the look-alikes and the Sony/Zeiss.

[email protected] wrote...
> Zeiss makes the lenses for the Contax 645, all (or at least mostly) in
> Japan.
>
> The "Zeiss" lens (probably made by a 3rd party) of the Sony S70/75/85
> is shared by the Canon G1/G2, Casio 3000/4000, Panasonic LC5/Leica
> Digilux 1, Epson 3000, etc.
>
> Andrew


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: "Engel, E" [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Q: CF(E/I) over C?

L.S.

Like undoubtedly many more of you out there, I'm contemplating the virtues
of adding more lenses to the collection. Nasty discussions with the
girlfriend will be inevitable, but I might be able to minimize the damage.

I'm wondering whether or not I should settle for C lenses, instead of
getting greedy and aiming at CF or even better. My question is, are CF(E/I)
lenses really that much better than the old C's? Or are the advantages
mainly in the mechanical department, or should I even not at all be
bothered? I dearly hope somebody can help...

Cheers,

Edo


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: "Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Q: CF(E/I) over C?

The question is really; how good optical quality do you need?Do you intend to
make large enlargements or will you only make 40x50 cm? And is yor goal to get
the maximum quality in every picture, shooting from a tripod with mirror up
etc.If you are a resolution and contrast fanatic then go for the CFi's and SA.
They are better.
I have almost stopped using my 4x5 after seeing that the quality of the new
lenses with 6x6 almost compares to 4x5 with my old Zeiss lenses.

Ragnar Hansen


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: Tourtelot [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Q: CF(E/I) over C?

Edo-

I am a poor soundman; can't afford those fancy-schmancy newfangled lenses,
but my compliment of "C" lenses (most non-T*) take stunning, crisp,
contrasty, flare-free photos.  I mean really.  Even old Zeiss glass is
better than almost anything else on the planet (except for Panavision Primos
but that's a whole other argument).  If you are taking photos, and not
filling up the bag with "the best", I think that any first rate "C" will do
you just fine.

My $.02.
D.


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Q: CF(E/I) over C?

Edo,

A Hasselblad rep had a demo of the 'contrastness' of the new CFi lenses
at an exhibition here in Oslo last year.  There is no doubt that the CFi
lenses performs better in difficult conditions (stray light).  If price
was no considderation, I would have gone for new CFi lenses.  But
surely, price is always a considderation for most of us.  Carls Zeiss
has always been a leader on multicoatings and thus producing 'contrasty
lenses'.  My old Carl Zeiss lenses (80 mm/2,8, 250 mm/5,6 and a 40
mm/4,0) from the mid 70' produce fairly well and far better than much of
the other gear I have from the same period (Canon FD etc.)  A good lense
shade do wonders on contrast too...

Tom of Oslo


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: 120mm v. 150mm lens

Eric Goldstein at [email protected] wrote:
> I don't know about "better" and what that really means in the present
> context, but I do know that there are sharper, higher contrast lenses than
> the 150... others have mentioned sources within Zeiss which confirm this...

You have to remember that the 150 was designed in the 60s and has not been
changed other than the addition of multicoating.  Many of the other lenses
have been redesigned since then or are brand new designs like the 180.  The
150 is probably just showing its age.

I think we will see some new Zeiss lenses for Rollei in the near future.  I
think we will see an end to Hasselblad's long relationship with Zeiss in the
near future as Hasselblad moves to less expensive Japanese-made lenses.
This will leave Rollei (and Alpa, but such small numbers not to count) as
the only medium format users of German Zeiss glass.

Bob


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...

Austin,

Sorry, but this is a lot of crap!  As Hasselblad just has confirmed the
cooperation with Carl Zeiss has been deepened with a 'formal agreement',
something they didn't have between them in the first 50 years or so of
their cooperation.  Carl Zeiss was presumably 'a little sore' for not
even being asked when Hasselblad picked Rodenstock lenses for their Arch
Body.  Hasselblad's reason for picking them were that these three lenses
had a certain standing among large format users and were reccommended by
several European and US customers.

When it comes to Alpa, please note that it is cheaper to buy Carl
Zeiss's Biogon 38 mm (you even get a magazine included!) than buying it
through Alpa. One can wonder what kind of 'cooperation' Alpa has with
Carl Zeiss...
....


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...

Tom Just Olsen wrote:

> [...]  Carl Zeiss was presumably 'a little sore' for not
> even being asked when Hasselblad picked Rodenstock lenses for their Arch
> Body. Hasselblad's reason for picking them were that these three lenses
> had a certain standing among large format users and were reccommended by
> several European and US customers.

I don't think so. Zeiss simply doesn't make that kind of lenses. It would be
horrendously expensive to start up a new line from scratch. Even more
expensive than the Rodenstock lenses were. And remember too that projected
sales figures for such a thing like the ArcBody must have been very low.
Zeiss just was not an option, and Zeiss knows that very well. No reason to
be "a little sore".

> When it comes to Alpa, please note that it is cheaper to buy Carl
> Zeiss's Biogon 38 mm (you even get a magazine included!) than buying it
> through Alpa. One can wonder what kind of 'cooperation' Alpa has with
> Carl Zeiss...

A very profitable one, for both parties involved. ;-)



From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...

Frank Filippone wrote:

> This is all interesting in the sibject of Zeiss as many of the lenses marked
> Zeiss were and are made in Japan ( Contax lenses come to mind first) and
> marked Made in Japan.  But those lenses never saw Germany.  In the case of
> future or even past lenses like the CB lenses, it makes for an interesting
> question...... and a future possibility....

Just to put speculations about the Zeiss CB lenses to rest: they were all
made in Oberkochen. Way back at the 1998 PMA the rumour was spread (where
was Bob Shell at that time...?) that CB lenses were made somewhere in Asia.
That, so the rumour went, was the only possible way to get lower prices for
medium format lenses. Not so.

Zeiss reported then: "in recent years the cost advantage of quality optics
production in favour of Japan has decreased. Top quality optics made in
Japan are no longer really cheaper than those made in Germany."
That was in 1998, so things may have changed. But still: all other Zeiss
lenses made for Hasselblad were made, and still are being made in Oberkochen
too.


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...

The likely scenario will be that at the Photokina Hasselblad is introducing
a new camera body that comes with its very own line of lenses (just like the
XPan has its own line). These lenses will carry the name "Hasselblad",
leaving us guessing who really is making them (might well be Fuji. Or
Sigma).

And the existing line of Zeiss CFE/CFi and FE lenses will still be available
for the 500 and 200 series, though both lines are moving "closer" (more CFi
versions converted to CFE), meaning that some lenses will be deemed to be
redundant and are dropped (like we have already seen happen to the FE 150
mm).


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: Andre Oldani [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...

Hi Tom,


> I mailed them and got the prices!
>
> Tom od Oslo

I am too tired to answer at large, sorry. Here something to think over:

*AFAIK, you cannot buy a Biogon for other cameras than the SWC and the ALPA 12

*the Biogon you see on the SWC is fix mount and if you *would* get it,
definitively not with the barrel you know from the SWC

*the Biogon for the ALPA is fully exchangeable and not fix mount

*the prices you may got from ALPA are determined in Swiss francs and if I
compare it with the most recent price list of Leica Switzerland (the
Hasselblad importer here) the price is nearly identical to the Distagon 4/40
(if you want to compare fully detachable lenses together). If the prices you
refer to are older than some 2 months than they are obsolete and refer to
the "old" Biogon.

*the new Biogon (optics like the one from the 905SWC but different shutter)
got ordered in a batch of just 50ex. Please compare that yourself with the
number HB is selling in a week and bear in mind that the helicoids of the
Biogon for the A. is made by Schneider and the base plate by Seitz. So at
least 3 companies plus A. is involved. I guess that is not such a highly
profitable thing as you think.

*the price of a 905SWC with A12 back is way more expensive (at least here
and not mixing up CHF and USD or other currencies) than the new Biogon.

*if you need a Biogon and just expand your Hasselblad equipment get an SWC
of any vintage. But if you are seeking for a system allowing the usage of
the Biogon, large format lenses for formats up to 6x9cm in the same camera,
shift capabilities and do not want to invest in a large format camera...then
there are only limited offerings.

Sorry, have to go for a rest.

Andr�


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES

Dick,

>This is all a "BIG CROCK" of you know what. All Wildi is trying to do is
>sell you a new lens. All Wildi is, is a salesman. He is nothing more,
>and nothing less. I would not call him a good salesman either. A good
>salesman will at least tell you the truth and be honest with you.
>
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with the C lenses. If your shutter
>needs a CLA, you do not throw it away to make Wildi happy. Hasselblad
>"used" to be a great company, and now, they really should be ashamed of
>themselves for throwing trash like this out there for the people to read
>and think to be true.


In my interpretation, Wildi never claims that you should throw away your
old lenses. Nor is he trying to sell you new lenses. He brings up an issue.
Old worn-out lenses may not perform up to par with a modern electronic
camera. The lens shutter may not synchronize well enough with the focal
plane shutter. That's all he's saying. He does not say that IT WILL NOT
WORK! BUY A NEW LENS!!! All he's saying that it MIGHT not work. There's a
huge difference.

If you own old C lenses, there's no reason why you shouldn't try using them
with the 203FE. Just try it at all shutter speeds. If it works, great. If
not, well, then it doesn't. From a logical standpoint, it's also not
impossible that you can get your lens to synchronize better if you have it
CLA'ed.

Everything you read will be biased by the author's opinion. True
objectivity is Utopia. Therefore, always take what you read with a grain of
salt. Regardless of the author. Wildi shoots with a 205TCC and obviously
loves the camera. That shines through in his book. And how could it
possible be otherwise? I don't know if this bias is intentional or a result
of Wildi's subconsciousness. Regardless, not everything in a book is the
universal truth. Just as everything on the Internet is not the universal truth.

Tom


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 
From: David Gerhardt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] HASSELBLAD 203FE AND C-LENSES

"Austin Franklin" [email protected] wrote:
>> There's nothing to synchronize.
>>
>> Push the release, the curtain opens, the lens goes off, and the curtain
>> closes when you remove you finger from the release.
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> There IS synchronization.


I went and checked my MANUAL for the 203FE, and here's what IT says:

1. pp 85:
"AVOID" (quotes & caps, mine) using the 203fe with a C-lens in temperature
conditions below 0 deg C (32 deg F).

2. pp92:
First they discuss that the C lenses are "in most respects" identical to the
CF lenses. They then provide the following paragraph; "Avoid using the focal
plane shutter together with a C-lens. If it cannot be avoided, follow the
procedure below:"..... Then they go on to provide the procedure (for focal
plane use). The final paragraph states: "Lens in C Mode-  The procedure is
identical with the CF-lens procedure."

So... The FACTORY is saying: (1) Avoid C lenses in low temps, and (2) Avoid
use with the 203fe FOCAL plane shutter... And if you can't avoid it... Then
go ahead and DO IT!
--
David Gerhardt
[email protected]

Postscript:

> So... The FACTORY is saying: (1) Avoid C lenses in low temps, and (2) Avoid
> use with the 203fe FOCAL plane shutter... And if you can't avoid it... Then
> go ahead and DO IT! (3) Use of the C-lens INTERNAL shutter is just like CF.

(Sorry, forgot #3)


from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120mm v. 150mm lens

 Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:
> I always remembered the 150mm for the 'blad as being popular but not the
> sharpest of lenses.

Absolutely right, Peter.  But you don't always want the sharpest lens.
Depends on what you shoot and the look you want in your images.

> A contact at Hasselblad referred to the 180mm lens as being the sharpest in
> the Zeiss line as told to him by a Zeiss employee.

I've also been told the same by a Zeiss spokesman.

Bob


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] F to FE conversion

I posted a question a week ago about converting F lenses to FE. FYI,
here's the answer I got from Hasselblad when I sent them an email about it:

GOOD MORNING,

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THERE WAS A CONVERSION OFFERED TO CONVERT F
LENSES TO FE LENS.  UNFORTUNATELY PARTS ARE NO LONGER AVAIALBLE TO
OFFER THE CONVERSION.

MARYANN



Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002
From: "McLeod" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 645 Lenses vs Hasselblad

I would agree with that and add that I have never used a 50mm Hasselblad 
wide angle that I found sharp.  I have probaly used a total of 20 
different 50 mm lenses, from the old style funnel shaped one to the 
newer CF version.  They perform horribly in real life.  I go out of my 
way to avoid using them.



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Full moon; NASA buying lots of FE f/4 350 mm lenses; and Zeiss'
keeping stumm about this particular lens.

Hello all,

Why does NASA prefer the FE f/4 350 mm Tele-Tessar over either of the two
Superachromats CFE 350 mm and/or superfast f/2.8 300 mm TPP?

And has anyone heard anything about whether or not the FE f/4 350 mm lens is
about to be discontinued? Someone at Photo.net noticed it wasn't listed on
Zeiss' website anymore (only FE lenses there are 50, 110 and 300 mm).

So were they all bought by NASA?



Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Full moon; NASA buying lots of FE f/4 350 mm lenses; and
Zeiss' keeping stumm about this particular lens.

The article I read said that they needed the speed and would always be
shooting wide open.

Jim



Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] FE f/4 350 mm lenses

Hello all,

For those of us not following what goes on on Photo.net, it apparently was
confirmed by Zeiss' Kornelius Fleischer that the FE f/4 350 mm lens has been
discontinued.


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Portraiture with a medium format !
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 


Daniel ROCHA wrote:

> Zeiss 150mm f/4 - focus at 1,4m

Minimum field of view: 39 cm square
Light loss: 0.5 stop
Maximum image scale: 1:7.1

> Zeiss 180mm f/4 - focus at 1,55m

Minimum field of view: 36 cm square
Light loss: 0.6 stop
Maximum image scale: 1:6.5

> In the Hasselblad I have not the factor of reproduction of the image
> framed.
> I can't really see the difference in practice.

You're right, there is not much difference.
The only practical difference i see (though it too is small) is the working
distance, it being 20% longer with the 180 mm lens compared to the 150 mm
lens (when set to cover the same field of view, of course).

> Considrering an extension tube can be a solution but the losslight is
> also
> important, and I'm not forgetting that I'll use a f/4 lens ! It's an
> issue :)

Loss of light does not really depend on focal length, but on image scale,
i.e. framing. With both lenses set to cover the same field of view (same
framing), they will show the same loss of light. No matter if you already
need to use a tube with one lens, while you do not yet need that with the
other lens.

(It's not 100% true, because both 150 and 180 mm Sonnars differ a bit in
optical make up, the one being a bit more asymmetric than the other. But the
difference in light loss between the two lenses at the sort of scales we are
talking about is approx. 0.01 stop. So nothing worth mentioning.)



From: Stefan Patric [email protected]
Subject: Re: are the hassy uncoated chrome lenses really that bad?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003

 Big K wrote:

> Just wondering if there's actually a significant difference in terms
> of color saturation between the coated and uncoated chrome lenses? I
> understand the chrome lenses are beautiful for B&W work but what
> about shooting color negs? what if I want a muted look found in
> contemporary photography, then would the chrome lens be better at
> the job than the coated ones?

All Hasselblad lenses have always been coated, and very suitable to
either color or b&w photography.  They were single coated initially,
the same as everybody else's.  Multicoating, T*, started on 'Blad
lenses in the mid to late '70s.

The primary lens for my 30 year old system is a 60mm f5.6 Distagon,
which was discontinued around 1960 or so.  I did a side-by-side test
with a friend's contemporary, multicoated 60 f3.5 under a variety of
actual shooting conditions.  If we hadn't kept track of which lens
shot which chrome, we would have been hard pressed to determined 
which lens shot which chrome.  Both were equally sharp at the same
f-stops; however, the T* lens did have slightly less flare and,
because of that, had a little more contrast.  Says a lot about
Hasselblad lens design.

So, under most shooting conditions, it really doesn't matter whether
you shoot with a T* or non-T* lens.  You'll get sharp, contrasty
pictures.  The only exception would be, if you shoot a lot in high
flare situations.  Then go with T* lenses.

--
Stefan Patric
[email protected] 


From: "Mr500CM" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: are the hassy uncoated chrome lenses really that bad?
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 

I have both a T* and a non T* 50mm lens. Both are very sharp, if you are
looking at very fine detail, there is an ever so slight difference in
contast between the two lenses. I also found the non coated lens flairs more
easily even with a lens hood. I would not rush out and sell the non coated
lenses, they are still great preformers and even better value to those
starting out.

Lance 


From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy CF 250/5.6 sonnar?
Date: 16 Jan 2003 

Max Perl [email protected] wrote:
>What is the strong and weak sides of the CF 250/5.6 lens?
>I need a tele for landscapes, larger animals and portraits.
>I have a 120/4 so a 180/4 seems to small a jump. The problem is
>that the 180/4 seems (reading MTF curves) to be a lot better
>optical than the 250/5.6 sonnar.
>Comments?

It *is* indisputably a lot better than the 250, but the 250 was still good
enough for Ansel Adams to produce "Moon and Half Dome" with it (just
to add a little perspective to the discussion). The 180 was not available
when I bought my 250, but I have considered adding it to my lens lineup
numerous times.

Personally, I think 180 is a more suitable FL for portraits than
250, but this is a matter of personal taste. Some people have complained
that the 180 is *too* sharp for portraits (a sentiment that I do not share).

The 250 is (slightly) bulkier, not quite as sharp, a stop slower, and
will not give you as tight a close-up as the 180 without using a tube
(43x43 cm subject versus 36x36cm for the 180 at the closest focussing
distance). Since it's slower, the viewfinder image will be dimmer and
somewhat harder to focus. Since it's longer (and slower) there will be
more vignetting in the viewfinder if you're using a non-GMS body. Those
are the weak sides.

The 250 is actually 79g *lighter* than the 180, and will give you more
working distance for a given magnification (which may or may not be
important to you) as well as a bit more pronounced "tele effect". You may
prefer the perspective obtained with the 250 for portraits, for example
(although I personally do not).  Whether the increased working distance
is a plus or a minus depends on whether you like the perspective thus
obtained and whether your shooting space is big enough to permit you to
work with the 250.

I doubt if you could see the sharpness difference on anything smaller
than a 16x20 print, and maybe not even then.

The ideal thing would be to shoot some test shots with each of the
lenses in order to see which you prefer. Of course, this may not be
possible for you to do.

Steve


[Ed. note: probably long sold off at this price, but posted here for lpmm data]
From: "Christoper M Perez" [email protected]
Newsgroups: pdx.forsale,rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: FS: Hasselblad Planar-S f/5.6 - $475
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003

For Sale -

Extremely clean and nice Planar-S f/5.6 'C' chrome (early) lens with plastic
bubble.

Optics clean and clear (no scratches or blemishes). _Except_: one rear
element group separated slightly many years ago leaving a 1mm ring of
separation around the very outside edge of the element group.  This
apparently has no effect on the resolution and is still very sharp.

The shutter appears to be working correctly all the way down to one second.
But given the age of the lens (stops only to f/32) it would be worth having
the shutter CLA'd and the main spring replaced.

USAF resolution chart, line pairs per millimeter, TMax100 film souped in
D76, tested within the past two months:

ctr mdl edg f/stop
------------------------
85 85 48  f/5.6
85 85 54  f/8
76 76 60  f/11
76 68 68  f/16
54 54 54  f/22


$475 (happy to use PayPal)
- Chris [http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/]


Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] 60 Distagon OK for Architecture?

Good Day
When using the Hasselblad, my photographic subjects are varied with
landscapes and people but also include architecture from time to time. I have
been researching the 60 CFi for use as moderate wide-angle and as a standard
lens instead of the 80 CFE. It is a very impressive optic and everything I
read about it is positive, except for one statistic on the Zeiss web site:

The barrel distortion of the 60 goes beyond 1% at 25mm of image height and
reaches 1.8% by the 40mm mark at the edge of the image.

In contrast the 80 CFE tops out at 1.2 barrel at the 40mm image height, the
50 CFi reaches a peak of 1.25% barrel at the 30mm image height and the 100
CFi stays close to 0% throughout.

For those of you who have used the current 60 Distagon formula in its
different incarnations (CT*, CF, CB or CFi) what do you advise? Is this
barrel distortion noticeable to you when architecture is a main subject? Is
the 60 CFi best suited as a superb wedding lens? Would I be better advised to
move onto the 50 CFi or 80 CFE? The one other lens which I own right now is
the 160 CB.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Doug Baker


Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 60 Distagon OK for Architecture?

Doug,

I have a SWC/M for any architectural shots that demands straight lines
such as vertical columns or vertical buildings. I initially bought the
50mm FLE, 60 CF, and that was in addition to the 80CF that was part of my
503CW kit.  The 60mm vertical lines are straighter than the 50m, IF you
have the vertical buildings or objects in the center of your focus. There
will be slight distortion with both lens, more so as you go toward the
edge of the frame.

Since you do occasional architectural shots, the 60mm will be fine for as
you stated for wedding shots, portraits and small group shots.

The 50 FLE is a fantastic lens if you shoot alot of landscape shots in
the outdoors with not that many vertical lines.  Don't the thought of
vertical distortion scare you away.  That can always be fixed in
Photoshop.

Evan


Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 
From: Stuart Phillips [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 60 Distagon OK for Architecture?


I haven't used this lens but I have a couple of random comments since i do take
a lot of architectural photographs with an 80 CT* modern version and a 50mm CT*.
Obviously, if you are using a camera without movements, and my body is a 501,
you must have the body absolutely flat using a bubble level so you don't have
any colliding verticals. I would not be able to do that with only 60mm. I
definitely need 50mm.  So whereas I can definitely see 60mm being a satisfactory
standard lens (in 35mm I like a standard to be a little wide), I don't think it
will cut it for architecture, unless you are going to add a 40mm or 905SW.  As
for distortion, I don't think it's noticeable with either of the lenses I have
and would just comment that the 100mm is well known (and advertised to be) the
sharpest lens in the range, and a sharper choice for a standard than the 80mm,
especially if you want to copy etc. However, you lose a stop, and it's slightly
longer. I bought my equipment as a kit, new. If I bought again separately, I
might buy the 100mm as a standard. It is supposed to be phenomenally sharp.

Best



Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 
From: Bernard Ferster [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 60 Distagon OK for Architecture?

The 60mm requires a level. Avoid the temtation to tilt the camera up to get
the top of the building into the frame. The distortion is something fierce.
I uses a level when shooting wide angle with the 60mm or the SWC.
...



Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To:  [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: Wide Angle Lens

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> I guess it is safe to say that the Biogon has better illumination right into
> the corners of the image

I was wrong, and must apologize. Corner illumination in the Distagon is not
worse than in the Biogon.



Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 1.4x and 2x tele-extenders

fritz olenberger wrote:

>Why is it that (according to the Hasselblad brochure) the 1.4x tele-extender
>can be used only with lenses 100mm or longer, whereas with the 2x extender
>there is no such restriction?  Not that (in my case) I'd want to use either
>with anything other than the 180mm Sonnar -- just curious.  Any comments
>regarding the relative usefulness of either with 180 for landscape or
>wildlife shots?  I know you lose 1 and 2 stops respectively.
>-Fritz

Unless you have a 200 series camera and want auto exposure, get the old
Zeiss 2x extender. It and the 180 are a match made in heaven!

I have a 203 and found a Zeiss 2x as I don't use auto exposure with long
lenses and extenders. I've used it with my 180 and a 350 and the
combinations performed exemplary.

Jim



Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: Alfredo Oscar Chescotta [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Data sheets for C-lenses

Two months ago I send a mail to Zeiss (the address is in the web page)
because I need the datasheets of some T* lenses. They send it to me by
"phisical" mail, not email, and not in english or spanish :-( ... in
deutsche. But these are good for me... Ho gods... what great lenses are
that old "all black metal" lenses.... ;-)

I don't know about C lenses, but you could try...

Un fuerte abrazo a todos.

Tito Chescotta
Buenos Aires


Sent: Wed 2/26/2
From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]]
Subject: Re: [HUG] OSLO EXHIBITION

Tom Just Olsen wrote:

> What the rep told me, though, is that (not litterally, but to the effect
> that) most customers prefer the Compur shutter lenses due to the control
> possibility of artificial/natural light and that 'this effected sales of
> the F-series lenses'. We particularly spoke about the F 50 mm/2,8
> (since I had bought one a few weeks ago) and he confirmed that sales of
> the new CFI 50 mm/4,0 'far exeeded that of F 50 mm/2,8'.

That (the benefits of leaf shutter lenses, people (we) buying more of them
than FE lenses, and Hasselblad knowing about that too) is quite evident in
the number of different FE lenses still available: there are only two left
already. Three if you want to count the rather exotic TPP. They should have
converted all CF lenses to CFE right away.
I wonder how long the FE f/2.8 50 mm will remain in the line-up. And will
they be able to stuff a Prontor in the 110 mm? Would be a good thing,
wouldn't it? ;-) (Though the fast(er) shutterspeeds seem like the natural
allies of this lens.)

The Hasselblad V-System could do with a bit of a rethink. The EL(...) models
are obsolete. The CW does everything they do, but with more versatility. It
only needs the "digital interface" put in. So the 500 series can be reduced
to a single CW/M (or CWD) camera.
The 200-series only needs one member too: a 204, i.e. a camera that combines
the metering characteristics of both 203 and 205. And why not put the
digital inerface in that one too? So a 204 FD it is. And, please, let it be
a lot cheaper than the curent 200-series.
Those two form the perfect, slimmer, V-system: a sturdy 500-series
work-horse, and a bit more automated do-it-all 200-series race-horse.

And just one line of lenses: CFE. And one type of Winder too. The rest of
the vast V-System they can share already.

Oh, and the 905 must remain, of course.

> [...]
> He told (another guy) that Hasselblad regreted that they had not made a
> dedicated 'digital back camera', like the Sinar Flex-(something), since
> this would have suited their 'large customer base of professional
> photographers perfecty'. But he did not confirm that 'Hasselblad had
> such a camera up their sleeve'.

Sinar M? A reflex housing that will take several different digital backs and
several brands of lenses? Isn't that what an ELD is, except that this one
only takes Hasselblad lenses? So he would like to see a Hasselblad reflex
housing that takes Sinar backs and Nikon lenses?
Or the Sinar P3? A true, but small, view camera? After the two (not quite
succesfull) tries Hasselblad has had at producing such a thing? Will they
never learn? ;-)



From: "Christopher M. Perez" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: RZ 110mm lens performance - comments (long)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003

I have been thinking about the quality of Mamiya SLR lenses. [whine
mode on] This after my Hasselblad 500C/M has been in the shop 4 times
over the past 6 months. The front and rear of the 'blad body was 3 thou
sandths of an inch out of alignment. The mirror gave a focusing error
of 1 foot at 5 feet. A barndoor spring bent after the camera, wrapped
in foam in a plastic case, slid off another case and dropped 6 inches
(yes SIX!) to the floor. Then one of the film backs started to overlap
the first and second frame (that 'ol clutch problem). What's next? A
lens spring failure?[whine mode off]

At a photoswap this past weekend I carped about my 500C/M fate with
Hasselblad users. Some do weddings. Others do street photography. And
others do portraits. ALL said 'it's just the beginning... keep a pair
and a spare on hand... they'll be passing each other on their way to the
repair shop...' Ouch! I'm just a hobbiest who's neurotic about
resolution. [yep, whine mode is still off]

I came across a decent Mamiya RZ with 110mm Z f/2.8. In search of
better MF camera system reliability, I bought it, took it home and
tested the lens. Here's what I found. Using a USAF resolution chart
from Edmound Scientific to read lines per mm (l/mm), TMax100 film,and
souped in D-76:

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop
-------------------------
68 60 60 f/2.8
60 68 68 f/4
76 85 68 f/5.6
76 76 68 f/8
76 68 76 f/11
68 68 68 f/16
54 54 54 f/22

Since I'm completely neurotic about such things, here are a few
apertures comparing various lenses I've tested over the years (
 ):

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop
-------------------------
68 60 60 f/2.8 - Mamiya RZ 110 Z
68 68 38 f/2.8 - Hasselblad 80 CT* Planar
54 34 19 f/2.4 - Pentax 67 105 SMC
60 60 38 f/3.5 - Koni/Omega 90 Hexanon
67 53 53 f/2.8 - Bronica 80 Zenzanon-PS

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop
-------------------------
76 85 68 f/5.6 - Mamiya RZ 110 Z
95 85 60 f/5.6 - Mamiya 7 80 L
96 96 54 f/5.6 - Hasselblad 80 CT* Planar
85 85 48 f/5.6 - Hasselblad 120 f/5.6 C Planar-S
76 67 21 f/5.6 - Pentax 67 105 f/2.4 SMC
67 67 38 f/5.6 - Koni/Omega 90 f/3.5 Hexanon
60 67 60 f/5.6 - Bronica 80 Zenzanon-PS

Center/Middle/Edge/F-Stop
-------------------------
76 68 76 f/11 - Mamiya RZ 110 Z
85 76 60 f/11 - Mamiya 7 80 L
85 76 60 f/11 - Hasselblad 80 CT* Planar
76 76 60 f/11 - Hasselblad 120 f/5.6 C Planar-S
67 67 48 f/11 - Pentax 67 105 f/2.4 SMC
67 76 48 f/11 - Koni/Omega 90 f/3.5 Hexanon
60 67 60 f/11 - Bronica 80 Zenzanon-PS


Observations:
Based upon single copies of most of the lenses listed above, I can
climb a long ways out on a limb and share a few observations.

First, Hasselblad's Zeiss 80mm Planar is a very very fine lens. It's
equal appears to be the Mamiya 7 80mm L. These lenses deserve the
reputations they've gained over the years.

In the second group, the Mamiya 110 Z performs ever so slightly better
than Pentax's 105mm SMC and the 110 Z is about equal to an old
Hasselblad Zeiss Planar-S 120mm f/5.6 C lens.

In the last group, Bronica's Zenzanon trails Koni/Omega's Hexanon by
about 10%. Users report good performance from these systems.

Frankly, I was a little disappointed with the Mamiya 110 Z performance.
The brochure I have says something about 'ultra high performance'.
That description might apply to the Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 L-series
80mm lenses. But not, IMNSHO, the Mamiya RZ.

However, after roasting the language in the Mamiya brochure, take a look
at the Mamiya 110 Z edge performance. It is consistantly higher than
anything I've seen thus far. So I'm left wondering; has Mamiya traded
center performance better edge resolution?

Thanx for listening - Chris


From: Christopher Perez [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: More Hasselblad questions--80, 100, 120 lenses
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 

- Upgrading your 80 to T* will improve the contrast in certain situations.

- Good luck finding a decent deal on a 100 f/3.5.

- Old 120 Planar-S are sharp and would a useful adjunct to your 80

- Deals can be had on 120 Planar-S, but good luck finding a 'deal' on T*

NOTE: I just sold an old chrome 120 Planar-S. The reason I sold it was
that it didn't compare with my 150 CT*. The 150 had much better
contrast (due to probably both the lens design and the multicoatings).

Last comment: if what you're after is contrast at a good price, have you
considered selling the 'blad and buying a Mamiya RZ? I realize this may
be heretical. But the cost/performance with Mamiya equiment for fashion
work is quite outsanding. A 65 W and 110 W might be nearly perfect for
what you're doing... just a thought.

Regards - Chris "the Other"


Christopher Bush wrote:
> I started asking this as a side note in a thread below, but I think it
> deserves more detail. I am new to Hasselblad and looking to buy a lens to
> replace or complement my chrome 80mm C. I shoot fashion, and would like a
> lens with maximum contrast that is somewhat inexpensive (ha ha--I mean, for
> Hasselblad). What (subjective) differences in contrast/sharpness would I
> see between:
>
> a) upgrading my 80mm to a T*
> b) finding a good deal on a 100 f3.5
> c) buying an old chrome 120 S-Planar (I would use this in addition the 80mm
> due to the slow speed)
> d) finding a good deal on a 120 S-Planar T*
>
> Typical focus distance would be in the 5-ft range. Although I'm shooting
> people, I like contrasty images that show every pore. Will T* lenses
> provide more contrast in non-flare situations?
>
> One last question: on the basis of contrast/sharpness only, and at a focus
> distance of 5 feet, would I be better off with an old chrome 120, or chrome
> 150? Is either one more susceptible to flare?
>
> --
> Christopher Bush
> http://www.christopherbush.com


From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 5/2/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Superachromat 250 5.6 vs. Summicron-M 90/2



Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> I was mainly wondering why there don't seem to be any Apos or Superachromats
> in shorter focal lengths.
>
> Additionally, while there aren't too many uses in my usual photography for a
> 250mm lens, a 150mm Superachromat would be quite nice, if the Superachromat
> is truly noticeably better optically.

Perhaps because chromatic abberations were more of a problem, amongst other
things reducing resolution, in long lenses.
So it got solved for longer lenses, while shorter lenses did not suffer,
were good (enough) as they were, and the expense was spared.

Strictly on a MTF-graph comparison basis, today's
too-expensive-to-even-dare-mention-the-price TPP 300 mm is only marginally
better, if at all, than the "old hat" 100 mm Planar. The same is true for
the 250 mm SA.
And the close, but still a bit shorter, non-SA 180 mm Sonnar is not
noticeably worse than the SA 250 mm.

The non-SA 250 mm Sonnar however is not as good as the SA version.
And so are the non-SA 350 mm Sonnar, and the non-SA (yet Apo) 500 mm
ApoTeletessar. Both were discontinued.


From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 5/2/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Superachromat 250 5.6 vs. Summicron-M 90/2

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

> Strictly on a MTF-graph comparison basis, today's
> too-expensive-to-even-dare-mention-the-price TPP 300 mm is only marginally
> better, if at all, than the "old hat" 100 mm Planar. The same is true for
> the 250 mm SA.
> And the close, but still a bit shorter, non-SA 180 mm Sonnar is not
> noticeably worse than the SA 250 mm.

Is there egg on my face?
It would have been better if i had looked up the graphs for the TPP 300 mm
alone, and not combined with Apo-Mutar 1.7x. ;-)
The above is true for that combination. Luckily (and perhaps not
surprisingly) the TPP 300 mm alone seems to be worth
the-unmentionable-amount-of-money-they-want-for-one (still going by
MTF-graph only).


From: Bernard Ferster [[email protected]]
 Sent: Fri 5/2/2003  
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Superachromat 250 5.6 vs. Summicron-M 90/2

you wrote:
>I was mainly wondering why there don't seem to be any Apos or Superachromats
>in shorter focal lengths.

Superachromates are formulated to solve a problem of color fringing that
affects long focus lens. This is a fringe of prism-like color that appear
at the edges of some subjects, caused by the fact that certain light
frequencies bend differently than others in long focus lens set at
infinity. This is not a trouble with short lenses.

I have a photo I took of San Fransico from across the bay with an old 250mm
sonar. If you look carefully at an enlarged color print of the city skyline
you will see red and blue fringing on some of the buildings. Not really
disturbing, to me, but cured with a modern lens.

B.F.


From: Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sat 5/3/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Superachromat 250 5.6 vs. Summicron-M 90/2


> Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>
> > Strictly on a MTF-graph comparison basis, today's
> > too-expensive-to-even-dare-mention-the-price TPP 300 mm is only marginally
> > better, if at all, than the "old hat" 100 mm Planar. The same is true for
> > the 250 mm SA.
> > And the close, but still a bit shorter, non-SA 180 mm Sonnar is not
> > noticeably worse than the SA 250 mm.
>
> Is there egg on my face?
> It would have been better if i had looked up the graphs for the TPP 300 mm
> alone, and not combined with Apo-Mutar 1.7x. ;-)
> The above is true for that combination. Luckily (and perhaps not
> surprisingly) the TPP 300 mm alone seems to be worth
> the-unmentionable-amount-of-money-they-want-for-one (still going by
> MTF-graph only).

Well one of the real benefits of beiing a Hassy dealer is the ability to buy
the lenses you want to test, use them and sell the lenses you do not want to keep
with a minimum of loss afterwards.

I have used all the tree SA's but have sold the 250 and 350 , only keeping the 300TPP.
Start with the 250 , it have a exeptional sharpness, but you have to be extremely careful
when focusing and tripod use to get good results.What I really mislike is the out of focus boquet.
It reminds me of a mirror lens. I prefer to use the 180 Sonnar insted.

The 350 is much of the same, I had to be even more careful with tripod and got much better results
with the C shutter than the F. Same disliking of the out of focus image. I however shot some very interesting
photos with the Flexbody, keeping everything in focus.

The 300 TPP has the sharpness of the others, but here the OOF is much better. But it's hevy!
It is not a lens you put in your sack for a day informal shooting.
I also misses the C shutter.
I am not sure I'll keep it. It has a very restricted use.

Ragnar Hansen


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> But Christopher M. Perez found very few lenses that achieved 85 lp/mm
> anywhere, and only two that exceeded that with Tmax.

Zeiss only this week announced their new Distagon f/4 40 mm lens, which is
capable of resolving 200 lp/mm. Not bad for a retrofocus wide angle lens.
;-)



From: Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]] 
Sent: Thu 5/29/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] iris return function in F lenses

A. F. Thal wrote:

> The iris in my 110 mm Zeiss Planar F (from about 1990 vintage) does not
> automatically reopen after exposure. It stays stopped down to wherever I
> had set the aperture control ring. Similarly, when using the depth of
> field preview, the aperture will not reopen fully when the preview
> button is released. To restore the lens iris to wide open, I must
> manually rotate the aperture control ring back to f 2.
>
> Questions: Is this a common problem? Is it a result of dried out
> lubricant in the lens' aperture mechanism somewhere? Or, a loss of
> spring tension somewhere? Is much disassembly involved in a repair? Is
> the perfect repair of this problem not a serious matter for the people
> at Hasselblad USA? In other words, is it almost trivial?


I had some bother with the diaphragm in my 110 mm lens. It wouldn't
open/close to the same opening depending on whether it was being closed or
opened (i.e. different sized hole when going from, say, f/2 to f/2.8 than
when going from f/4 to f/2.8).
The mechanism didn't "click in" right too at the wider end of the range
(which was due to a fault in the ring J.P. mentioned).

When i phoned (local) Hasselblad about the problem, they guessed what was
wrong before i could tell. All they needed to know was that a f/2 110 mm
lens was involved. So i guess it is not really uncommon for the diaphragm in
this particular lens to cause problems (but then again, what else could go
wrong in an F lens but the diaphragm? ;-)).

I think it is not so much the size that is causing problems, but the fact
that the diaphragm in the 110 mm lens is "double". Two sets of five blades
forming a more or less circular opening at the wider end, and the usual
pentagonal opening at the other end.

It took Hasselblad several tries to fix the problem in my lens. Which may
perhaps be blamed on it being the summer holiday season, and the one person
expert in this matter away enjoying a well earned R&R.
Now the diaphragm works "within specifications", but still not quite as
"positive" about what exact size the opening at any given f/stop should be
as i would have liked.


From: Peter Rosenthal [[email protected]] 
Sent: Thu 5/29/2003
To: Hasselblad forum 
Subject: Re: [HUG] iris return function in F lenses


Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
>
> I think it is not so much the size that is causing problems, but the
> fact
> that the diaphragm in the 110 mm lens is "double". Two sets of five
> blades
> forming a more or less circular opening at the wider end, and the usual
> pentagonal opening at the other end.
>

Just for the sake of complete info... Q.G. is both correct and
incorrect, sort of. The clear aperture is so large in this lens that
there is very little actual room for "fast acting" diaphragm blades.
The blades are limited to a very small area around the aperture. The
outer barrel probably could have been made larger to accommodate normal
size blades but what the hey, they didn't ask me. Because of the
limited area they had to devise a scheme that used two sets of blades.
One set for down to a certain aperture (I don't currently have that
info in my head but would be easy for you to see) and then the other
set for still smaller aps. This creates a LOT of friction that depends
on everything working as it should. Especially since it's such a
low-power mechanism. As noted previously... it is a common problem. My
two cents.

Peter Rosenthal

PR Camera Repair
1020 N. Manzanita Way
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779 5263



From: Mose, J P [[email protected]] 
Sent: Thu 5/29/2003
To: '[email protected]' 
Subject: [HUG] Iris return function in F lenses


Fred,

I have several "F" lenses for my 2003 F/CW. So far, the only problem I've
encountered is with the 110mm Planar. My iris froze open last year.
Hasselblad said that this is more common on the 110mm because of the large
size. Apparently there is a "teflon' ring (has a different name)that the
aperture mechanism rides on which can cause problems. Mine had a crack and
had to be replaced. I had purchased the lens used and it was in mint minus
condition. I had seen references to similar problems on photo.net with the
110mm. 

Regarding repair, I took the lens to my region Hasselblad authorized repair
center. Although it was fixed, the repair person stated that it was very
aggravating! Around $200. On that note, I would probably send it to
Hasselblad in NJ since they may be more familiar with this problem. It does
work fine and hopefully will for years to come! As a result of this, I
exercise the iris on all the "F" lenses monthly to keep them in check.

Regards,

J. P. Mose


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HASSELBLAD 40CFE vs 40CF..any experiences?
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 

Bernard wrote:

> Hi folks,
> does anybody know if there exists a difference in performance of these
> two lenses. I am wondering whether the CF version is sharper.

Same lens, same performance.

But how about waiting a bit, and see how you like the new 40 mm CFE Internal
Focussing lens that was announced today? Resolution is quite impressive
(there are very few films around that can even show what this lens is said
to be capable of), corner performance boosted. But distortion has doubled,
compared to the its predecessor.


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HASSELBLAD 40CFE vs 40CF..any experiences?
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 

John Stafford wrote:

> Distortion has doubled? Really? What is Hasselblad's rationalization for
> having such a lens? It makes no sense at all to me.

It says so in the press garble: "This lens was also specially designed with
digital photogragphy in mind".
Its resolution is second to none; better than the (new and old) Biogon,
better than most film can handle. And extra attention was given to achieve a
very flat field. It is billed as the shorter focal length alternative for
the in digital photography already popular 120 mm Makro-Planar.

But to be fair: it is an improvement over its predecessor, both in optical
performance and ergonomics. But distortion has generously doubled to a
maximum of about 3.5% near the corners, compared to about 1.5% in its
predecessor. No way near the 0.3% that "mars" the performance of the Biogon.
Something had to give. ;-)

Something else: internal focussing, instead of moving the entire (weight of
the) lens, means this lens now is a possible candidate for use as an AF
lens... ;-)


From: Evan J Dong [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 5/23/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System


Actually it's the arsenic that is used and that is also part of the end
by-product of glass smelting. "Lead free" and "arsenic free" glass is
what the optical companies need as part of their final product to conform
to the World Environental Laws passed in the late 1990's. It also affects
other industries beside the glass manufacturers; such as paper makers,
commerical printers, etc.

evan

"Anthony Atkielski" [email protected] writes:
> Q.G. writes:
>
> > Heavy metals. Lead, predominantly.
> Lead is not so toxic as people believe, especially when it is fused into
> glass. Eliminating such metals from glass formulations sets back lens
> design by decades


From: [email protected] [[email protected]] 
Sent: Mon 6/23/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] In Europe and having trouble with my 2003 F/CW


J.P. Mose,

I also encounter the very same problem you just mentioned. Just be
careful in "forcing" on those older "C" lenses.
My friend broke some internal part within that housing. As for me, I had
problems mounting my other "F" and "CF" lenses AFTER I removed my "C"
lens.

My solution was to sell off my "C" lenses and just used "F" or "CF" lens
on my 2000FCM. Its been problem-free since.

Evan

"Mose, J P" [email protected] writes:
> Well I am here in Copenhagen with my 2003 F/CW and Superwide. I have owned
> my 2003 F/CW for several years without any troubles. This spring I bought
> two "C" lenses that were recently serviced by Hasselblad in NJ. I noticed
> that the "C" 100mm Planar would not lock into place on the lens mount as
> easily as the "F" lenses. Sometimes when releasing the shutter, nothing
> would happen (although the button would depress...just no response). I
> found that I would have to engage the lens on the mount with a little more
> pressure then it seemed fine. Today, I took off the "C" 100mm and replace
> with my "F" 50mm f/2.8 and it wouldn't lock into place. The shutter was in
> the cocked position. I happen to be near Photografica (great camera store
> in Copenhagen) where I knew Martin. He looked at it and discovered that the
> "male" stud or key (can't think of the correct name) that is on the front of
> the camera and fits into the lens was not aligned correctly (it should be
> parallel to the ground or ends at 3:00 and 9:00). Mine was turned more
> clockwise (around 4:00). So he released the shutter with the lens off and
> advanced the male stud until it was parallel to the ground or aligned with
> the lens (when cocked) and it locked perfectly! Now it works fine...until I
> have to switch lenses again and have to go through the same exercise that
> Martin did!
>
> So, I obviously have an alignment problem. I have read or heard that "C"
> lenses puts more of a load on the "key" than F or CF lenses (this is what I
> heard...may not be true). Has anyone else experienced this problem before?
> Is it an adjustment or is something broken? Thanks for your time.  Glad I
> brought the Superwide too!
>
> Regards,
>
> J. P. Mose



End of Page

Broken Links:

Hasselblad Photography [10/2002]

page was at http://membres.lycos.fr/cesarigd/photoe2.htm as of 2/2003]