Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JoeKitchen on July 03, 2013, 12:02:25 pm
-
First question is does Hassy make there own lenses or are they outsourced? If outsourced, who makes them?
Second, overall, which lenses are better (if that can be quantified)?
-
Joe,
It's my understanding that the H series lenses were designed for digital by Hasselblad and are manufactured by Fuji in Japan. I cannot speak to the Mamiya lenses as I don't use them, but the H series lenses I use the most, 100mm and 28mm, are extremely crisp and smooth. In their Phocus software, Hasselblad has incorporated digital correction for vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration, based upon shooting conditions such as aperture, shutter speed and distance.
Regards,
Ed
-
Does it matter whether Hassy actually make their own lenses or have them made to their specification and quality standard? I think not - after all do we care that iPhones are made by an Apple sub-contractor.
From my own experience the Hassy lenses are superb. I particularly like the 28mm 50 mark 2 and the 100mm. Anecdotal evidence from other photographers would appear to support the view that the Schneider lenses for the Phase camera are very good indeed.
-
My Hasselblad 28mm, 50mm II, 100mm and 120mm Macro are superb both optically and mechanically.
I don't like a big amount of plastic in construction of the Schneider lenses for Mamiya. They look cheaper, and may need more service with age.
Evgeny
-
Which lenses are you referring to evgeny?
Is it possible you're confusing the non-mamiya lenses of yore (which had a lot of plastic) with the metal Schneider lenses of today?
-
Doug,
I tested the DF about 2 year ago. If I remember correctly, the lens was Mamiya Sekor 110mm f/2.8 LS D Lens for 645DF.
Evgeny
-
Hi,
Just as a side comment, I acquired four Hasselblad V lenses recently. The new lenses contain more plastics. The latest lens I have is a CFE and it has plastics everywhere.
I replaced the oldest all metal Sonnar 150/4 I had with a Sonner 150/4 CF that has more plastics but feels better. I don't mind plastics, if correctly used.
Best regards
Erik
My Hasselblad 28mm, 50mm II, 100mm and 120mm Macro are superb both optically and mechanically.
I don't like a big amount of plastic in construction of the Schneider lenses for Mamiya. They look cheaper, and may need more service with age.
Evgeny
-
Does it matter whether Hassy actually make their own lenses or have them made to their specification and quality standard? I think not - after all do we care that iPhones are made by an Apple sub-contractor.
From my own experience the Hassy lenses are superb. I particularly like the 28mm 50 mark 2 and the 100mm. Anecdotal evidence from other photographers would appear to support the view that the Schneider lenses for the Phase camera are very good indeed.
The abovementioned lenses are great. The H50mm M1 is not very good, the H35mm is terrible, the 80mm lens is very nice, and the 120 MK I is excellent. The 28mm is okay.
-
Fully agree with the list (28 - 50 II - 100). I would also add the 210 on the list of stars.
-
I made a comparison once between 120 macro HC II and Mamiya AF.
The HC was a hair sharper.
I'm still using Mamiya and not complaining.
I trust the Phase One company more than I trust Hasselblad, and that was the decision point for me.
-
I would be interested if anybody has used those lenses with a digital back and even shifted on a full frame sensor:
- Hasselblad V mount: CFi 30mm lens
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system/lenses/cfi-3530.aspx
is this a fish eye meaning distorts a lot? or is it normal like the 32HR?
- Hasselblad V mount CFE 40mm
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system/lenses/cfe-440.aspx
- Carl Zeiss PC-Distagon T 35mm f2.8
http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/slr/slrmanlenses/pcdistagon35.html
how do they hold up in the digital age? whats their respective image circles.
thanks
-
You may be referring to the Lens Shade which on the 55,80,110mmLS is plastic.
The newest lenses ie 150LS,240LS,75-250LS,120MacroAF,28mm(LS) all have metal shades.
Lance
-
I´ve been shooting the Hasselblad H2 with the P45+ for the past 5 years. About a month ago I ordered the new IQ260 upgrade, and considered a switch to the Phase camera, for convenience. But I tried the IQ260 on the Phase camera and was left instantly yearning for the look of those Hasselblad (fuji) Lenses. The Phase lenses seem technically very very good, but my feeling was that they give you an image that doesn´t sing like that hasselblad glass does. I have the 35,50,80,100,210 and the 50-110. I might surprise everyone by saying my favorite is the zoom, it´s gives a beautiful rendering of the images, the out of focus bits and the flares are quite realistic and a great cinematographic feeling, my second favorite would be the 210mm. For me it´s not so much a sharpness thing as the sensation I have when that image pops up on the screen.
I only wish each company would do what they do best instead of trying to do everything. Hasselblad glass & Phase Backs forever!
John
-
Hi,
I am sure that PhaseOne would have liked to that, unfortunately, Hasselblad realised that the real money was in the backs and not in cameras and lenses. So they closed the H-system, thus forcing Phase One into acquiring a controlling share in Mamiya and develop their own system.
Hasselblad does the lens design on their own lenses, that may be a good thing. The lenses are built by Fujinon. I'm pretty sure Fujinon has some input on lens design.
Best regards
Erik
I only wish each company would do what they do best instead of trying to do everything. Hasselblad glass & Phase Backs forever!
John
-
I've used Mamiya cameras and lenses for thirty five years. I have never had anyone mention to me the images don't look critically sharp. Granted some lenses are sharper than others but your client will never know the difference. I like the 28, 50 shift, 80, 120macro, the 55-110 and 105-210. My 35 and 45 (both older lenses) are less than perfect. Jim
-
Hello,
Totally agree with Jim.
Cheers
Simon
-
Hello,
Totally agree with Jim.
Cheers
Simon
+1
I'd also add that not only are the Mamiya 645 lenses terrific, but the rz67 lenses are probably the best lenses I've ever used, period.
-
I think there's something to the "singing" point.
I've never had a Mamiya lens "sing" to me.
For most of my work it is not required, but I have noticed that it doesn't exist with the "D"s that I have. Maybe the Schneiders do?
With the Canon system there was one lens that could "sing" - 85/1.2.
I did see many Hasselblad pictures that made me think about that system.
I´ve been shooting the Hasselblad H2 with the P45+ for the past 5 years. About a month ago I ordered the new IQ260 upgrade, and considered a switch to the Phase camera, for convenience. But I tried the IQ260 on the Phase camera and was left instantly yearning for the look of those Hasselblad (fuji) Lenses. The Phase lenses seem technically very very good, but my feeling was that they give you an image that doesn´t sing like that hasselblad glass does. I have the 35,50,80,100,210 and the 50-110. I might surprise everyone by saying my favorite is the zoom, it´s gives a beautiful rendering of the images, the out of focus bits and the flares are quite realistic and a great cinematographic feeling, my second favorite would be the 210mm. For me it´s not so much a sharpness thing as the sensation I have when that image pops up on the screen.
I only wish each company would do what they do best instead of trying to do everything. Hasselblad glass & Phase Backs forever!
John
-
+1
I'd also add that not only are the Mamiya 645 lenses terrific, but the rz67 lenses are probably the best lenses I've ever used, period.
The RZ lenses are so good it hurts. On the mam. 645, the 80 1.9 was a nice, nice lens. The Mamiya lenses I liked the best, however, were the Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses. All of them.
-
Lens look is definitely subjective.
But if you like the look of Mamiya RZ lenses the DF/DF+ Schneider LS are more similar to them than the Mamiya D lenses.
-
Hi Doug,
Are the new Schneider LS lenses made in Germany or are they made in the Mamiya factory in Japan who made the fantastic Mamiya RZ lenses?
Cheers
Simon
-
The RZ lenses are so good it hurts. On the mam. 645, the 80 1.9 was a nice, nice lens. The Mamiya lenses I liked the best, however, were the Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses. All of them.
I agree about the 80mm f/1.9, in fact it's my most used lens on the AFD, despite the inconvenience of stopping down manually. I really wish Phase One would have based their 80mm "D" lens on the f/1.9 instead of the 2.8. Fastest lens in the medium format world would have been a nice selling point for the system, and it would have differentiated it from the LS version too.
-
I agree about the 80mm f/1.9, in fact it's my most used lens on the AFD, despite the inconvenience of stopping down manually. I really wish Phase One would have based their 80mm "D" lens on the f/1.9 instead of the 2.8. Fastest lens in the medium format world would have been a nice selling point for the system, and it would have differentiated it from the LS version too.
I agree with this 100%. The problem I see is that sharpness is favored over look in lens design, due to market demand. This is speculation, however look at the threads here and elsewhere where it's endless graphs and test charts. The 80 1.9 would probably fair poorly in the test chart corner to corner sharpness tests. You get people complaining about the Blad CF lenses, saying F lenses are better etc., when some of the most iconic photos in the world were taken with C series lenses, and these same people take 39mpx snap shots and marvel at the leaf detail in the distance. It's absurd, really.
-
An 80mm f1.9 D or better yet LS with say 1/800 flash sync would really be something, I agree. Rollei did the right thing I think with slower leaf shutters for fast lenses.
Medium format in general seems to be stuck with rather conservative aperture offerings and even those few that exist are old, manual focus and tricky to use on high res digital.
And whats with Phase leaf shutter lenses having five aperture blades? I mean seriously they could do better than that.
RZ lenses are dope indeed, though the 645 LS lenses are extremely good too. I find the 80LS and 110LS (and 55LS from the samples I've seen) render very similarly to the RZ 110mm, while the 65mm L-A and 210mm APO render differently. I would describe the RZ lenses as more "cinematic" while the LS more "modern". The differences are subtle but they're there. Its all good glass.
-
I agree with this 100%. The problem I see is that sharpness is favored over look in lens design, due to market demand. This is speculation, however look at the threads here and elsewhere where it's endless graphs and test charts. The 80 1.9 would probably fair poorly in the test chart corner to corner sharpness tests. You get people complaining about the Blad CF lenses, saying F lenses are better etc., when some of the most iconic photos in the world were taken with C series lenses, and these same people take 39mpx snap shots and marvel at the leaf detail in the distance. It's absurd, really.
This is my impression too. Never in my life have I been moved by a photo because of its sharpness, yet outside maybe the Leica world this is almost always the only parameter being discussed. The only time sharpness is interesting to me really is when looking at a lens performance wide open, because truth is very few lenses are not sharp enough when stopped down a little. Instead it's the character of a lens, how it draws the image, that is of importance to me. But I guess it's easier to measure and quantify things like sharpness than to create something that stirs emotion in the viewer. It gives certain people a sense of accomplishment, i.e. "Look how sharp it is, you can count the whiskers of that cat in the distance". Like you, I worry that modern lens designs try to cater to this crowd, sacrificing character for absolute sharpness. Many modern lenses today seem to have a certain 'sterility' to them that leaves me cold.
-
An 80mm f1.9 D or better yet LS with say 1/800 flash sync would really be something, I agree. Rollei did the right thing I think with slower leaf shutters for fast lenses.
Medium format in general seems to be stuck with rather conservative aperture offerings and even those few that exist are old, manual focus and tricky to use on high res digital.
And whats with Phase leaf shutter lenses having five aperture blades? I mean seriously they could do better than that.
RZ lenses are dope indeed, though the 645 LS lenses are extremely good too. I find the 80LS and 110LS (and 55LS from the samples I've seen) render very similarly to the RZ 110mm, while the 65mm L-A and 210mm APO render differently. I would describe the RZ lenses as more "cinematic" while the LS more "modern". The differences are subtle but they're there. Its all good glass.
Yup. Agree.
-
This is my impression too. Never in my life have I been moved by a photo because of its sharpness, yet outside maybe the Leica world this is almost always the only parameter being discussed. The only time sharpness is interesting to me really is when looking at a lens performance wide open, because truth is very few lenses are not sharp enough when stopped down a little. Instead it's the character of a lens, how it draws the image, that is of importance to me. But I guess it's easier to measure and quantify things like sharpness than to create something that stirs emotion in the viewer. It gives certain people a sense of accomplishment, i.e. "Look how sharp it is, you can count the whiskers of that cat in the distance". Like you, I worry that modern lens designs try to cater to this crowd, sacrificing character for absolute sharpness. Many modern lenses today seem to have a certain 'sterility' to them that leaves me cold.
Exactly. To give an example, so many people would refuse to mount he Zeiss 50 1.4 on their D800e's for heir tree and cat pics because its not sharp enough. Well yeah it's not really a modern design and it vignettes, but how it draws is really nice. It seems to have faster fall off of focus than the more modern lenses and the color is spectacular. Few people on the webs seem to care about the beauty of the rendering.
-
It seems to have faster fall off of focus than the more modern lenses...
Is this actually a physical possibility?
-
Sharpness fall off, which would have the same apparent effect.
-
This has spurred into a quite interesting topic. My main desire was to know how the construction of the lenses hold up against each other, primarily to just know. But this whole conversation about how well one lens renders an image compared to another is quite, well, interesting.
-
This has spurred into a quite interesting topic. My main desire was to know how the construction of the lenses hold up against each other, primarily to just know. But this whole conversation about how well one lens renders an image compared to another is quite, well, interesting.
Yes, and the perception of how a lens renders is down to taste and what you shoot, so there is no correct answer.
-
Hi,
This is an area where they may be some myth and some reality, IMHO.
Just an example: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77956.0
Some of the interesting factors are:
1) Focus shift, this is mainly caused by the changing amount of spherical aberration when stopping down. Most large aperture lenses suffer from it.
2) Over or under corrected spherical aberration. Under correction preferable on background blur. Over correcting SA yields double contours.
3) Longitudional chromatic aberration. Also affecting most fast lenses at large apertures.
Here is some very good information: http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf
Best regards
Erik
Yes, and the perception of how a lens renders is down to taste and what you shoot, so there is no correct answer.