H5D-40 CF Adapter

[BobRoss]

Hi Guys, first off thanks to everyone who participated in my previous thread. Using your help I was able to come to the conclusion that the H5D-40 is most suitable for my needs with it's maximum exposure of 4 min, without a dark frame, and very reasonable price point. However the HC/HCD lenses cost just as much if not more than the camera itself which currently limits my line up to one lens. So, my question is does anyone have any experience with the CF Adapter? If so, do you have any staple lens recommendations using the adapter?

Thanks a lot!

[jng]

Right. The price of the more modern glass in part is why I decided to stick with my Hassy V system vs. going with P1 or H bodies. I was able to assemble an entire kit of lenses for the price of a single piece of the newer glass. The adapter seems like a good way to go if you want the best of both worlds, although I don't have first-hand experience with it.

If lens resolution is your thing, you can check out the Zeiss MTF charts for all of the CF lenses at the Hasselblad Historical website. With the crop sensor of the H5d-40, you probably don't need to worry so much about corner performance and I imagine that most of the CF lenses will do quite well. You'll see from the charts that the sharpest tools in the shed are the 40mm IF CFE (harder to find and also very expensive), 100 mm and 180mm, as well as the Superachromats but these aren't exactly cheap or easy to find. The 150mm is no slouch either and the 120mm Makro-Planar is outstanding for close focus applications.

My main wide-normal-tele kit on a full format MF sensor is the 40 IF CFE, 100 and 180, with the 120 for macro work.  I also have the 50mm CF/FLE, which while tack sharp in the center goes a bit soft toward the edges (unless I have a bad copy, I'm assuming this is due to field curvature). However on the crop sensor the 50mm isn't so wide so you may prefer one of the 40mm offerings.

- John

[BobRoss]

Right. The price of the more modern glass in part is why I decided to stick with my Hassy V system vs. going with P1 or H bodies. I was able to assemble an entire kit of lenses for the price of a single piece of the newer glass. The adapter seems like a good way to go if you want the best of both worlds, although I don't have first-hand experience with it.

If lens resolution is your thing, you can check out the Zeiss MTF charts for all of the CF lenses at the Hasselblad Historical website. With the crop sensor of the H5d-40, you probably don't need to worry so much about corner performance and I imagine that most of the CF lenses will do quite well. You'll see from the charts that the sharpest tools in the shed are the 40mm IF CFE (harder to find and also very expensive), 100 mm and 180mm, as well as the Superachromats but these aren't exactly cheap or easy to find. The 150mm is no slouch either and the 120mm Makro-Planar is outstanding for close focus applications.

My main wide-normal-tele kit on a full format MF sensor is the 40 IF CFE, 100 and 180, with the 120 for macro work.  I also have the 50mm CF/FLE, which while tack sharp in the center goes a bit soft toward the edges (unless I have a bad copy, I'm assuming this is due to field curvature). However on the crop sensor the 50mm isn't so wide so you may prefer one of the 40mm offerings.

- John

Cool, John, thanks mate!

[Chris Livsey]

I have the CF adapter and it works well, within limitations.
Your pace of shooting is of course limited as you lever cock the lens shutter each time.
The body holds data on all the CF lenses, maybe C as well I will check, and you can edit the list so only your lenses show, this is because when you mount the lens the meter needs to know which it is to work correctly. Manual aperture of course but focus indicator works as well as it does with HC lens. The E series lenses, with contacts, tell the body which lens it is automatically and the aperture. Doesn't add much weight, the lenses are heavy enough to mask that.
I was always fond of the 100mm planar and still am, P45+, my 40mm is the older FLE version which is good but not spectacular, the 120mm Macro is very good, the 180mm is a gem, mine is the updated version, 150mm so so but then I was never a fan on film,( it may be my copy) the 50mm, FLE version, I rarely use, too inbetween, I don't think I have mounted the 80mm as I have the 80mm HC which I find excellent and given you can buy one for the around the price of a CFE lens I would go for that so you have one autofocus quick(er) shooter.
I was in a different position having a bag of lenses when I bought the H body so adding the adapter was sensible, if I was starting from scratch I would go HC and add the teleconverter, that is excellent, and for closer work extension tubes, amazing what a standard lens can do.

Edited: All the C lenses are in the list, you can use extension tubes and converters with the adapter, V series.
Finally !! I forgot there is a sync cable from the adapter to the body, if you shoot without that it still works, but is required for flash, but slightly slows, about 1 sec,  the closing of the body shutter blind as the body doesn't know when the exposure is finished so waits, the wait is short enough for me I never use the cable. Shooters I have met have always used it because they didn't realise it wasn't essential.

Edit, Edit They, CF adapters, do pop up S/H but take care, the clutch inside does wear and depending on the lens shutter may not cock it properly or intermittently and require a service on the adapter.

[BobRoss]

I have the CF adapter and it works well, within limitations.

Food for thought, Chris, thanks a lot for your reply. I was actually thinking just what you mentioned, go with 80 and adapt from there

[jng]

Chris,

Thanks for the info. It's good to know that the CF adapter works well, especially with regard to using the camera's autofocus point for focus confirmation. This and the ability to use the lens' leaf shutter (the latter not possible with the Phase One Hassy V adapter) make it an attractive option for when my failing eyesight no longer allows me to focus manually. And if I win the lottery there's the possibility of capturing on a full frame CMOS sensor as well...

John

[Chris Livsey]

Chris,
 And if I win the lottery there's the possibility of capturing on a full frame CMOS sensor as well...
John

We can all dream 

[NickT]

I've used the CF adaptor and it works as advertised, the process is similar to winding film if you have ever done that

[Theodoros]

The Hassy V 180/f4 (in any version of it) is a lens that will be hard to beat if compared with any modern system out there... A good reason for an H user to buy the adapter if he only was to use that one...

[Chris Livsey]

The Hassy V 180/f4 (in any version of it) is a lens that will be hard to beat if compared with any modern system out there... A good reason for an H user to buy the adapter if he only was to use that one...

Mine is a fairly recent addition, that was a mistake, I should have bought one years ago.

[jng]

Agreed! The 180/4 renders beautifully, as does the 100/3.5. And if you can get your hands on one at a reasonable price, the 40 IF is simply ridiculous (in a good way).

NickT: Cocking the shutter after each exposure seems like a very small inconvenience given the rest of the integration that the adapter allows. There's no film to advance with a MFDB attached to my 501, but winding the crank after each shot does make me feel oddly nostalgic now that you mention it.

-John

[Joe Towner]

The CF is a lot of fun - my local rental shop has one currently and I took out the 250 and the 30 fisheye.  It makes me want to play with a 503 for a weekend and bust out a few rolls of film.

-Joe

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I own or have owned the following lenses: 40/4 CF, 50/4 CF, 60/3.5 CF, 80/2.8 CFE, 100/3.5 CF, 120/4 CFi, 150/4CF, 180/4 CFi.

Have been using them on a V-series camera and with a P45+ back.

I would agree that 100/3.5CF FLE, 150/4 CF and 180/4CFI are excellent lenses, although I would add that the 100/3.5 is no good lens for close up work.

The 120/4CF is a macro lens and needs to be stopped down for work at infinity. In the close up range I like it a lot.

The Distagon 40/4CF FLE and 50/4CF FLE have some edge corner softness and that also applies to the 80/2.8CFE and the 60/3.5CF.

But, I made stunning pictures with all those lenses. Unfortunately, only one of my Hassy images made it to the wall, at 60x80cm. I did quite a few 16x23" (A2 prints) and I don't feel the weakness I could observe on Distagons and the 80/2.8 were a problem at that size.

What I have also noticed is that most of the issue with Distagons is field curvature and that often works a bit in your favour, as it can help with foreground sharpness.

The V-series lenses are affordable and decent performers, perfectly good enough for great pictures.

Here is one nice image, check that mosquito on the lady's leg…

Best regards
Erik

[BobRoss]

Hi,

I own or have owned the following lenses: 40/4 CF, 50/4 CF, 60/3.5 CF, 80/2.8 CFE, 100/3.5 CF, 120/4 CFi, 150/4CF, 180/4 CFi.

Have been using them on a V-series camera and with a P45+ back.

I would agree that 100/3.5CF FLE, 150/4 CF and 180/4CFI are excellent lenses, although I would add that the 100/3.5 is no good lens for close up work.

The 120/4CF is a macro lens and needs to be stopped down for work at infinity. In the close up range I like it a lot.

The Distagon 40/4CF FLE and 50/4CF FLE have some edge corner softness and that also applies to the 80/2.8CFE and the 60/3.5CF.

But, I made stunning pictures with all those lenses. Unfortunately, only one of my Hassy images made it to the wall, at 60x80cm. I did quite a few 16x23" (A2 prints) and I don't feel the weakness I could observe on Distagons and the 80/2.8 were a problem at that size.

What I have also noticed is that most of the issue with Distagons is field curvature and that often works a bit in your favour, as it can help with foreground sharpness.

The V-series lenses are affordable and decent performers, perfectly good enough for great pictures.

Here is one nice image, check that mosquito on the lady's leg…

Best regards
Erik

That's awesome thanks a lot Eric for the information!

[Steve Hendrix]

Hi Bob -

There may be some helpful statistical information in these links:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/hasselblad/lenses/hassel_lens_entry.htm
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx


Steve Hendrix/CI

[BobRoss]

Hi Bob -

There may be some helpful statistical information in these links:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/hasselblad/lenses/hassel_lens_entry.htm
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx


Steve Hendrix/CI

Ahh that's very helpful, thanks a lot Steve!

[Chris Livsey]

If you are reading then look at this one on the design differences and optimisation for role of the V and H series:

http://static.hasselblad.com/2015/02/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf

Note since that paper the 120 macro H was redesigned to reduce some specific aberrations but for general use the consensus is the old design is "good enough" ( the specialist close workers will disagree) but the 50mm H II was a significant improvement, all IMHO of course.

If you are interested in the older lenses then this is essential for the nuances of change, one for the nerds 
https://isurplus.com.au/manuals/Hasselblad%20Lens%20Guide.pdf

May as well have the resources in one thread.

[eronald]

Erik,

 There are some exceptionally pretty women, and some exceptionally large and nasty mosquitoes over in your wooded country.

Edmund

Hi,

I own or have owned the following lenses: 40/4 CF, 50/4 CF, 60/3.5 CF, 80/2.8 CFE, 100/3.5 CF, 120/4 CFi, 150/4CF, 180/4 CFi.

Have been using them on a V-series camera and with a P45+ back.

I would agree that 100/3.5CF FLE, 150/4 CF and 180/4CFI are excellent lenses, although I would add that the 100/3.5 is no good lens for close up work.

The 120/4CF is a macro lens and needs to be stopped down for work at infinity. In the close up range I like it a lot.

The Distagon 40/4CF FLE and 50/4CF FLE have some edge corner softness and that also applies to the 80/2.8CFE and the 60/3.5CF.

But, I made stunning pictures with all those lenses. Unfortunately, only one of my Hassy images made it to the wall, at 60x80cm. I did quite a few 16x23" (A2 prints) and I don't feel the weakness I could observe on Distagons and the 80/2.8 were a problem at that size.

What I have also noticed is that most of the issue with Distagons is field curvature and that often works a bit in your favour, as it can help with foreground sharpness.

The V-series lenses are affordable and decent performers, perfectly good enough for great pictures.

Here is one nice image, check that mosquito on the lady's leg…

Best regards
Erik

[NickT]

Hi Chris
Thanks very much for the links.

I have talked to the H lens designer about the difference between H and V lenses, and he said that broadly speaking the H lenses all perform better than their nearest equivalent V lenses ( not really surprising considering they are much more modern designs).

One of the biggest differences is performance across focussing range. For example a legacy wide angle lens will perform well at infinity but not close up. A modern lens might be slightly better at infinity but markedly better close up.

[jng]

Chris,

Thanks for the links. I already have the evolution of lenses article - a nice propaganda piece from Gothenburg, no doubt, but an interesting read nonetheless.

I hadn't run across the other document, however. I just downloaded it and will get my geek on presently...

Cheers,

John