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!
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.
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.John... Any difference in 40mm CFE vs FLE? Thanks
- not too surprising for wideangles.40/4 FLE: Quite good, some field curvature.
50/4 FLE: 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.80/2.8: Quite good, some field curvature.
It has that reputation alright. Popular lens with astrophotographers in the film era.100/3.5: Very sharp at infinity, no field curvature?
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.120/4 Macro: Awful lot of field curvature at infinity, OK around f/11
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.150/4: Really good
180/4: Really good
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
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?How is it using this back in vertical?