MTF-compare: HC 50 vs 50-110

[davidbicho]

I was just about to buy the HC 50/3,5 and I compared the MTF-charts between this prime and the zoom 50-110/3,5-4,5 and thought at first I mixed the two pdf's, but no. As far as I can see (im no MTF-mastah) the zoom outperforms (well, a bit strong word perhaps but I lack in english nuances:)) the prime.

And as far as I can google, there is no image-vs-image championships out there so I guess I have to make some own tests first to see what Im missing before probably going for the prime. The weight issues of the zoom is a clear down side for me as a 99% hand held shooter...

How about the bokeh quality between the two? Any difference?

[Roberto Chaves]

That sounds interesting, I too am curious to find out more about this.

Something a notice from the Hasselblad site that might not make much of a difference is that the HC 50 f/3.5 has focusing range starting at 0.6m, while the zoom starts at 0.7m.

[davidbicho]

That sounds interesting, I too am curious to find out more about this.

Something a notice from the Hasselblad site that might not make much of a difference is that the HC 50 f/3.5 has focusing range starting at 0.6m, while the zoom starts at 0.7m.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I tried them both out today for an hour and I was prepared for all the bad thing I heard about the zoom... Slow AF, extremely heavy, if pointed down the zoom ring moves because of the weight...

I had absolutely no problem with the weight compared to the prime.

The AF-speed was NO problem at all. I was prepared for something like the slow (but beautiful) Canon EF 85/1,2 Mk I. Its possible that the difference is quite obvious when going from far-far-away to close, but thats not how I work anyhow.

When pointing down, the zoom didnt move at all. Maybe it will if I mounted it for a days shoot straight down or something, but... Thats not in my kind of work either.

But I didnt make any final decision today, but I think that what finally matters is how the zooms DOF at 80/max aperture looks like compared to the classic HC 80/2.8 at 2.8. If the zoom gives me a DOF that makes both the eye and the nosetip sharp, then its a no-thank-you...

[erikhillard]

how the zooms DOF at 80/max aperture looks like compared to the classic HC 80/2.8 at 2.8. If the zoom gives me a DOF that makes both the eye and the nosetip sharp, then its a no-thank-you...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like a really good test..

[Khun_K]

Sounds like a really good test..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most of today's lenses were well corrected so I don't suppose there is any easily visible gap between zoom and prime lenses. The same apply to the Contax Vario-Sonnar 45-90/4.5, which compares well against the 45, 55 and 80 for normal shooting distance.  
I think today the difference between using a prime and zoom is more or less the style of shooting, at least for me, rather than the particular sharpness. With zoom the photogrpaher train and zoom the lens and thus move less so it is easier to shoot but also it is possible to miss certain shooting perspective, due to the same convenience. With prime, the photogrpaher needs to move to get the right picture and there makes the different picture, but for sharpness, I doubt there is much difference anymore.

[Mike W]

Do these MTF charts really give the whole picture? Can you compare lenses for sharpness etc. ?
Hw do you read these charts?

[Roberto Chaves]

The AF-speed was NO problem at all. I was prepared for something like the slow (but beautiful) Canon EF 85/1,2 Mk I. Its possible that the difference is quite obvious when going from far-far-away to close, but thats not how I work anyhow.

When pointing down, the zoom didnt move at all. Maybe it will if I mounted it for a days shoot straight down or something, but... Thats not in my kind of work either.

But I didnt make any final decision today, but I think that what finally matters is how the zooms DOF at 80/max aperture looks like compared to the classic HC 80/2.8 at 2.8. If the zoom gives me a DOF that makes both the eye and the nosetip sharp, then its a no-thank-you...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for sharing this info!

Please let us know if you take any pictures that you could share.

[Roberto Chaves]

Do these MTF charts really give the whole picture? Can you compare lenses for sharpness etc. ?
Hw do you read these charts?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be interesting if we could get some DxO Analyzer charts on the Hasselblad lenses. These are in my opinion much easier to read and compare than MTF chars.

[MarkKay]

I can say that I have used this zoom and compared it to all the H2 primes except the 50 and 300mm lenses. I have compared the zoom with the 80, 100, and 120mm macro.   The prime is optically equivalent at least in combo with the  aptus 65 back, which of course is a cropped sensor. I can even use the zoom with extension tubes to get macro quality images.  Moreover, you can use the zoom for close up shoots to get the exact framing in place of having to move the camera.  The one issue i would say is that the bokeh is not as nice with the zoom as say the 100mm 2.2. MOreover the 100mm accepts the 1.7x converter while the zoom will not.
  The issues about size, weight and sometimes slow to focus are real but if you consider the weight of 3 primes vs one zoom, and the work involved in changing lenses, the size/weight issue are somewhat balanced.  

I have traveled with the 35 and 50-110mm zoom and now I sometimes take the 210mm as well and this more than does well by me in terms of focal range.    

I was just about to buy the HC 50/3,5 and I compared the MTF-charts between this prime and the zoom 50-110/3,5-4,5 and thought at first I mixed the two pdf's, but no. As far as I can see (im no MTF-mastah) the zoom outperforms (well, a bit strong word perhaps but I lack in english nuances:)) the prime.

And as far as I can google, there is no image-vs-image championships out there so I guess I have to make some own tests first to see what Im missing before probably going for the prime. The weight issues of the zoom is a clear down side for me as a 99% hand held shooter...

How about the bokeh quality between the two? Any difference?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

Check these articles:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...nding-mtf.shtml

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/how_to_choose_a_lens.html

Best regards

Erik

Do these MTF charts really give the whole picture? Can you compare lenses for sharpness etc. ?
Hw do you read these charts?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]