Hasselblad HC & CF lenses users comments

[Dustbak]

I can't answer that. I can only say what I have noticed and how it has been resolved. Use the 150 with proper technique and process via Phocus and it is a non-issue.
Software usage in these days is not uncommon and I have accepted it as a fact of life. It is the results that count IMO. The results of this lens are actually pretty good that way.

[John R Smith]

Software usage in these days is not uncommon and I have accepted it as a fact of life. It is the results that count IMO. The results of this lens are actually pretty good that way.

Well, the results might count, but how you get there counts too. So now you are locked into a Hasselblad camera system, closed so only Hasselblad backs can be used, with only Hasselblad lenses which will fit, and to cap it all forced to use the Hasselblad RAW software to process your files because the lenses have to be corrected to get rid of all sorts of nasty aberrations. Which rules out being able to choose other software like Lightroom, ACR or Aperture for the job. At least back in the day we might have only had Zeiss lenses for our 500s (they were at least mostly damn fine lenses), but we could choose any film we liked in colour or B/W and develop and print it in any chemistry we liked on an enlarger of our choice.

John

[donaldt]

interesting to know how the zoom performs better
I am one of those who almost never use zoom
but if thats what it takes then I might as well really save up for it (and sell the 35mm and 80mm to help out)

as for the 150mm, you might be right that with all the post production processing it is better
but so is most of the cheaper third party lens if you use 135 system (like sigma and tamron etc)
the thing about it is that we have no choice but to pay big for a problematic lens


just like john said
I dont mind being locked into a system and have got no choice in lens and software etc
but please give me the finest lens and most user friendly software

I wouldnt say the Fujiblad is a failure
because I believe the camera is indeed the best, the overall system is also the best so far
its just that these little problems like some of their lenses, and the phocus software being so difficult to use
and most of their problems are not difficult to solve, unlike the Mamiya which I believe need a complete new design on their camera
I hope that Hass does come up with better lenses and software in the near future

PS for the HC 35mm, I in fact like to tune down on the correction, I dont know how to describe but I like it better without all those corner falloffs corrections and stuff

How do you process your files? Especially the 150 benefits from Phocus. It is not half as bad as you think it is.  When you do not process via Phocus the 150 will show quite a bit of CA which is totally gone with Phocus. With proper technique and post processing it is actually quite a good lens.
If 35mm is a focal length you plan on using a lot than I really suggest saving up for the 35-90.

When testing it against the Schneider LS counterparts of the DF system (with an AptusII 12) it really showed how good a lens this is.

[John R Smith]

I'm sure Hasselblad and Mamiya are aware of your exacting standards and will endeavour to gain your approval in the not too distant future.

Keith

I know where you are coming from, and yes, there is a lot of unfair Hasselblad bashing around here, often from those like me who have never even used an H-System camera. However, to some extent I have to rely on what others are saying, and I presume that there is some sort of consensus that the HC 150mm is not so great and suffers from a fair amount of CA unless you correct it in software. If this is true, then I really don't understand why a modern 150mm lens should not be at least as good as one designed back in the 1950s. Especially as we find that it is not cheap, with Dales quoting the RRP at £2754 GBP. Whereas my good old 150mm Sonnar cost me £250, is forty years old, and still going like a good 'un with no discernible CA.

John

[Dustbak]

Sorry but I have also owned the CF150 and it could not hold a candle to the HC150. Much softer & less sharp (which BTW doesn't necessarily means it is a bad thing!). Never looked and compared CA by that time I had already sold the CF150. You are not going to notice CA that much when you do B&W conversions

I admit initially I did not like the HC150 much either, but it has fast AF and after corrections it is sharp, without CA and distortion. I notice a lot of people that say something about things and when digging into their habits it turns out they have, poor technique or use less than optimal processing. Unfortunately it is always blamed on the equipment.

I hardly think there is 'consensus' about something being bad, it is just that those that have to report negative stuff are much louder in most cases. Even those that have never used certain equipment but are relaying something they  thought they have heard.

With the odd exception I find (and I have used them all) most HC lenses are well up to their task. I am the limiting factor in most cases not the lenses. Are there better and nicer lenses in cases and certain conditions? Sure there are but many of those come at a price (in a figurative sense as well as a literal sense) as well.

There are certainly CF(i) lenses that I think are really nice to have (thinking about the CFi180 for instance or the SuperAchromats). It is a great thing I can use these if I want to, even with focus confirmation!

[John R Smith]

Sorry but I have also owned the CF150 and it could not hold a candle to the HC150. Much softer & less sharp (which BTW doesn't necessarily means it is a bad thing!). Never looked and compared CA by that time I had already sold the CF150. You are not going to notice CA that much when you do B&W conversions

I admit initially I did not like the HC150 much either, but it has fast AF and after corrections it is sharp, without CA and distortion. I notice a lot of people that say something about things and when digging into their habits it turns out they have, poor technique or use less than optimal processing. Unfortunately it is always blamed on the equipment.

I hardly think there is 'consensus' about something being bad, it is just that those that have to report negative stuff are much louder in most cases. Even those that have never used certain equipment but are relaying something they  thought they have heard.

Dustbak

Fair enough, then I stand corrected. If the HC 150 is indeed sharper than the old 'C' lens, then it must be pretty sharp, because mine is killer. But then, I have tried the CF 180 which everyone raves about, and I wasn't that impressed. I think a lot of its apparent "sharpness" is really a kind of edgy micro-contrast, and I prefer the 150 because it is more pictorial, to my taste anyhow. The 'C' 150mm Sonnar is a wonderfully smooth and creamy lens - but that doesn't mean that it is soft. And I do disagree about CA - it does matter in B/W, just as in colour, because CA smears and broadens the edges of twigs and boat rigging against the sky, even in monochrome.

John

[Dustbak]

Dustbak

Fair enough, then I stand corrected. If the HC 150 is indeed sharper than the old 'C' lens, then it must be pretty sharp, because mine is killer. But then, I have tried the CF 180 which everyone raves about, and I wasn't that impressed. I think a lot of its apparent "sharpness" is really a kind of edgy micro-contrast, and I prefer the 150 because it is more pictorial, to my taste anyhow. The 'C' 150mm Sonnar is a wonderfully smooth and creamy lens - but that doesn't mean that it is soft. And I do disagree about CA - it does matter in B/W, just as in colour, because CA smears and broadens the edges of twigs and boat rigging against the sky, even in monochrome.

John

I did like the CFi180. My 150 was sharp but it had kind of a veil over it that made it appear soft. Really nice for portraitwork but did leave you with the impression of lesser sharpness. You are right CA does smear thin stuff (like twigs or indeed boat rigging) in monochrome. Anyway, it does give food for thought. Nothing is either black or white.

Having said that I am thinking about adding a 180 plus CF adapter since there are occassions I notice I use the 150 which is a bit too wide and the 210 too narrow (for that application). Phocus BTW does have software corrections for the V lenses as well currently!

[darylgo]

what if the CF 120 makro is used as portrait lens? does it still suffer the infinity problem or is the problem really AT infinity
I can live with poor infinity because I almost never use infinity anyway

head a lot of good stuff about the Contax macro, too bad it doesnt work on any other system

guess I will look for a CF 120mm makro instead of the HC now

I have heard the cf120 is excellent for portraits but I don't have any first hand experience with it.  My macro testing did include a distance of 4-5 feet and it was superb, but I don't know where it transitions to poorer performance. 

Too bad about the Contax 645 lenses being a dead system.  There is an adapter to Canon EOS but the smaller Zeiss lenses made for Canon and Nikon should outperform the 645 lenses, especially the 100mm F2 Makro. 

Consider rental to try the cf120. 

[John R Smith]

John, I would say that in any range of lenses there are stellar performers and less than stellar performers, it was always the way, including the 500 series. I doubt anyone is more aware of this than the manufacturers themselves, hence the revisions.

Absolutely right, Keith. For example, the 250mm Sonnar I have is noticeably lacking in contrast compared to say the 80mm Planar. And the old 40mm Distagon (the original funeral urn) was pants. The other problem, especially with the old lenses, is that they vary between examples of the same lens. I have two 80mm, and one is in a different league from the other. So you could have a 150 and not think much of it, when it is just a lemon from that particular batch. The 50mm 'C' Distagon is another problem child. Used close-in, it is seriously awful, with rubbish focus and soft corners. But when you get out to 30 feet or more, it is an ace lens for architecture.

I have heard the cf120 is excellent for portraits but I don't have any first hand experience with it.  My macro testing did include a distance of 4-5 feet and it was superb, but I don't know where it transitions to poorer performance. 

The old 120mm S-Planar, which I use, is fine out to about 6-10 feet, no problem. Which is about as far as you would want to be for portraits.

John

[BlasR]

here is one with the bad hc 150

I like it, good copy I guess.

[donaldt]

you exactly pointed out the problem I am having
most of the HC lenses are harsh and inconsistent
for instance my 210mm performs much better when I try to shoot a tight head and shoulder shot, but must worse and harsh when shooting a waist up shot
I am not as experience as most of you here with decades of shooting, so I dont know what the problem is, I would guess it performs better in a limited focus distance

whereas the CF100 and CF180 which I find a lot more consistencies, and smoothness
I believe it isnt difficult to make sharp lenses, I keep bringing out Sigma and Tamron, but again they make very sharp lenses that hold up to or excel the original lens makers, but are they consistent, smooth, and reliable
what I am disappointed with is that the Fujiblad is so much more expensive than say Mamiya AF lenses, but we still see the inconsistencies within their design (like my 210mm example)

however as one of you have said, the lens might not be the very best out there but with proper technique, it should do the job well enough
I might have thrown in my decision too early with the 150mm and the 35mm (but I couldnt get sharp image with them on the 50MP back, tried stopping down to f8, f12, still dont see sharp image, what could I have done wrong?)

Dustbak

Fair enough, then I stand corrected. If the HC 150 is indeed sharper than the old 'C' lens, then it must be pretty sharp, because mine is killer. But then, I have tried the CF 180 which everyone raves about, and I wasn't that impressed. I think a lot of its apparent "sharpness" is really a kind of edgy micro-contrast, and I prefer the 150 because it is more pictorial, to my taste anyhow. The 'C' 150mm Sonnar is a wonderfully smooth and creamy lens - but that doesn't mean that it is soft. And I do disagree about CA - it does matter in B/W, just as in colour, because CA smears and broadens the edges of twigs and boat rigging against the sky, even in monochrome.

John

[John R Smith]

I might have thrown in my decision too early with the 150mm and the 35mm (but I couldnt get sharp image with them on the 50MP back, tried stopping down to f8, f12, still dont see sharp image, what could I have done wrong?)

Were you shooting hand-held or off a tripod? With flash in a studio or in natural light? A 50 MP digital back is very demanding of technique. It's all too easy to blame the lens when in fact we need to re-examine every aspect of taking the shot in the first place, in my experience.

John