Hasselblad Planar T* 2.0/110 FE + Modified 5D

[Stuart Richardson]

I have not had my Hasselblad back perfectly aligned...I will be honest. That said, it is not the alignment issue alone. The hasselblad back winds the film in the opposite direction of its natural curl, so if you leave it in the back for too long, some of your exposures can have bumps in the film left by the rollers...they will sort of stick up a bit, and this leads to unsharpness. This is one of the reasons David Odess (a well-respected Hassie technician) is down on the 200 series...he thinks that there is no way you can reliably focus a 110/2 at f/2, no matter how good you are, because the film flatness is simply not reliable enough...you may luck out for one exposure, but you cannot reproduce it reliably. I am not entirely convinced, but I normally shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 unless I have to use f/2.
The Rollei system is simply better in this regard -- the film is wound with the natural curl of the film, so it does not develop kinks if you leave it in the magazine, and the design of the magazine itself has the film pressed against the body of the camera, not the back, so you can achieve accurate, consistent focus on all your backs as long as the camera is set up properly. No need to worry about matching backs to the camera. The pressure plate is also larger and presses more firmly against the film, so it works better. This is ignoring the other nice features like the built in sliding darkslide.
Anyway, I am not saying the Rollei is a better camera, but the backs certainly are better designed.

 

[Louvre]

All things mentioned will not mean much as long as a back is not perfectly aligned according to factory specifications.

Sofar I have not seen any reliable tests that show Hasselblad backs of the last generation deliver worse results than those for Rollei or Contax to name a few.

I respect David Odess for his standard of work and his knowledge of Hasselblad V series.
I also know David does not have the testing rig to check the film plane of backs for the 500 series.
Hasselblad USA in New Jersey has this rig.
Checking and aligning Hasselblad backs is a matter of 5-10 minutes at the most provided the right equipment is available and the tester has some experience at correcting any deviations.

 

[fotografz]

Zeiss 250/4FE on a Canon 1DsMKIII. 100% crop with full image inset.

 

[David K]

Beautiful capture... seems like the Zeiss glass on the 1DsIII is a winning combo.

 

[JimCollum]

Zeiss 250/4FE on a Canon 1DsMKIII. 100% crop with full image inset.

you really do want me to buy a 250.. don't you


gorgeous!

jim

 

[Stuart Richardson]

You are making me sad I passed it up. It was offered to me for 600 dollars when I was in Japan, but I did not think I would need a 250. I haven't really, but it still looks like a nice lens...

 

[robmac]

250/4 vs 250/4 FE? FE implies a floating element, but MTF & datasheets on Zeiss site are identical?

May have found own answer - FE means F model with Electronic coupling to camera vs FLE which means F model, FLoating Element, Electronic Coupling?

 

[fotografz]

Yes, there are multiple versions of the "F" series lenses for the 200 series cameras. The "FE" has the data bus contacts for use on the later 200 cameras. In many cases, when using them adapted to a DSLR or even MF focal plane cameras like the Contax 645 and Mamiya 645, the "F" non-electronic versions are just as good and a LOT less expensive.

I have the FE versions of the 50/2.8. 110/2, 150/2.8 and the 250/4 because I still use a 203FE camera.

 

[gogopix]

well, I do mlike the 250mm hassey

Here is a MF (P25) for comparison.

I must say what drove me to dig this out was that the image above looked soft, almost fuzzy.

I think MF is not really threatened by the canons.

:angel:

Victor

 

[JimCollum]

well, I do mlike the 250mm hassey

Here is a MF (P25) for comparison.

I must say what drove me to dig this out was that the image above looked soft, almost fuzzy.

I think MF is not really threatened by the canons.

:angel:

Victor

i don't know.. given the two images, if they were both used in advertisements.. i'd have to be buying a Canon. Where as your image might be much sharper.. the other has better tonality, light and texture. I don't think that's due to the MF back being inferior, as much as the light in which the images were taken. I think a better comparison/ad for the MF back would be using it to shoot the same image/light with the lens wide open.

jim

 

[gogopix]

i don't know.. given the two images, if they were both used in advertisements.. i'd have to be buying a Canon. Where as your image might be much sharper.. the other has better tonality, light and texture. I don't think that's due to the MF back being inferior, as much as the light in which the images were taken. I think a better comparison/ad for the MF back would be using it to shoot the same image/light with the lens wide open.

jim

This is raw>ACR>PS resize>jpg (too lazy to crank up C1 for this) no sharpen, WB etc.

the resolution and inherent sharpness are the issue here. Light, BTW was harsh morning (see shadow) in early spring.

It is interesting what you say about tonality etc. The hassey lenes are quite analytical (and 'cool'), so either the tulip image had some adjustment or the AA filter is doing a LOT more than I thought.

That said, I am sure Canon is not quaking in boots

Victor

 

[fotografz]

well, I do like the 250mm hassey

Here is a MF (P25) for comparison.

I must say what drove me to dig this out was that the image above looked soft, almost fuzzy.

I think MF is not really threatened by the canons.

:angel:

Victor

Victor, you won't get an argument from me concerning 35mm DSLRs threatening MF Digital. No way.

However, don't gauge that belief on a flower photo lit to maintain the feel of the flower. I personally don't light living things like industrial products ... although that's an interesting idea : -)

Now camera porn is another matter, LOL ... same camera, same lens, same backdrop, different lighting ... does this look soft & fuzzy?

 

[JimCollum]

This is raw>ACR>PS resize>jpg (too lazy to crank up C1 for this) no sharpen, WB etc.

the resolution and inherent sharpness are the issue here. Light, BTW was harsh morning (see shadow) in early spring.

It is interesting what you say about tonality etc. The hassey lenes are quite analytical (and 'cool'), so either the tulip image had some adjustment or the AA filter is doing a LOT more than I thought.

That said, I am sure Canon is not quaking in boots

Victor

i completely agree that the MF back will beat the mk3 in resolution and sharpness (which is why i don't have a Canon anymore, but and Aptus 75.. thanks to the gentleman with the tulip pic)

The Zeiss 110/2.0 Planar is anything but analytical (examples in other parts of this thread). It has a softness wide open akin to some of the best 'fast' Leica glass. Stopped down, it is also as sharp as I'd want a lens to be. I don't own a 250, so don't know if it has a character similar to the 110. I do have the 40 Distagon, and it also has that 'low contrast, high res' feel to it that has drawn me to the Leica glass as well.

jim

 

[gogopix]

Victor, you won't get an argument from me concerning 35mm DSLRs threatening MF Digital. No way.

However, don't gauge that belief on a flower photo lit to maintain the feel of the flower. I personally don't light living things like industrial products ... although that's an interesting idea : -)

Now camera porn is another matter, LOL ... same camera, same lens, same backdrop, different lighting ... does this look soft & fuzzy?

No, but it certainly lacks depth. The hood seems flat against the camera. Maybe my poor 65 year old eyes!
Now, just so people don't think MF is totally tone deaf, take a look at the 3-D, DR and tonal range of these!

Am I prejucticed? NO

just convinced:angel: (top is 100% crop BTW, and this IS from C1)

Victor

 

[PSon]

i was not going to post but since we are on the subject of resolution I thought you all like to see this:

1. full view of the image at reduced size

2. crop and reduced sized

3. 100% view

 

[fotografz]

No, but it certainly lacks depth. The hood seems flat against the camera. Maybe my poor 65 year old eyes!
Now, just so people don't think MF is totally tone deaf, take a look at the 3-D, DR and tonal range of these!

Am I prejucticed? NO

just convinced:angel: (top is 100% crop BTW, and this IS from C1)

Victor

Again, no argument concerning 35 v/s MF digital. But I think you are confusing different image characteristics Victor.

My camera photo is with a 250mm on a full frame 35mm which remains a 250mm telephoto. Longer telephotos flatten perspective, especially up-close on items shot straight-on and evenly front-lit with a softbox.

Your pic is using a wider lens draw which deepens perspective, and your scene is backlit.

To get the same lens draw as my image using a MF full frame 645, you'd have to use a 350mm MF lens.

 

[gogopix]

Again, no argument concerning 35 v/s MF digital. But I think you are confusing different image characteristics Victor.

My camera photo is with a 250mm on a full frame 35mm which remains a 250mm telephoto. Longer telephotos flatten perspective, especially up-close on items shot straight-on and evenly front-lit with a softbox.

Your pic is using a wider lens draw which deepens perspective, and your scene is backlit.

To get the same lens draw as my image using a MF full frame 645, you'd have to use a 350mm MF lens.

Yes, all valid points.

Different tools at different times. I use M8, DMR and MFDB at different times. That said, MF with hassey lenses will have certain advantages, as you have pointed out.

Rather than a single features, I find there is a look and ease with MF (e.g. P45 resolution alone means almost NO need to sharpen for images less than 11x16). Also DR and lack of AA helps.

On the other side, lower ISO usable can be frustrating with MFDB.

When I recently became 3x grandfather I used my wife's D2 Leica, 5MP, with built in bounce flash!.

Sometimes, you just want the shot.

 

[fotografz]

i was not going to post but since we are on the subject of resolution I thought you all like to see this:

1. full view of the image at reduced size

2. crop and reduced sized

3. 100% view

Son, just to be accurate and not confuse anyone, that shot was NOT done with a 5D. It has to be a MF digital back and a very high resolving lens, right?

 

[gogopix]

looks like 39MP if the crop is really 100% Son, did you get a P45?

 

[fotografz]

looks like 39MP if the crop is really 100% Son, did you get a P45?

I downloaded the image and the exif information says it was a Sinar 54 digital back on a Contax body using a Hasselblad 40/4 IF (via a very well made adapter I assume.)