Hasselblad V lenses on the Sony A7rII using the HCam Master TSII

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It has been suggest that the Hasselblad lenses would not be good enough for the IQ3 100 MP back. I did a quick and dirty check. with the A7rII.

On this page you find:

A three exposure shift Pano with a Planar 100/3.5 CF and a Distagon 60/3.5.

A rotational pano with several exposures, with the Planar 100/3.5 shifted upwards.

All the panoramas were merged using Lightrooms built in stitching. Image processing pretty much standard. Sharpening "Landscape". F/8 used. Some of the images two stops underexposed, because of sloppy work. (It was cold and I was in a bit of hurry).

As the IQ3-100MP has similar pixel size as the Sony A7rII, if the lens works on the Sony it should give similar results on IQ3-100MP.

Raw files in DNG format included. Warning for big files.

Best regards
Erik

[torger]

Interesting examples. The images are indeed soft at pixelpeep compared to the supersharp tech rodies, and I can assure you many of the tech cam users want that aliasing-sharp look at pixelpeep.

What I do see though is that while a bit soft the quality is well controlled, there are no ugly abberrations so they should produce excellent prints.

[chrismuc]

same test with Hasselblad CF 50f4 FLE @ f11 with Mirex +/- 16mm shift on Sony A7RII (4.5 um pixel size)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/pictures/SonyA7RII%2BHB50f4FLE%2B-16mm-shift.jpg

stitched equals 56mm x 36mm sensor size, 13100 x 7880 pixel = 103 MP

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, I would expect the Rodies to be a bit sharper, although I have seen few raw files shot by Rodenstock HRs. But, the details are there and good sharpening can do a lot.

Based on these samples, I don't think a 4.5 MP sensor outresolves these lenses. Now these lenses are essentially like 20-30 year old designs. The Planar 100/3.5 consists of just 5 elements, compare that to my Sony 90/2.8G having 15 element in 11 groups...

My understanding is that the H-series lenses are actually quite good,  a bit above the CF lenses. So I would think they would work well with the IQ3 100MP.

Just as an example, Capture One would apply quite a lot more sharpening than I did. The only good reference is a raw file that we can process with our own preferences, but for some reasons raw files from MFD are quite rare.

One of the shots (or two?) displays a bit of almost unexpected moiré. I have seen something similar with my Canon 16-35/4 in a few pictures. I am a bit skeptical about the A7rII dropping the OLP filter, but that's life.

Best regards
Erik

Interesting examples. The images are indeed soft at pixelpeep compared to the supersharp tech rodies, and I can assure you many of the tech cam users want that aliasing-sharp look at pixelpeep.

What I do see though is that while a bit soft the quality is well controlled, there are no ugly abberrations so they should produce excellent prints.

[Joe Towner]

Shift up & right to a corner and see how it goes.  If the center of the lens is good, and the on axis is good, but the corners are way off, that would explain a lot.

Plus, if you really want to use V lenses on the 100MP back you can:
- technical camera like the Cambo, Arca, HCam, etc
- adapt V lenses to the H body (cf adapter) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362313-REG/Hasselblad_3043500_CF_Lens_Adapter_for.html
- adapt V lenses to the M645 mount http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362313-REG/Hasselblad_3043500_CF_Lens_Adapter_for.html

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Shifting to the limits is a bit of what I have done.

What I have seen so far is that the 100/3.5 is really sweet, but the Distagon 60/3.5 does pretty well, too. Now, you don't need to take pictures really, you can download MTF curves for all lenses from Zeiss: http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center.html

Would you look at the MTF curves of the 100/3.5 Planar you would notice that they are essentially flat, so that lens performs uniform from center to corner. The downside is that it is corrected for long distances.

The other lens I tried is the Distagon 60/3.5. This is a retrofocus design, with "Distagon" being the name for Zeiss retrofocus designs.
This lens varies quite a lot in MTF along the field, but the 10 lp/mm and 20 lp/mm that are essential for image quality in prints are reasonably good.  The 40 lp/mm curves are a bit so, so. But, high frequency detail contributes very little to prints. That means that the lens may look bad in pixel peeping, which is typically  around 110 lp/mm on 4.5 micron sensors.

Hasselblad shares measured lens data and it is very consistent with lens data. Other vendors also offer MTF data, but it is often calculated data and not measured on actual samples. Hasselblad publishes data at 10/20/40 lp/mm, while say Linos (Rodenstock) often shares MTF at 7.5, 15, 30 and 60 lp/mm, making comparisons difficult.

Based on the MTF data, the Rodenstocks look extremely good.

Best regards
Erik




 

Shift up & right to a corner and see how it goes.  If the center of the lens is good, and the on axis is good, but the corners are way off, that would explain a lot.

Plus, if you really want to use V lenses on the 100MP back you can:
- technical camera like the Cambo, Arca, HCam, etc
- adapt V lenses to the H body (cf adapter) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362313-REG/Hasselblad_3043500_CF_Lens_Adapter_for.html
- adapt V lenses to the M645 mount http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/362313-REG/Hasselblad_3043500_CF_Lens_Adapter_for.html

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the sample! I sold my 50/4 when I got the 100/3.5. I essentially replaced the 50/4 and the 80/2.8 with the 100/3.5 and 60/3.5. Didn't want to have more lenses than I could carry.

What is your take on the issue?

Best regards
Erik

same test with Hasselblad CF 50f4 FLE @ f11 with Mirex +/- 16mm shift on Sony A7RII (4.5 um pixel size)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18437364/pictures/SonyA7RII%2BHB50f4FLE%2B-16mm-shift.jpg

stitched equals 56mm x 36mm sensor size, 13100 x 7880 pixel = 103 MP

[jng]

Erik, Chris,

Thanks for sharing the results of your tests. The 100/3.5 is indeed sweet and I am pleasantly surprised by the 60/3.5, which looks pretty good although a bit soft at the pixel-peeping level. This is consistent with published MTF curves and also my experience with the 100/3.5 on the IQ160 back (6 micron pixel pitch).

Regarding the 50/4 FLE, I find it to be quite sharp across the frame at intermediate and close distances, but soft at the edges at infinity focus (although still very sharp in the center). I'm not sure whether this reflects field curvature or a slight misalignment in my copy of the lens. Either way a "feature-not-a-bug" is that foreground details can be pulled into sharp focus without tilt or stopping down into diffraction territory.  If my lens is representative, I don't think the 50/4 FLE holds up so well on the high resolution 40 x 54mm sensors.

I have just started experimenting with the 40/4 IF on the Flexbody and so far the images are very very crisp - again not surprising considering its more modern design and the published MTF curves. I see no problem shifting up to 10mm in portrait orientation, with only slight vignetting at 15mm shift in landscape orientation (which may in retrospect be due to the lens shade - I've not investigated this thoroughly yet). Time will tell whether I stop here or the 40/4 IF-Flexbody combination winds up being my gateway drug to a tech cam with the Rodies.

- John

Edit: I believe there are at least several LuLa forum members who are using the 40/4 IF with the SonyA7r (and perhaps also the A7rii?) with excellent results.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Regarding the 50/4 CF I had one, but before I got my A7rII and Master Cam TS. I would agree that it had issues in the corners on my P45+ back, unshifted. But, it cleaned up pretty well with some extra sharpening on the edges.

I also have a Flexbody, but I found it to hard to use in the field.

Regarding the 40/4 FLE (non IF). I have one but I have not done any tests shots with it yet, but I have some doubts. Now, I am more interested in tilts then shifts, and there the 40/4 works fine.

Chris Barret has the original 40/4CFE as far as I know and he seems to be happy with it.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, Chris,

Thanks for sharing the results of your tests. The 100/3.5 is indeed sweet and I am pleasantly surprised by the 60/3.5, which looks pretty good although a bit soft at the pixel-peeping level. This is consistent with published MTF curves and also my experience with the 100/3.5 on the IQ160 back (6 micron pixel pitch).

Regarding the 50/4 FLE, I find it to be quite sharp across the frame at intermediate and close distances, but soft at the edges at infinity focus (although still very sharp in the center). I'm not sure whether this reflects field curvature or a slight misalignment in my copy of the lens. Either way a "feature-not-a-bug" is that foreground details can be pulled into sharp focus without tilt or stopping down into diffraction territory.  If my lens is representative, I don't think the 50/4 FLE holds up so well on the high resolution 40 x 54mm sensors.

I have just started experimenting with the 40/4 IF on the Flexbody and so far the images are very very crisp - again not surprising considering its more modern design and the published MTF curves. I see no problem shifting up to 10mm in portrait orientation, with only slight vignetting at 15mm shift in landscape orientation (which may in retrospect be due to the lens shade - I've not investigated this thoroughly yet). Time will tell whether I stop here or the 40/4 IF-Flexbody combination winds up being my gateway drug to a tech cam with the Rodies.

- John

Edit: I believe there are at least several LuLa forum members who are using the 40/4 IF with the SonyA7r (and perhaps also the A7rii?) with excellent results.

[synn]

The samples are soft, but perfectly usable. Nothing a little bit of focus magic can't cure IMO.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for chiming in!

For one thing I just applied "Scenic" preset in Lightroom on the JPEGs, that sharpening was developed by Jeff Schewe and I guess it is pretty OK for printing. I of course realise that sharpening is an individual thing, but I didn't want to show images with excessive sharpening. Images without sharpening are always very soft, so I felt that "Scenic" preset was a decent compromise.

What I have seen from Hasselblads data is that in general the new H-series lenses are a bit better regarding sharpness than the older Hasselblad lenses.

So if anyone feels these images hold up, with adequate sharpening, than I would say the Hasselblad lenses would be usable with this sensor size.

Some of the wide angles for the H-system have the image circle limited to 60mm. That should be kept in mind.

Another point, I have shot same lens from the same position with my P45+, and the reproduction is dramatically better with the smaller pixels. So, I would say that a back with the sensor used on the Hasselblad V series would be a major upgrade for owners, and I would think it would be a worthwhile update also on the H-series.

Obviously, I cannot say anything about Phase One lenses. I have seen some MTF curves for those lenses, but they use different lp/mm than Hasselblad, so it is no easy comparison, but it is my understanding that they should be very good.

Best regards
Erik

The samples are soft, but perfectly usable. Nothing a little bit of focus magic can't cure IMO.

[synn]

Hi Erik,

I myself am a big fan of the older lenses too. They are not as sharp as the latest lenses for sure, but their rendering is usually quite pleasant. The Mamiya 50mm shift for example is one of my favorites right now for this reason. I can sharpen the output in post to match the Schneiders, but the rendering that this lens delivers is quite unique and filmic, compared to the clinical look of modern lenses.

Judging by your samples, I would definitely say that the Hassy V lenses are quite usable on the A7R2, except for those who want extreme sharpness out of the box.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My point was more that those lenses would work well also with the IQ3-100MP, as the pixel size is the same. My understanding is that the H-lenses by and large are better.

Someone posted a statement saying that Hasselblad lenses are not good enough for that lens, and I think that is not the case. That is not saying Schneiders are not better.

Personally, I use the old V-lenses for tilt and shift with the A7rII, but I keep my old Hasselblad/P45+ combo, too.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

I myself am a big fan of the older lenses too. They are not as sharp as the latest lenses for sure, but their rendering is usually quite pleasant. The Mamiya 50mm shift for example is one of my favorites right now for this reason. I can sharpen the output in post to match the Schneiders, but the rendering that this lens delivers is quite unique and filmic, compared to the clinical look of modern lenses.

Judging by your samples, I would definitely say that the Hassy V lenses are quite usable on the A7R2, except for those who want extreme sharpness out of the box.

[uaiomex]

Great thread, thank you Erik.

[Chris Barrett]

I've made a number of post about using the V lenses on my A7r2 for architecture and being that the pixel pitch is so similar in size on the IQ3100, I'm anxious to give them a go.  Actually, I think I've still got a 'Blad to M645 adapter that came with my P65+ somewhere in the basement.

For use on a Tech Cam or View Camera, however... those lenses will require a focal plane shutter, such as Arca's Dex unit or the Alpa FPS.  I also have to wonder how much movement they'll allow versus the equivalent Rodenstocks.  I suppose I could test that by stitching the Sony.

I have to say, I love not having to do an LCC for the 'Blad lenses when shifting them and they have very even field illumination.

I'm currently shooting these:

40mm CFe
50mm CFi
60mm CFi
80mm CFe

I think I might need to pick up that 100, but I do still have my Rodie HR Digaron-W 90mm and that lens is a beaut.

CB

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for info. What I can see, it is the internal design of the HCam TSII that limits movements and not the lenses, at least regarding shading. So far I only have used tilts for real shooting.

Best regards
Erik

I've made a number of post about using the V lenses on my A7r2 for architecture and being that the pixel pitch is so similar in size on the IQ3100, I'm anxious to give them a go.  Actually, I think I've still got a 'Blad to M645 adapter that came with my P65+ somewhere in the basement.

For use on a Tech Cam or View Camera, however... those lenses will require a focal plane shutter, such as Arca's Dex unit or the Alpa FPS.  I also have to wonder how much movement they'll allow versus the equivalent Rodenstocks.  I suppose I could test that by stitching the Sony.

I have to say, I love not having to do an LCC for the 'Blad lenses when shifting them and they have very even field illumination.

I'm currently shooting these:

40mm CFe
50mm CFi
60mm CFi
80mm CFe

I think I might need to pick up that 100, but I do still have my Rodie HR Digaron-W 90mm and that lens is a beaut.

CB

[Chris Barrett]

Thanks for info. What I can see, it is the internal design of the HCam TSII that limits movements and not the lenses, at least regarding shading.

I'm using them on the Arca, and the first bit of vignetting I get is from the cavity of the Sony body itself.  Still... a lot of movements available!  More than My SK 35 & 43 allowed.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

How many mm can you shift? I seem to get shaded corners around 10-12. Can be camera body, not what I think, but hard to tell.

I just ordered a Pentax 67 to Canon adapter as I have a bunch of Pentax 67 lenses, too. Most of them not so great but I think the 45/4 is pretty good.

Interesting times we live in!

Best regards
Erik

I'm using them on the Arca, and the first bit of vignetting I get is from the cavity of the Sony body itself.  Still... a lot of movements available!  More than My SK 35 & 43 allowed.

[Chris Barrett]

I just had a quick look at usable shift.  By 'usable' I mean, no vignetting and acceptable sharpness.  I'm getting about 20mm on the 40mm CFe and about 25mm on the 50, 60 & 80.

This all on the Arca MF2 with no rise.

CB

[alatreille]

Hi Chris,

Are you noticing any barrel distortion at these movements?

Cheers

Andrew

I just had a quick look at usable shift.  By 'usable' I mean, no vignetting and acceptable sharpness.  I'm getting about 20mm on the 40mm CFe and about 25mm on the 50, 60 & 80.

This all on the Arca MF2 with no rise.

CB