any users of Hasselblad 40mm IF (internal focusing) lens here?

[MedFormat]

Hello World! First time poster here.

Looking for help, guidance & feedback on the 'new' lens that I bought online recently with sight unseen.
Image quality wise CFE 40mm IF (internal focusing, not to be confused with FLE version) supposed to be top of the CFE line but I witness performance of less-than-$50 lens.

If any users of CFE 40 IF could have a look and share their thoughts, would be great.

I don't do that usually but since I have this doubt I made a comparative test if this lens with old Soviet Jupiter-8m 50mm rangefinder because thats the only lens I have with comparable focal length. Results are very similar, both look like sister-lenses.

Full-size unedited test images could be downloaded from google photos:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fTQJRCwaT4moyAjcA

Side-by-side comparasion collage at different F-stops is on that link too, saved with JPEG quality set to 12.

Attaching parts of F4 image that I find particularly odd and unexpected but I am very interested what others have to say.
If I expected too much from this lens, I need to be told, please.

Any feedback is welcome.
Thank you!

comparative test (please download to see full resolution):


Chromatic aberrations (@F4):



sky through foliage (corner @ F4)




don't even know how to discribe this bokeh:

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I mentioned this somewhere in the past - the CFE 40 IF is NOT a good lens for MFD. It was good what 25 years ago? Often times when people rave about this lens it is in reference to old posts from the film era. Ie back in the Hassy days it was good relatively speaking.

In 2010 or thereabouts I sourced one on eBay and immediately sold it after seeing its bad performance on my Leaf 12 80-megapixel back. Super underwhelmed, but I gues in the 1990s or early 2000s on film this was still great. Or be it on a P25+. Main problem were mushy corners.

If you want top-notch wide-angle performance for modern day backs you need to go into the modern-day stuff ... ie starting end 2000s to today.

 

[MedFormat]

Thank you, Paul.
Thank you for sharing your experience.

This particular CFE40IF is from 2002.
Let me rephrase my question: if I compare CFE40IF (2002) with my old 150mm Sonnar C lens non-T* from 1967, the latter wins on Image Quality side, despite squicky focusing ring and balsam separation in 150mm.

What can explain this?
Can this be Sonnar vs. Distagon thing?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I don't know but it may also have to do with the specific combination of digital back, sensor glass, etc. and in wide-angle lenses the angle with which the light hits the sensor may also have an impact on clarity. Ie the specific design may work better with film than with modern sensors because of the tolerances and in the case of the back the specific combination of sensor glass and incident angle.

Leica for example always made a point about the digital Ms factoring in the M lens design in their sensor glass calculations and Rodenstock also mentions in their HR lens documents that the lenses factor in the sensor glass in their optical calculations.

Could be that this is the reason you get mushy corners and less so on film and in general it is also an older design. So a combination of all things.

Sell it and move on ...

Nothing beats 43 XL or 40 HR ...

 

[anyone]

Which digital back are you using?

The CFE40IF performs very well on my P65+. I certainly never experienced such a bad image quality, so I suspect you have an issue with your lens.

 

[MedFormat]

Which digital back are you using?

The CFE40IF performs very well on my P65+. I certainly never experienced such a bad image quality, so I suspect you have an issue with your lens.

Thank you, anyone,

My test conditions were
Body: Hasselblad X1D with 51.3Mpx. Focusing was done with electronic viewfinder with zoom-in feature.
Where edge of image was tested, focusing was done exactly on that edge, without any recomposing.
Reliable tripod, 5 sec self-release, ISO 100, Aperture priority mode, e-shutter.
Lighting conditions: bit changing weather, but all shots were done in a space of 15 minutes.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

It could also be that the lens elements are misaligned, but then you would see a difference in the sharpness between the corners – are all corners similarly mushy? Interesting that it is that bad on a crop sensor

 

[MedFormat]

It could also be that the lens elements are misaligned, but then you would see a difference in the sharpness between the corners – are all corners similarly mushy? Interesting that it is that bad on a crop sensor

for that I will probably need to shoot a flat model
like a brick wall or something...
that could be my next test.

 

[anyone]

Thank you, anyone,

My test conditions were
Body: Hasselblad X1D with 51.3Mpx. Focusing was done with electronic viewfinder with zoom-in feature.
Where edge of image was tested, focusing was done exactly on that edge, without any recomposing.
Reliable tripod, 5 sec self-release, ISO 100, Aperture priority mode, e-shutter.
Lighting conditions: bit changing weather, but all shots were done in a space of 15 minutes.

I'd return the lens.

 

[jng]

I agree that the OP and @Paul Spinnler may have been dealing with a mis-aligned lens. I imagine that with the internal focusing mechanism and (I think) an internal floating element, the chances of something getting knocked out of alignment are higher than with other V system lenses, which are pretty robust.

My copy of the 40 IF (since sold) was superb corner-to-corner on the IQ160 (60 Mp full sized sensor, negligible difference in resolution compared to the 80 Mp IQ180) even when shifted . I also did a quick back-to-back test of this lens with the XCD 3.5/45 on the X1D (50 Mp crop sensor) and found them to be comparable. My experience aligns with the data in Hasselblad's published MTF charts (these can be found on the Hasselblad Historical website), which indicate that the 40 IF is one of the sharpest lenses in the lineup.

Note that the 40 IF is a retrofocus lens, designed to accommodate the substantial mirror box of the old Hasselblad V series bodies. So, beam angles should not be a factor (I never observed color cast or astigmatism like I did with my Biogon 38).

John

 

[rdeloe]

Strange things can happen when we adapt lenses. I tried a Pentax 645 25mm, which has a very good reputation. It was terrible on a GFX 50R setup. My Samyang 24mm shift lens was better (and the Samyang is hardly stellar). The lens appeared to be in good condition, and I bought it from one of the most reputable Japanese camera shops that sells on eBay. If it was a "bad" copy, it surely wasn't obvious. There's no particular reason it should have been terrible on my 50R, when it was designed for the same sensor in a 645Z. I didn't pursue the matter.

Anyway, long story short for the OP, it's always a crap shoot!

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Strange things can happen when we adapt lenses. I tried a Pentax 645 25mm, which has a very good reputation. It was terrible on a GFX 50R setup. My Samyang 24mm shift lens was better (and the Samyang is hardly stellar). The lens appeared to be in good condition, and I bought it from one of the most reputable Japanese camera shops that sells on eBay. If it was a "bad" copy, it surely wasn't obvious. There's no particular reason it should have been terrible on my 50R, when it was designed for the same sensor in a 645Z. I didn't pursue the matter.

Anyway, long story short for the OP, it's always a crap shoot!

It is indeed a crap shoot, as has been shown many times, with used lenses. But even new lenses can have variation - no matter what the reputation of the lens is. Used lenses perhaps ups the ante a bit because you go from the potential of a poor copy to the potential of a poor copy + something wrong (bonk).

Over the years, with all the lens testing we've done, this has been imprinted as no 2 lenses are ever exactly the same. When it comes to lenses, one can never make assumptions. And then, what are you comparing to? What is your reference? It's a complex scenario.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[rdeloe]

It is indeed a crap shoot, as has been shown many times, with used lenses. But even new lenses can have variation - no matter what the reputation of the lens is. Used lenses perhaps ups the ante a bit because you go from the potential of a poor copy to the potential of a poor copy + something wrong (bonk).

Over the years, with all the lens testing we've done, this has been imprinted as no 2 lenses are ever exactly the same. When it comes to lenses, one can never make assumptions. And then, what are you comparing to? What is your reference? It's a complex scenario.


Steve Hendrix/CI

I've learned that a lot of times when people are complaining about a "bad copy" or "tilted elements" or whatnot, they're actually dealing with user error, or adaptation error. It's a complex chain and a lot of things can go wrong, some that are easy to miss.

On more than one occasion a lens I thought was weak at wider apertures turned out to be just fine when I found and resolved the adaptation issue. It's not just a cheap adapter problem either. My F-Universalis is not a cheap adapter, but it had an alignment issue that required a replacement part. (Shout out to Anne from Arca-Swiss for the first-rate customer service!) With the part replaced, a couple lenses I thought were not great wide open have become excellent.

 

[MedFormat]

It is indeed a crap shoot, as has been shown many times, with used lenses. But even new lenses can have variation - no matter what the reputation of the lens is. Used lenses perhaps ups the ante a bit because you go from the potential of a poor copy to the potential of a poor copy + something wrong (bonk).

Over the years, with all the lens testing we've done, this has been imprinted as no 2 lenses are ever exactly the same. When it comes to lenses, one can never make assumptions. And then, what are you comparing to? What is your reference? It's a complex scenario.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Thank you for this input and for sharing this wisdom, Steve. This is exactly what I was looking for.
Can I ask how your experince of using CFE40IF compares with my test images above?
Thank you again.

 

[Ben730]

Hello World! First time poster here.

Looking for help, guidance & feedback on the 'new' lens that I bought online recently with sight unseen.
Image quality wise CFE 40mm IF (internal focusing, not to be confused with FLE version) supposed to be top of the CFE line but I witness performance of less-than-$50 lens.

If any users of CFE 40 IF could have a look and share their thoughts, would be great.

I don't do that usually but since I have this doubt I made a comparative test if this lens with old Soviet Jupiter-8m 50mm rangefinder because thats the only lens I have with comparable focal length. Results are very similar, both look like sister-lenses.

Full-size unedited test images could be downloaded from google photos:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fTQJRCwaT4moyAjcA

Side-by-side comparasion collage at different F-stops is on that link too, saved with JPEG quality set to 12.

Attaching parts of F4 image that I find particularly odd and unexpected but I am very interested what others have to say.
If I expected too much from this lens, I need to be told, please.

Any feedback is welcome.
Thank you!

Hi
Your 40IF has definitively a problem. It looks like a misaligned lens.
It is very difficult to find someone to repair that lens. The IF is complicated.
You need special tools (made only for this lens) to align it.

The 40 IF normally performs very well with the Fuji GFX100s, Phase One IQ360, IQ250 + Nikon Z7 and allows you
a lot of shift on 33x44 sensors (+-14 mm).
It is very important to use good adapters and an adjustable compendium if you use it on other cameras than a Hassy V because of ghosting and flare.
I use this lens for 20 years. It has almost no focus breathing. I really like this lens, sharpness can keep up with the 40 HR. Center has 200 lp/mm, corner 60 lp/mm
Regards,
Ben

 

[Ben730]

I mentioned this somewhere in the past - the CFE 40 IF is NOT a good lens for MFD. It was good what 25 years ago? Often times when people rave about this lens it is in reference to old posts from the film era. Ie back in the Hassy days it was good relatively speaking.

In 2010 or thereabouts I sourced one on eBay and immediately sold it after seeing its bad performance on my Leaf 12 80-megapixel back. Super underwhelmed, but I gues in the 1990s or early 2000s on film this was still great. Or be it on a P25+. Main problem were mushy corners.

If you want top-notch wide-angle performance for modern day backs you need to go into the modern-day stuff ... ie starting end 2000s to today.

I don't agree.
Regards,
Ben

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I don't agree.
Regards,
Ben

Who cares, lol. There is nothing to “agree” to as I made a fact based statement relating my first hand experience with this lens.

I don’t know if there could have been a better aligned version, but I had the impression that there was no misalignment in my unit. I also bought it off of eBay after having read how supposedly great it was.

It was inferior in my experience, I stand by that, and I have many lenses. I sold mine. The corners were not good on a full frame sensor. I also didn’t have a misaligned lens as all corners were the same.

IMHO there is no reason to get this lens as you might as well get the BR 45 from P1 or the 40 HR. Greiner also told me it is the same case with the “legendary” SWC biogon - optically not that great compared to say a 43 XL or 40 HR. The 45 BR sometims appears in CPO or CI I think had one once. Really, really great lens, but ofc not small. The CFE40 was more compact, if I remember correctly, but also not the lightest of all lenses.

It may have been good back in the day for the mirror based Hasselblad platform, but it just not as good as tech cam lenses or the amazing 45mm from P1 which is one of the newer blue ring lenses. It is very sharp across the frame wide open.

The CFE was not sharp in the corners even stopped down.

There are generations of lenses and the lates 2000s to early 2010s tech cam lenses as well as the newer generation blue ring wide angles (35 / 45) supercede what came before them, especially compared to mirror based medium format lens wide angles. It just doesn’t get crisper than the last stuff which came out from Rodenstock, P1 and SK. So why bother with a CFE 40 IF …

 

[Paul Spinnler]

If someone still has a “normal” copy this lens adapted on an IQ4 would be interesting to see a series of samples at different f stops including corners.

I was too surprised how bad it was, but I cannot rule out that my unit was below spec as I had no other copy to compare it too.

 

[anyone]

Paul, my experiences are with an older digital back, the IQ160/ P65+. My lens is sharp all across the frame, also shifted.

 

[jng]

I have no reason to doubt people's experiences with their particular copies of this (or any) lens. That said, I think it's important to keep in mind that, absent independent validation on multiple copies of the lens in question, any conclusions about a particular lens's performance are relevant to just that copy of the lens (and whatever it is mounted to, etc.). It's best not to generalize from a sample size of n = 1.

When I read these discussions, a little voice goes off in my head saying "show me the data!" My 40 IF is long gone since I transitioned from the IQ160/Cambo rig to IQ3 100 and later to the IQ4 150. However I do have a few images shot on the IQ160. Clicking on the images below will take you to my Flickr site. Once you're there, click on the icon at the lower right to "view all sizes" - which in these cases are the full-sized jpegs (note that these are from 8-10 years ago, before my post-processing skills were, er, more fully evolved).

Shot on Flexbody with 10mm back fall @ f/11 - modest crop for aspect ratio along vertical axis only:

CF003500_C1 v2 B&W by John Ngai, on Flickr

Next is a three-image rotational stitch shot on my 501CM @ f/8. The vertical dimension is full height on the sensor. I'm not 100% sure where the actual corners are but I don't recall cropping much if anything from the edges. In any case, you will see some pretty impressive detail if you pixel peep on the lights along the bay and the buildings in the lower left part of the image. I have a few other single-frame images to corroborate.

CF003369_70_71_C1 Pano by John Ngai, on Flickr

Here's another (but not a full-sized jpeg), which I think I shot on the Flexbody although I neglected to record metadata re: aperture, tilt, shift etc. (@Steve Hendrix do you remember being there?):

Curves, Monument Valley by John Ngai, on Flickr

So, my bottom line: *my* copy of the 40 IF was superb. If I had access to a Cambo-V adapter at the time, I might not have sold the lens but between its bulk, redundancy with my 40HR, and inability to use it at the time with the newer IQ backs, I decided to move it along and pocket the $$.

As always, YMMV!

John