distagon 40mm CF vs. CFE

[schotter]

What difference is there except the electronic information transfer? Looks like the CFE is more 'plastic' than the CF, which is something I would actually appreciate since I would use it handheld on location a lot (weight). Any dimensional and optical differences? I am planning to use it on a 503CW with a P30 back. So could there be any differences (coating..?) in dealing with a digital chip?
cheers
kai

[MarkKay]

I purchased a used hasselblad 40mm CF FLE lens to use on my hasselblad H system via an adapter. I was interested in using with their PC mutar.  The image quality was decent except when shifting with the mutar.  I suspect by the time I added the C to H adapter and the mutar, I was adding too much distance from the body to the sensor.  Alone with the mutar the lens  was not better than my 35mm HC so i sold it.  However I have been told by two independent and experienced folks that the newer   CFE IF lens is in a whole different league from an optic point of view. I have been told it is the best wide angle MF lens they have every used. Sharp, virtually distortion free, with little or no CA.  However this lens is 5K so I never tried it myself.  I can say the earlier version lens was extremely well built and was quite nice from the standpoint of build.

What difference is there except the electronic information transfer? Looks like the CFE is more 'plastic' than the CF, which is something I would actually appreciate since I would use it handheld on location a lot (weight). Any dimensional and optical differences? I am planning to use it on a 503CW with a P30 back. So could there be any differences (coating..?) in dealing with a digital chip?
cheers
kai
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Gary Yeowell]

In terms of weight it is negligable and certainly not worth even considering. Optical differences again are negligable, the only difference between the CF FLE & CFE is the latters newer anti reflection coating for the inside of the barrel, the actual optics are identical, including the coatings. Whether the new anti reflection coating makes any difference i honestly could not say as i have a mixture of CF and CFE lenses and have not seen one jot of difference in terms of flare or contrast control.

If you really want the sharpest 40mm lens then you will need to consider the much newer CFE IF lens which i use. This lens is much much sharper at every aperture and fantastic fully open, contrast is incredible and the lens does not soften at the outer 30% of the frame past f8/f11 as the CF/CFE version does noticeably. Vignetting is also much improved, however there is no such thing as a free lunch as the newer 'IF' version does suffer from barrel distortion more than the CF/CFE, this being the trade off. If you want ultra sharp and incredible resolution then you will have to suffer a bit more distortion i am affraid, although it's really only noticeable with architectural subjects, and of course worse on the outer edges so a didital chip like the P30 will not show as much, like the P20 i currently use with it.

One additional benifit of this lens is the incredibly smooth internal focussing, and automatic floating element for close up correction. It is a big lens mind you, slightly longer than the CF/CFE and is more expensive on the used market, if you can find one at all. Given that you are shooting digital i personally would not bother with the two earlier lenses as i really consider that they fall short of the quality required, fine with film but not digital. Both the Hasselblad 50CF/FLE and the Contax 35mm are better lenses than the previous 40 CF/CFE versions.

Hope that helps,

Gary.

[SeanFS]

I have been using the 40mm  CF FLE with an Imacon 132 back  and V series and can't say I can fault it too much.

I'm sure the newer lenses are better, an have looked at quite a few sample files to compare but I have found the 40mm better than it ever seemed to be with film - possibly because of the higher resolution of the digital back.   and I don't seem to be losing much in comparison with the newer lenses( apart from that 5mm with the H series camera 35mm)

There is a little CA in the corners but I have to agree its a very well corrected lens compared to many 35mm wide angles I have used.

One thing I found with the Imacon was the sharpness improved  a lot with this and the other lenses I have  was when I took the time to adjust the focussing of the back with  shims , that Imacon allows me to do. It made quite a difference, particularly at infinity focus with all of them

What difference is there except the electronic information transfer? Looks like the CFE is more 'plastic' than the CF, which is something I would actually appreciate since I would use it handheld on location a lot (weight). Any dimensional and optical differences? I am planning to use it on a 503CW with a P30 back. So could there be any differences (coating..?) in dealing with a digital chip?
cheers
kai
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Pham Minh Son]

The Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 4.0/40 CFE IF is very high in macro-contrast and micro-contrast. The Contax 645 Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 3.5/55 is also a very sharp autofocus lens. The Contax 645 Carl Zeiss Distagon t* 3.5/35 is also a very decent autofocus lens.

[schotter]

thanks!

I will probably rent the IF and see how it goes.

cheers

kai

[archivue]

i've tried the 40 IF with a mirex tilt and shift adaptor on a 5D II... good lens in term of IQ, Color fringing... but way too much distorsion for my intend use !

[DavidP]

There were two 40 CFE lenses for the Hasselblad, The CFE FLE which is optically the same as the 40mm CF but has better ergonomics and the electronics, it also has a much better sync connecter. It is probably not much more expensive these days then a clean CF lens. I think the quality of construction is at least as good as the CF. I used to have one of these. It is a good performing lens when stopped down a bit. The 40mm CFE IF, it a newer version of the lens that I have rented in the past. It is sharper but may have more distortion then the FLE. It is really good for a cropped frame with digital back. The IF is less common and much more expensive.

[Rob C]

If I may go back to the original post, I see that the writer intends to hand-hold this lens with the Hasselblad.

That being so, I think that much of the advice/expectations might be wasted time. I owned two ´balds for many years and lenses from 50mm to 150mm as well, which covered much of what I thought required a 6x6 format. But, and a huge but, off a tripod, none of these optics was particularly good.

That sounds nonsense, of course, and it is: the real problem is not the lenses but hand-holding a Hasselblad.

Hasselblad once published a newsletter where they pointed out the difference between two identical shots, one on a tripod with mirror up and the second, without it up. The difference was quite remarkable. It´s called mirror bounce and it will kill you.

They were quick to protect their ass by pointing out another obvious truth: the same holds true for all reflex cameras. It also mirrors my own experience. (No, they didn´t mention that.)

So basically, the merits of one model of 40mm compared with another are fairly meaningless unless you do use a tripod and mirror-up (at the very least a tripod) and give the lenses a chance to do their thing to the best of their ability.

It might well be that the work intended for the 40mm doesn´t lend itself to tripods or mirror-up; in that case, may I respectfully suggest a different type of camera, something more suited to that work?

Rob C