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

[hasselblad 503cw]

Below is the 100% crop @ aperture F5.6

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

Below is the 100% crop @ aperture F8

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

Below is the 100% crop @ aperture F11

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

The lens is exactly the same lens I sold to this thread poster.
does anyone tell me does the lens has problem and is it a crap lens?
thanks

 

[mristuccia]

Below images were exactly the same lens captured with tripod ISO 50 1/8 F4,aperture fully open with Hasselblad 503CW Phase one P65+ 2weeks ago.
the image just open with phase one pro and adjust the bright and colour temperature, no further CA adjust no sharp just with default setting.
does anyone give advice of this lens, does it is a crap lens?
Thanks

IMHO, if the focus here was exactly aimed at the text of the labels at the center of the image, then the third image shows that something is definitely wrong. This is the center area of the lens, the sweetest spot, and that little defocus/smearing doesn't look right to me.

But then, it is very difficult to say something precise, because conditions may vary from one test to another, including the ability of the shooter to keep all potential sources of issues perfectly under control.

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

IMHO, if the focus here was exactly aimed at the text of the labels at the center of the image, then the third image shows that something is definitely wrong. This is the center area of the lens, the sweetest spot, and that little defocus/smearing doesn't look right to me.

But then, it is very difficult to say something precise, because conditions may vary from one test to another, including the ability of the shooter to keep all potential sources of issues perfectly under control.

Hi Mristuccia
Thanks for your opinion
first image is the 100% of the central of the last image
the second and others is the 100% corner crop image.
so the third image is the up left of the corner 100% crop sample.

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

just measure the distance of the middle and corner of the image from the location with laser measure.
central is 2.56 meter,
up left is 3.12 meter.

 

[mristuccia]

Hi Mristuccia
Thanks for your opinion
first image is the 100% of the central of the last image
the second and others is the 100% corner crop image.
so the third image is the up left of the corner 100% crop sample.

Hello Mr. hasselblad 503cw,

I'm referring to this post:



And I think that the third image (highlighted here) is the 100% center crop of the first one. Am I right?

But, as I said, it is difficult to evaluate without a strictly normalized and controlled testing environment.

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

thanks that is the central. it is correct.

 

[mristuccia]

thanks that is the central. it is correct.

Just for the sake of discussion, here is a comparison between your and my center-image rendering.
My one: HB 503CW, CFV-50c, 40mm CFE IF, f4, 1/2 sec on tripod. No sharpening, no CA corrections. Only contrast and white balance have been adjusted.



It's not that much of a difference however. Only, I see less smearing.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

It does show mushy corners as I remember - it is not comparable to modern tech cam wide angles or the P1 45mm BR, or is my vision off here?

 

[mristuccia]

It does show mushy corners as I remember - it is not comparable to modern tech cam wide angles or the P1 45mm BR, or is my vision off here?

Dear Paul,

The fact that the lenses of modern tech cams are better is already a given, and it is not the subject of this discussion.
We are not comparing the 40 IF with Rodies or Schneiders, but possibly with an "old Soviet Jupiter-8m 50mm". We are discussing whether the copy owned by the OP is as it should be according to its specs (= pretty good) or whether it has some issues. And to me it has issues, regardless of how it compares with Rodies/Schneiders/Superdupers.

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

Thanks Mristuccia,
That is just what I want to look other's lens performance.
I will test lens again by using it on another 503CW body I have.
The fact is it is unacceptable to compare the lens with so called old soviet 50mm.

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

HB 503CW, Phase one P65+, 40mm CFE IF, ISO 50, f4, 1/30 sec on tripod. No sharpening, no CA corrections.
Only contrast increase 10 on Phase one capturer pro and white balance have been adjusted.

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

Above pics posted still is the same pics I posted before which I captured 2 weeks ago, just to adjust contrast to compare and match with Mristuccia's.
Thanks Mristuccia. Is it available capturer some pics of flat shelf something or newspaper or some wall to see what the corner looks like aperture fully opened.

 

[hasselblad 503cw]

another thing want to know, Mristuccia. How close the subject away from your lens the pics you posted. Mine is 2-2.5meter.
thanks

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Dear Paul,

The fact that the lenses of modern tech cams are better is already a given, and it is not the subject of this discussion.
We are not comparing the 40 IF with Rodies or Schneiders, but possibly with an "old Soviet Jupiter-8m 50mm". We are discussing whether the copy owned by the OP is as it should be according to its specs (= pretty good) or whether it has some issues. And to me it has issues, regardless of how it compares with Rodies/Schneiders/Superdupers.

Fair point, but the digression came about because there was this notion in the room that the lens is absolutely excellent and that anything below that must be a misaligned copy or so.

If it is now more commonly accepted that the 40 CFE IF, which is what I have been saying all along, is not that good of a lens by modern day standards and that the lens needs to be seen within its historical context, ie an excellent wide angle for the Hassy medium format film camera, then that’s already a good takeaway. I feel Alkibiades statement further helped to establish this notion.

I just bought it back then assuming it would be absolutely killer but quickly realised that its design showed some age.

 

[mristuccia]

Fair point, but the digression came about because there was this notion in the room that the lens is absolutely excellent and that anything below that must be a misaligned copy or so.

If it is now more commonly accepted that the 40 CFE IF, which is what I have been saying all along, is not that good of a lens by modern day standards and that the lens needs to be seen within its historical context, ie an excellent wide angle for the Hassy medium format film camera, then that’s already a good takeaway. I feel Alkibiades statement further helped to establish this notion.

I just bought it back then assuming it would be absolutely killer but quickly realised that its design showed some age.

The 40 IF has been optimized for 44x33 digital backs. Not for 6x6 film nor even for full frame digital sensors.

Within its intended design constraints , it performs excellently IMHO.

Modern tech lenses are better for sure.
But then, to each one his own, including the evaluation of the price/performance factor.

I think that the OP has enough info to take his decision now. So I'll stop here.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The 40 IF has been optimized for 44x33 digital backs. Not for 6x6 film nor even for full frame digital sensors.

Within its intended design constraints , it performs excellently IMHO.

Modern tech lenses are better for sure.
But then, to each one his own, including the evaluation of the price/performance factor.

I think that the OP has enough info to take his decision now. So I'll stop here.

That 44x33 comment would tie with the fact that at the centre it was good, but just lost a bit of oomph on a full frame digital sensor in the corners.

I think it is not too bad if people googling this lens and looking at the comments here take away what the lens can do … ofc if you also use it with Film it is another topic …

 

[jng]

just measure the distance of the middle and corner of the image from the location with laser measure.
central is 2.56 meter,
up left is 3.12 meter.

I'm a bit confused. The softness you are describing to me just looks like the corner objects are out of focus, which is corroborated by your measurements and also consistent with what I see when you stop down from f/5.6 through f/11 and gain depth of field. Or did you re-focus each time for the center and corners? If not, it's critical to maintain absolute parallelism between the sensor plane and the object plane - very tough to do especially at such short distances (I think that Jim Kasson among others has written about this). Moreover, the lens may or may not perform optimally at ~3 meters focus distance. As for any "smudging" at the center, I can't quite see it but my eyes are pretty tired from being on the computer all day. In any case, I never tested the corners of my 40HR wide open (there's no point as I never use it that way) but if it's like any of my other tech cam lenses, it needs stopping down to look good at the edges and corners.

John