The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Trying out CFV50c, lens questions...

Paul2660

Well-known member
Your FOV is 1:3 so all you need to do is multiply your current FOV x 1.3.

So a 40mm on the cropped sensor will be a eqvilent of a 52mm.

Or about 12 big steps backwards to frame a similar scene at least that's what I found.

Paul
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Now something else to consider though is that you'll be going from a 6x6 square image to the 44x33mm sensor which actually complicates things a little in terms of composition and lens choice in my experience (unless of course you regularly crop your sq images). This will make the straight 1.3x conversion factor a little different in reality if you are comparing "looks".

I'd still choose a square sensor if somebody made a modern high resolution one.

/SoapBox
 

Udo

Member
Hi Ai-Print,

in terms of 35mm FF format you have to multiply the lens' focal length values by 0.78 to get the comparable field of view.

The smaller 33mm x 44mm sensor (compared to film size) makes use of the central image circle and as such the lenses show less distortion and good optical performance. Phocus (Hasselblad's raw conversion software) has implemented optical correction modules for all its legacy lenses. So all optical aberrations will be corrected.

From the bunch you listed I would say the 50, 100 and 180 are the best closely followed by the rest. I have no clue about the 1.4x converter and don't know about this version of the 40. I am using the IF version which is said to deliver higher resolution.

Enjoy the CFV-50c, which is real fun to use.

Regards, Udo
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Use the second tool at the link below to compare the result of 6x6 film or a dslr to the crop sensor of the CFV50c. It has the same sensor as the IQ250 for the purpose of this link.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Foremost, focusing is critical with high resolution backs. Very critical...

I am shooting with a P45+ which has a slightly larger sensor with less MP, so it is a bit less critical than yours.

For me, all lenses work pretty well, the lenses I have/had are:

40/4 FLE: Quite good, some field curvature.
50/4 FLE: Quite good, some field curvature.
80/2.8: Quite good, some field curvature.
100/3.5: Very sharp at infinity, no field curvature?
120/4 Macro: Awful lot of field curvature at infinity, OK around f/11
150/4: Really good
180/4: Really good

I mostly shoot at f/11 and at that aperture most lenses are good.

Here are aperture series with four lenses (f/4, f/8, f/16):
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot

And here are more samples with different lenses:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples

Best regards
Erik


Hi, I might be checking out a CFV50c for the Summer via a sponsorship and I am wondering how it will all go down in terms of implementing it into my usual film based V system workflow.

I have the following gear that I will be using with it:

2 x 501CM
1 x 500ELX

40mm CF FLE
50mm CF FLE
60mm CF
80mm CF
100mm CF
120mm S-Planar
180mm CF
350mm CF
1.4XE converter.

Who plays nice, who not as nice and what is the approximate FOV equivalent in terms of the roughly 33x44mm sensor?

Also, I might be interested in trying it out with my 4x5 field camera ( Chamonix 45N2 ) so what would be the way to adapt it to the back of the camera? Lenses for that are 65-350mm, would likely favor the 65, 90 and 135mm, the latter being a Apo-Sironar S which is super sharp.
 

H3dtogo

New member
As Eric already mentioned: focussing is critical! But an other thing to consider is the fact that many older Hasselblad V camera's do need adjustment of the focussing screen as many have been used years withouth any CLA or service. Film is very forgiving for focussing screen mismatch and errors but digital only knows two settings: infocus and out of focus :)
Best Peter.
 

tjv

Active member
So for someone looking to build a small kit for use with a V mount Credo 60, is the 50mm FLE any better or worse (for less money) than the 40mm FLE? Anyone shooting a mimilar combination?
 

Udo

Member
John... Any difference in 40mm CFE vs FLE? Thanks
Both lenses have floating lens elements. While those are moved automatically in the 40IF when the focus ring is turned, there is an additional ring on the 40FLE to choose the proper focusing distance/range. The latter has a bit less distortion compared to the IF version but less resolving power as well. The IF is resolving around 200lp/mm.

There is a website called hasselbladhistorical where you can find and download data sheets to all Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses.

Furthermore you have to shell out a lot more money for the IF version.

Regards, Udo
 

ondebanks

Member
Hi Erik,

Thanks for the lens feedback.

40/4 FLE: Quite good, some field curvature.
50/4 FLE: Quite good, some field curvature.
- not too surprising for wideangles.

80/2.8: Quite good, some field curvature.
As the Planar design is so named for its flat field, I believe what you are seeing here is mainly coma rather than field curvature. This is typical in double-Gauss "standard lenses" for all formats.

100/3.5: Very sharp at infinity, no field curvature?
It has that reputation alright. Popular lens with astrophotographers in the film era.

120/4 Macro: Awful lot of field curvature at infinity, OK around f/11
This is the only observation that disturbed me. Just about every MF manufacturer had a 120/4 macro, and the consensus is that they are all about equally good. But clearly they are not! My Mamiya 120/4 A macro is flat as a pancake at infinity, and super-sharp right across the field, wide open. The only thing "wrong" with its distance performance is higher vignetting than you'd get from a non-macro lens like the 110/2.8 N. Vignetting is easily corrected of course. So it seems like the Mamiya 120/4 combines the best properties of two Hasselblad V lenses - the 105/3.5 for distance and the 120/4 for macro.

150/4: Really good
180/4: Really good
No surprises there. But I wonder if chromatic aberration starts to become a problem. Zeiss did not seem to use special low-dispersion glass in the V series, or at least didn't draw attention to it with labels such as ED, ULD, or APO.

Ray
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Regarding crhomatic aberration there is some lateral chroma on most of the lenses, but this is well corrected in Lightroom. I tried the 40/4 shifted and in that case I found lateral chroma problematic as Lightroom correction has failed.

With the Sonnars I have seen some axial chroma, even stopped down.

Getting back to the Planar 120, I am pretty sure that field curvature is at play, here are the MTF-curves at infinity:






Looking into that lens got me into MF and later MFD. I liked the lenses and wanted to use the image circle.

Anyway, I am mostly quite happy with lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the lens feedback.



- not too surprising for wideangles.



As the Planar design is so named for its flat field, I believe what you are seeing here is mainly coma rather than field curvature. This is typical in double-Gauss "standard lenses" for all formats.


It has that reputation alright. Popular lens with astrophotographers in the film era.



This is the only observation that disturbed me. Just about every MF manufacturer had a 120/4 macro, and the consensus is that they are all about equally good. But clearly they are not! My Mamiya 120/4 A macro is flat as a pancake at infinity, and super-sharp right across the field, wide open. The only thing "wrong" with its distance performance is higher vignetting than you'd get from a non-macro lens like the 110/2.8 N. Vignetting is easily corrected of course. So it seems like the Mamiya 120/4 combines the best properties of two Hasselblad V lenses - the 105/3.5 for distance and the 120/4 for macro.



No surprises there. But I wonder if chromatic aberration starts to become a problem. Zeiss did not seem to use special low-dispersion glass in the V series, or at least didn't draw attention to it with labels such as ED, ULD, or APO.

Ray
 

darr

Well-known member
How is it using this back in vertical?
I have no problems shooting the 501cm + CFV50c in vertical format with a PM90 viewfinder. With the PM45 the perspective is awkward, thus the reason for my purchase of the P90 which stays on the camera for all shots (landscape and portrait orientations). Anybody want to buy a nicely used PM45? ;)

Kind regards,
Darr
 
Top