Topic: Hasselblad HC & CF lenses users comments (Read 18352 times)

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

jecxz · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2011, 12:07:40 pm »

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

henrikfoto · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2011, 04:20:42 pm »

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]

Nick-T · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2011, 04:46:57 pm »

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

henrikfoto · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:05:43 pm »

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

henrikfoto · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:35:33 pm »

What do you mean by that?

BlasR · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:43:12 pm »

Quote from: henrikfoto on April 17, 2011, 04:20:42 pm

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

henrikfoto · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:52:39 pm »

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

henrikfoto · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:58:42 pm »

Quote from: KLaban on April 17, 2011, 05:49:33 pm

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...

BlasR · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2011, 06:04:06 pm »

Quote from: henrikfoto on April 17, 2011, 05:52:39 pm

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.

henrikfoto · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2011, 06:08:45 pm »

Quote from: BlasR on April 17, 2011, 06:04:06 pm

"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

henrikfoto · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2011, 06:13:26 pm »

A name is no guarantie for better quality.

henrikfoto · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2011, 06:24:19 pm »

Quote from: KLaban on April 17, 2011, 06:21:31 pm

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.

donaldt · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2011, 10:52:43 pm »

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

JV · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2011, 11:07:40 pm »

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.

darylgo · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2011, 11:47:29 pm »

Quote from: donaldt on April 17, 2011, 09:59:52 am

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.

donaldt · « **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2011, 02:02:28 am »

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

Quote from: darylgo on April 17, 2011, 11:47:29 pm

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.

donaldt · « **Reply #17 on:** April 18, 2011, 02:14:19 am »

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

Quote from: JV on April 17, 2011, 11:07:40 pm

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.

Dustbak · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2011, 03:28:15 am »

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 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2011, 04:21:52 am »

Quote from: Dustbak on April 18, 2011, 03:28:15 am

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

Author Topic: Hasselblad HC & CF lenses users comments (Read 18352 times)