Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: donaldt on April 17, 2011, 09:59:52 am
-
recently there have been many posts about the Hasselblad HC lenses and how the CF lenses work on Digital
I thought we might as well compile all of us real users' comments in one post to help each others out
I will start with my limited experience and hopefully you guys would add your comments too
to start off, I am an amateur user, mainly do portraits, and I use a H3Dii-50
HC 35mm: weak, what else do you wish me say... but for the price at less than $2000 used(I picked up mine for $1700), and the fact that there is no CF alternatives(widest being 40mm, and the FLE is a pain to use), it seems to me that it is the only choice... the 28mm is a bit too wide for me and pricey, 35-90 is pricey and large. ironically, its one of my most used lenses due to my shooting style, but I wish there was a 35mm version II or version N or whatever
HC 80mm: ok its a kit lens and thats all it is, the focal length is very useful but it is not an impressive lens, waiting for a nice used HC 100mm to come by to replace this one (the CF alternative is unlikely to out perform this lens)
HC 150mm: useful focal length for portrait, but I found that it was less than good. the bokeh was actually quite okay on this one, but I ended up letting this one go because I suspect it was a bad copy, so I might pick one up again. for the time being I am using a CF180mm as an alternative (have not used the N version which I heard was a bit better, why is it not version II but N anyway?)
HC 210mm: probably one of the sharper HCs, works fine, but the bokeh is inconsistent, and usually not very nice. at certain distance the bokeh is fine, but most of the time they are not. its weird for a modern lens design
CF 100mm: very nice lens, I believe its one of the best standard lens for medium format ever produced. I have not have much chance to actually put this lens to use on my H3 yet, but early test shows that it is still superb with a 50MP back
CF 180mm: my mid tele alternative for the moment, also have not yet have much chance to use it, but early tests shows it is better than my copy of the HC 150mm
I really hope you real users can give some inputs, especially on the HC120mm Macro and CF120mm Makro, the CF60mm and the CF250mm
Thanks a lot
Donald
-
Hi Donald,
I suggest that you check out Nick T's forum for answers to your post:
http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/
Many Hasselblad users have shared their lens experiences there.
Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
http://www.jecxz.com
http://www.facebook.com/derek.jecxz.photographer
-
Hi Donald,
I suggest that you check out Nick T's forum for answers to your post:
http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/ ;)
Many Hasselblad users have shared their lens experiences there.
Hi!
That page seems more like a fan-site. Many of these H-lenses are medium performers.
Even his fan-site shows a lot of these results in 100%.
If the lenses were good there shold be need to make new lenses of the same focal lenght?
A new 50, a new 120, a new 150 .... But even the new ones are medium......
[/quote]
-
Always nice to see unpleasant comments levelled at Hasselblad here..
The forum I run is not a "Fan site" it is a forum for over 1200 Hasselblad shooters to support and learn from each other away from the carping and unpleasantness that seems to be directed towards Hasselblad in many other forums.
The lens section on the forum is intended to serve as a database of images from all the HC lenses so that people can get an idea of the look of those lenses. There are both positive and negative comments posted there. Perhaps before you start bashing Hasselblad hHenrik you could give us some idea of your background so we know who we are talking to.
Cheers
Nick-T
-
Hi Nick!
No hard feelings towards Hasselblad from me.
And I am sure your forum is great. My point was that the referense to his site in this tread
was not that relevant because it is mostly about the H-lenses.
I have some H- lenses myself (35, 80, 120 and the big zoom)
I also have almost all the newest versions of the V-lenses. Many of them are much better than the H-lenses
(my oppinion).
I love Hasselblad but I am not happy with the Fujinon lenses.
I just ordered a new 80 mp back for Hasselblad ;)
-
What do you mean by that?
-
Hi Donald,
I suggest that you check out Nick T's forum for answers to your post:
http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/ ;)
Many Hasselblad users have shared their lens experiences there.
Hi!
That page seems more like a fan-site. Many of these H-lenses are medium performers.
Even his fan-site shows a lot of these results in 100%.
If the lenses were good there shold be need to make new lenses of the same focal lenght?
A new 50, a new 120, a new 150 .... But even the new ones are medium......
FAN-side? wow
You must be one of those kind.
Good luck asking question.
this is with 50-110 @70
-
How come Hasselblad people are so sensitive to comments like that?
I see I should have chosen another word, but still don't think your zoom is a great lens.
Even if your picture is fantastic, and I see the lens works great in that setting.
Can you explain to me what you mean by " one of those kind"??
Henrik
-
Virtually anyone can post virtually anything on virtually any internet forum. The value comes from sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Thats true. But many people would dislike to use their complete names openly to everyone.
I am afraid we would end up having less interesting discussions with less persons partisipating...
-
How come Hasselblad people are so sensitive to comments like that?
I see I should have chosen another word, but still don't think your zoom is a great lens.
Even if your picture is fantastic, and I see the lens works great in that setting.
Can you explain to me what you mean by " one of those kind"??
Henrik
"What of those kind".
Your lens do not work great at all. you had complain about each one.
I don't care about any company, they don't pay me to promote them.
I can't complain at all about any of those lenses the you mentions here.
You must be one of those kind, the all is bad about what you have.
-
"What of those kind".
Your lens do not work great at all. you had complain about each one.
I don't care about any company, they don't pay me to promote them.
I can't complain at all about any of those lenses the you mentions here.
You must be one of those kind, the all is bad about what you have.
If you want to critisise people please read the tread a lot better. I DID NOT
write about the different lenses, and did not start this tread.
That was started by Donald.
Henrik
-
A name is no guarantie for better quality.
-
I haven't the slightest interest in your name. Show me what comes with it - your work - and you never know you might gain my interest and possibly my respect.
I see what you mean of course. Just trying to see the other side of the story as well :)
It's most likely a good idea.
-
wow calm down guys
first of all I use that website myself, under the same screen name
it certainly helps but I am not trying to say which lens helps you make good pictures
anyone can virtually use any camera and lens to make a good picture, with the right skill of course
however there are people like me who likes to smell the computer screen and look at the 100% crop to count every other pixels
(okay I exaggerated but for example the 35mm makes good pictures, but if you zoom into 100% it is not as sharp as one would like)
I was just trying to get people to make subjective comments about their HC lenses and V lenses to help us real users to decide which to get
for example I am considering between the 120mm macro between HC and CF, same for the 50mm
I have owned the Mamiya system and moved to the Hass
the Hass is a better system overall, but it isnt perfect
the nature of the system means that we have no other choice in lenses except for the V
thats why I starting this post
-
I use the 100mm and the 35mm the most. Of the 5 lenses that I own the 100mm is easily my favorite. I initially did not like the 35mm but got used to it and I am OK with it now. I wouldn't mind if it was just a bit sharper though. The 80mm is a good standard lens. I rarely use the 120mm and if I use it it is for portraits. It hasn't disappointed me though. The 150mm is in my opinion the weakest of the lenses that I own.
I use an H1/P30+ combo so the HCD are not an option for me. I am considering an H4D-31 or H4D-40 though.
Due to the lack of AF I am not really looking at CF lenses.
-
I really hope you real users can give some inputs, especially on the HC120mm Macro and CF120mm Makro, the CF60mm and the CF250mm
The CFi 120mm Makro is extremely sharp in macro but suffers terribly at infinity. What is unusual about this lens is that it is sharp wide-open and retains it's sharpness at each and every aperture with virtually no change in resolution (in macro). Comparing it to the 120mm Makro made for the Contax 645, the Contax version is sharpest at f5.6, 8 and 11 (equaling the Hasselblad version) in both macro and at infinity. As a macro lens the Hasselblad is superior but the Contax is better for general shooting. I don't have any experience with the H macro.
The CF350 is a horrid lens, stopping it down retains every last bit of unsharpness throughout it full range. I never tried the cf250, the 180mm is so sharp and beautiful that the the difference in focal length was not enough to carry an extra lens.
The CFi40mm (non IF) lens is neither sharp nor poor, it is not in the league of the cf100 or cf180 but the images I get from this lens are some of my best. The Mamiya 45mm for the 645 (manual focus) equals the sharpness of the cfi40 but contrast and rendition are not quite Zeiss.
-
Thanks a lot for your input
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
although the HC120mm has came down quite a bit for used ones(probably due to the version II)
I am more confident with the CF and I dont need all my lens to be AF 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
The CFi 120mm Makro is extremely sharp in macro but suffers terribly at infinity. What is unusual about this lens is that it is sharp wide-open and retains it's sharpness at each and every aperture with virtually no change in resolution (in macro). Comparing it to the 120mm Makro made for the Contax 645, the Contax version is sharpest at f5.6, 8 and 11 (equaling the Hasselblad version) in both macro and at infinity. As a macro lens the Hasselblad is superior but the Contax is better for general shooting. I don't have any experience with the H macro.
The CF350 is a horrid lens, stopping it down retains every last bit of unsharpness throughout it full range. I never tried the cf250, the 180mm is so sharp and beautiful that the the difference in focal length was not enough to carry an extra lens.
The CFi40mm (non IF) lens is neither sharp nor poor, it is not in the league of the cf100 or cf180 but the images I get from this lens are some of my best. The Mamiya 45mm for the 645 (manual focus) equals the sharpness of the cfi40 but contrast and rendition are not quite Zeiss.
-
I believe I will develop into using the 35mm a lot and forgiving its slight softness
its a useful focal length for me, and there is no alternative at the moment (except for the zoom)
for some reason I start off using all the lenses that are on the weaker side (my first lens was the 150mm then 35mm)
hopefully when I get the 100mm I will become happier
I use the 100mm and the 35mm the most. Of the 5 lenses that I own the 100mm is easily my favorite. I initially did not like the 35mm but got used to it and I am OK with it now. I wouldn't mind if it was just a bit sharper though. The 80mm is a good standard lens. I rarely use the 120mm and if I use it it is for portraits. It hasn't disappointed me though. The 150mm is in my opinion the weakest of the lenses that I own.
I use an H1/P30+ combo so the HCD are not an option for me. I am considering an H4D-31 or H4D-40 though.
Due to the lack of AF I am not really looking at CF lenses.
-
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.
-
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.
This does make you wonder a bit. These longer focal lengths should be some of the easiest to correct for CA in the optics, not in software. My ancient Zeiss 'C' 150mm Sonnar has absolutely minimal CA on my 3FR files processed in Lightroom with no correction applied whatever. Even on twigs and wires against a bright sky, in the corners. If Zeiss could manage that in the 1960s, why can't FujiBlad manage it now?
John
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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
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!
-
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, 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
-
here is one with the bad hc 150
I like it, good copy I guess.
-
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
-
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