PDA

View Full Version : H3DII 31 - 400ISO Sample



David Grover / Phase One
8th March 2009, 08:07
Week before last there was an exhibition in the UK - Focus 2009.

It was mentioned here a couple of times.

On the Hasselblad stand we had three professional models with makeup and stylist. Customers were invited on the stand to shoot with an H3D31, take a look at their own images in Phocus and then walk away with a Sandisk 2GB card and a copy of Phocus with our compliments.

We had just released a firmware upgrade on the H3DII31 to increase the ISO by one stop and improve the overall noise levels at higher ISO.

I attach one of my own images and a couple of crops. They have been retouched (If you hadn't guessed) or she really would have been blessed with perfect skin.

Ill see about some RAW files being hosted next week, so just JPEGs for now.

Best,



David

PS. Lighting was overhead HMI's and a touch of H pop-up flash!

PPS. Lens was the 100mm at f4.8 (Somebody say they didn't perform at larger apertures?)

David Grover / Phase One
8th March 2009, 08:12
Mmmm.. color looks a bit washed out in Safari?

Not sure if the forum module does something color-management wise but I will try re-upoading in sRGB.

D

LJL
8th March 2009, 08:17
David,
I was just looking at them in Safari, and they did not look washed out to me....but then I do not know what your intentions were.

Thanks for sharing these. From the brief glimpse I got, things looked pretty good at ISO400. Would be interested in seeing anything that may have been pushed a bit further, realizing that the setting will probably be kind to most captures, anyway (good light always helps any ISO if you get the exposure correct) ;-)

And, if you care to share, just how much skin retouching did you do? Looks pretty smooth, which is great for the model and maybe the client, but you know us critical pixel peeping idiots that want to see the detail....good, bad or ugly ;-)

LJ

Mark Gowin
8th March 2009, 08:25
David,
I am not seeing the image. Did you take it down?

Mark

David Grover / Phase One
8th March 2009, 08:25
Hi LJL,

Seems the saturation is a bit lacking. Most likely human error on my part!

Anyway, I guess it gets the point across. I changed one of the crops to the metal necklace as its quite good for detail.

Ill dig out the 'before' so you can see how much I did. ;-)

Exp Comp was on 0 in Phocus, so not much adjustment. The only thing done was white balance and some USM. Rest is out the box settings.

David

David Grover / Phase One
8th March 2009, 08:26
David,
I am not seeing the image. Did you take it down?

Mark

Should be back now!

David Grover / Phase One
8th March 2009, 08:30
And one with no retouching...

Mark Gowin
8th March 2009, 08:44
Thank you for the images and the crops. They look very clean.

Guy Mancuso
8th March 2009, 09:00
David we would all love to see the new firmware high ISO stuff for sure. If anyone you know has some test please ask them to post them for us. Thanks Guy

LJL
8th March 2009, 09:58
David,
Thanks for reposting and adding the unretouched crop. The images do look pretty clean and holding good detail. This is good. I really wish Hasselblad does release more info and samples and the updated version for folks to play with and test. I downloaded Phocus v.1.1.3 for the other shots to view corrections and stuff, but it sure would be nice seeing some more things that are taken at the higher ISOs and being able to play with things.

Keep 'em coming. Good to see these much less expensive advancements coming from the manufacturers as they keep working on things.

LJ

ptomsu
8th March 2009, 12:48
Week before last there was an exhibition in the UK - Focus 2009.

It was mentioned here a couple of times.

On the Hasselblad stand we had three professional models with makeup and stylist. Customers were invited on the stand to shoot with an H3D31, take a look at their own images in Phocus and then walk away with a Sandisk 2GB card and a copy of Phocus with our compliments.

We had just released a firmware upgrade on the H3DII31 to increase the ISO by one stop and improve the overall noise levels at higher ISO.

I attach one of my own images and a couple of crops. They have been retouched (If you hadn't guessed) or she really would have been blessed with perfect skin.

Ill see about some RAW files being hosted next week, so just JPEGs for now.

Best,



David

PS. Lighting was overhead HMI's and a touch of H pop-up flash!

PPS. Lens was the 100mm at f4.8 (Somebody say they didn't perform at larger apertures?)

Thanks for this sample! It shows in a very convincing way the quality which can be achieved with that "only 31MP back" and that "very bad 100mm lens" :LOL:

Anyway, thanks for sharing and it proves I am on the right way if I move to the H System ;)

woodyspedden
8th March 2009, 13:06
man I don't know who is dissing the Hassy 100 2.2. I find it one of the best. Perhaps not a Zeiss 100 2.0 but not far off.

Woody

Woody Campbell
8th March 2009, 13:33
man I don't know who is dissing the Hassy 100 2.2. I find it one of the best. Perhaps not a Zeiss 100 2.0 but not far off.

Woody

The Woodys of the world need to stick together on this - I see no issues at all with this lens, which I use a lot - it is one of my all time favorites. To my eyes it out resolves the 39m back probably with some headroom I'm mainly a wide shooter but I've been using it to stitch some pretty big, and really remarkable, files.

David Grover / Phase One
8th March 2009, 14:19
man I don't know who is dissing the Hassy 100 2.2. I find it one of the best. Perhaps not a Zeiss 100 2.0 but not far off.

Woody

Hi Woody(s),

Its been knocked a few times on the Leica thread, but I imagine not by anyone using the lens as your remarks represent the people who have bought and enjoy using it.

David

David Grover / Phase One
8th March 2009, 14:21
Thanks for this sample! It shows in a very convincing way the quality which can be achieved with that "only 31MP back" and that "very bad 100mm lens" :LOL:

Anyway, thanks for sharing and it proves I am on the right way if I move to the H System ;)

Thanks Peter,

I rarely hear any user say anything but complimentary about the 100 2.2

David

PeterA
8th March 2009, 15:01
Thanks David - especially for posting the un retouched crop.

Regarding the 100/2.2 - those of us who own it and use it- have always sung its praises. It holds its own very well against my favourite - 110/2 - and it has autofocus a great lens.


Cheers
Pete

carstenw
8th March 2009, 15:10
I imagine that I am the one who is described as "knocking it". Or at least one. I have never tried it, so I can only go by what others have said, and no one should take my criticism of the lens too seriously.

However, here is food for thought: if the 100/2.2 is the spiritual successor of the brilliant 110/2, then why does the 110/2 remain the favorite, as expressed by several who have tried both? 25 years of knowledge bought what, exactly?

PeterA
8th March 2009, 17:35
Carsten - the Zeiss 110/2 was made to shoot on 6x6 film negative wether on Hasselblad cameras or on Rollie mount cameras. This is a pretty simple and obvious factoid.

The HC 110/2,2 was made to shoot on a 645 format NOT a square. It also has autofocus capability and is part of an integrated digital solution which Hasselblad (wether you like it or not) has delivered to the marketplace. For its intended purpose - the 110/2,2 is an outstanding lens -as testified by those who actually own and use it. This is another simple factoid.

Hope this helps.

ptomsu
8th March 2009, 22:29
man I don't know who is dissing the Hassy 100 2.2. I find it one of the best. Perhaps not a Zeiss 100 2.0 but not far off.

Woody

Woody, there have been these dissing comments about this H lens in some other threads about S2 and Leica glass.

I find this lens outstanding! And BTW I am not a MTF curve aficinado although I understand the importance of MTF charts, but I rather go after the final result in the photo in order to judge a lens.

ptomsu
8th March 2009, 22:33
I imagine that I am the one who is described as "knocking it". Or at least one. I have never tried it, so I can only go by what others have said, and no one should take my criticism of the lens too seriously.

However, here is food for thought: if the 100/2.2 is the spiritual successor of the brilliant 110/2, then why does the 110/2 remain the favorite, as expressed by several who have tried both? 25 years of knowledge bought what, exactly?

Do not understand why some people still have the 110/2 as their favorite, especially as this one cannot be used to full potential on the H cameras. Maybe if you use it on an H1 with film back, the lens can be better. But definitely not on an H3D2 with digital back, there the 2.2/100 is far ahead.

carstenw
9th March 2009, 01:38
Carsten - the Zeiss 110/2 was made to shoot on 6x6 film negative wether on Hasselblad cameras or on Rollie mount cameras. This is a pretty simple and obvious factoid.

The HC 110/2,2 was made to shoot on a 645 format NOT a square. It also has autofocus capability and is part of an integrated digital solution which Hasselblad (wether you like it or not) has delivered to the marketplace. For its intended purpose - the 110/2,2 is an outstanding lens -as testified by those who actually own and use it. This is another simple factoid.

Hope this helps.

I presume you mean 100mm for the HC lens, not 110.

In any case, just so I understand you right, 25 years of R&D then bought a shorter lens with a smaller max aperture, with autofocus and electronic communication. Yet people who own both still pick the ancient 110/2 as their favorite, and only say that the 100/2.2 compares well? :)

carstenw
9th March 2009, 01:40
Do not understand why some people still have the 110/2 as their favorite, especially as this one cannot be used to full potential on the H cameras. Maybe if you use it on an H1 with film back, the lens can be better. But definitely not on an H3D2 with digital back, there the 2.2/100 is far ahead.

Ah, far ahead? So, this is interesting, finally. In what way is it far ahead (ignoring the obvious AF and electronic communication)?

By the way, I own the 110/2 and have never even seen the MTF chart for it, so I am most certainly talking about final results.

David Grover / Phase One
9th March 2009, 01:51
The only way to tell Carsten, is to pick up and shoot with one and form your personal opinion, good or bad. ;)

David

georgl
9th March 2009, 04:34
Very nice picture and I'm sure the model is more than "happy" with the sharpness of the lens... :p
This "noise" seems similar to the noise we get from 800ASA (1600ASA is already worse) of the D3X. This is a 4 years old Kodak-sensor and it's time that certain myths (MFDB only usable below 100ASA, my Nikon/Canon is noiseless up to 5000ASA...) are destroyed...

Here is the data sheet of the Planar:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2_110mm_FE_102188_d/$File/Planar2_110mm_FE_102188_d.pdf

These lenses are certainly not bad stopped down, but sophisticated designs in the 35mm-world have clearly shown that much better open aperture performance is possible.

Paratom
9th March 2009, 05:10
I havent analysed any data sheets but so far I have to say that I really like what I get with the 110/2.0
Maybe its not designed for digital or an old design or whatever, i like it.
As long as I like what I see I dont even care if its a little better or a little worse than a Hassy 100/2.2 or whatever.
And I assume its the same for any H3D-user with the 100/2.2

PeterA
9th March 2009, 05:37
I presume you mean 100mm for the HC lens, not 110.

In any case, just so I understand you right, 25 years of R&D then bought a shorter lens with a smaller max aperture, with autofocus and electronic communication. Yet people who own both still pick the ancient 110/2 as their favorite, and only say that the 100/2.2 compares well? :)

Carsten - do yourself a favour and re -read what I wrote and after you have done that - spare me your attitude - you are coming across like a dense troll.

The reason why many people use an F/FE 110/2 is that they were designed to give coverage for a 6x6 film. Do you know what this means? It means I can put one of these on a 205TCC and shoot film. It can be used via adaptor on many focal plane bodies. They are great lenses - delivering a lovely OOF rendition similar to my 75 lux, similar to the 85/1.2: and the 80 1.4 R - all of which I either own or have used extensively.

The reason I own a 100/2.2 is because I can use this lens on an H body. H bodies are designed to shoot 645 film or similar in digi. It has a leaf shutter. It cant be used on a focal plane body. It has much higher strobe sync than the 100/2 it is auto focus it communicates directly to the electronics and software system which delivers DAC corrections. It also delivers a beautiful out of focus smooth bokeh. It is a great lens.

How difficult is this for you to understand? Do you 'get' the difference now? I don't answer for what other people say to you or think or have read or have heard or quote - I could care less. I only ever speak from my own direct experience about gear. To be frank there are very few people whose opinion I respect or even care to listen to about anything to do with gear - everyone has a different take on everything - all the time - that is the nature of individuality.

If I were you I would stop worrying about 'opinions' stop quoting 'opinions' and start testing these things for yourself.

Now if you wish to find out for yourself - rather than making up nonsense or carrying on like a typical internet troll - go rent a body and back and the lens and find out for yourself.


Good Luck you will need it.

David Grover / Phase One
9th March 2009, 06:47
I havent analysed any data sheets but so far I have to say that I really like what I get with the 110/2.0
Maybe its not designed for digital or an old design or whatever, i like it.
As long as I like what I see I dont even care if its a little better or a little worse than a Hassy 100/2.2 or whatever.
And I assume its the same for any H3D-user with the 100/2.2

Absolutely yes.

carstenw
9th March 2009, 08:31
Carsten - do yourself a favour and re -read what I wrote and after you have done that - spare me your attitude - you are coming across like a dense troll.

The reason why many people use an F/FE 110/2 is that they were designed to give coverage for a 6x6 film. Do you know what this means? It means I can put one of these on a 205TCC and shoot film. It can be used via adaptor on many focal plane bodies. They are great lenses - delivering a lovely OOF rendition similar to my 75 lux, similar to the 85/1.2: and the 80 1.4 R - all of which I either own or have used extensively.

The reason I own a 100/2.2 is because I can use this lens on an H body. H bodies are designed to shoot 645 film or similar in digi. It has a leaf shutter. It cant be used on a focal plane body. It has much higher strobe sync than the 100/2 it is auto focus it communicates directly to the electronics and software system which delivers DAC corrections. It also delivers a beautiful out of focus smooth bokeh. It is a great lens.

How difficult is this for you to understand? Do you 'get' the difference now? I don't answer for what other people say to you or think or have read or have heard or quote - I could care less. I only ever speak from my own direct experience about gear. To be frank there are very few people whose opinion I respect or even care to listen to about anything to do with gear - everyone has a different take on everything - all the time - that is the nature of individuality.

If I were you I would stop worrying about 'opinions' stop quoting 'opinions' and start testing these things for yourself.

Now if you wish to find out for yourself - rather than making up nonsense or carrying on like a typical internet troll - go rent a body and back and the lens and find out for yourself.


Good Luck you will need it.

My god Peter, you are accusing me of attitude, but look at what you just wrote! FWIW, here is the original sentence from you which made me wonder about the 100/2.2:

"It holds its own very well against my favourite - 110/2 - and it has autofocus a great lens."

In other words, you prefer the 110/2. This made me question 25 years of development. Nothing more. I am not interested in putting the lens down personally as I don't know it, and likely never will because I have little interest in an H system. I was simply left scratching my head after you posted the above.

Jack
9th March 2009, 08:51
Easy boys -- remember we're all friends here...

Have a Hendrick's martini and make up ;)

Dale Allyn
9th March 2009, 08:52
Is it too early for Hendrick's?

;)

carstenw
9th March 2009, 08:52
:) Yes, pops. I'll be nice. And I adore my 110/2.

carstenw
9th March 2009, 08:55
All this talk of Hendrick's has gotten me all curious. In the past I haven't liked gin much at all. Actually, I've pretty much hated it. Then again, I have only tried Beefeater and others of that ilk. Is this very different?

http://www.hendricksgin.com/uk/about/index.asp

Guy Mancuso
9th March 2009, 09:04
I stick with Vodka. LOL

Guy Mancuso
9th March 2009, 09:07
:) Yes, pops. I'll be nice. And I adore my 110/2.

End of the day that is all that matters is you get the look you like. Look at some old glass like a Mamiya 80 .19 which is 200 dollars and softer than a cotton ball but it has a look and character that some love. Bottom line image.

For example I will pick on Kurt here he has shot some really nice stuff with it and recently switched I think to a 110 Zeiss or something like that .

carstenw
9th March 2009, 09:44
Kurt switched? I thought he really liked his 80/1.9.

Guy Mancuso
9th March 2009, 09:51
Yea he bought one used on the Buy and Sell and I think he like the Zeiss better which I am sure is the better lens anyway

carstenw
9th March 2009, 10:00
The Zeiss does have awfully creamy boke, so if that is what he is after, I could understand it.

KurtKamka
9th March 2009, 11:25
I actually still have both. :D

I have one copy of the 80/1.9 that is wonderfully sharp wide-open. It's been a go-to lens for a lot of shots ... especially in low-light conditions. I keep thinking I can't possibly like the lens as much as I do as it cost me less than $200. For the most part it has very smooth bokeh. Every once in awhile, however, it throws out some funky swirly bokeh that catches you by surprise ... like it has a mind of its own.

I also picked up the later N version of the 80/1.9 about two months ago to see if I could see if there was any difference in characteristics between the two versions. The latter version is a bit softer than my first sample. I really can't tell the difference between the two lenses except that this sample seems to offer a little bit more saturation. I have this copy of the lens for sale on the buy and sell forum.

About a month ago, I bought a used 110/2 from David Farkas on the buy and sell forum. Although, I'm still learning the ins and outs of the lens, I really like it ... especially the consistent, buttery smooth bokeh. Like others have mentioned in the past, it has an 80lux or 75lux look to the images it produces with the caveat that the colors are a bit less saturated than either of those two Leica lenses.

The focal length between the 80/1.9 and 110/2 is enough for me to want to keep both. In addition, the color, contrast and bokeh are dissimilar enough for me to find ways to use both.

Kurt

carstenw
9th March 2009, 12:10
I have heard that the 110/2 also has some, erm, interesting boke once in a while, although I haven't seen it yet myself. How do the two compare in look? They sound similar.

yaya
9th March 2009, 12:49
The Zeiss does have awfully creamy boke, so if that is what he is after, I could understand it.

110mm/f2 @ f4.5, 1/60th handheld and fairly high iso...one of my favourite lenses. It's sharp where you want it to be sharp, partly because it (and the waist level finder) are so bright.

http://www.imagehut.eu/images/8561110_110mm_4800_iso_BW_web.jpg

PeterA
9th March 2009, 12:55
Carsten I dont give a toss how many times you scratch your head. Clealry there is some kind of comprehension issue going on. You have NOT replied ONCE to any simple substantive point that was repeatedly made to you. Instead more smarty pants pedantry and selective quoting - typical trol behaviour.



I

carstenw
9th March 2009, 14:25
Well, I *am* Danish, and there were trolls there once, although the two 'l' variety. What did you want to ask again? I got lost last time.

Jack
9th March 2009, 14:59
All this talk of Hendrick's has gotten me all curious. In the past I haven't liked gin much at all. Actually, I've pretty much hated it. Then again, I have only tried Beefeater and others of that ilk. Is this very different?

http://www.hendricksgin.com/uk/about/index.asp

It's way more delicately flavored than the typical British gins. Most of my friends who "didn't like gin" now have a bottle in their cabinets ;) And it is so delicate vermouth, an olive or an onion will kill it; maybe a gentle twist would be okay, but not a squeeze, and definitely a slice of cucumber is the perfect garnish. If I am out of cucumber, I drink it straight, bone dry and shaken to very cold and imagine the cucumber ;)

:thumbs:

jlm
9th March 2009, 15:25
i used to drink plymouth gin, now it's boodles...maybe i'll try that hendricks. must have something to do with keeping my angst under control. try it straight with a couple of cubes and a splash or two of angostura bitters, something i picked up from travis mcgee ;)

carstenw
9th March 2009, 15:52
Hmm, I'll have to try it then. I'll keep an eye out for it in my favorite store. Shouldn't be too hard to find, given the number of decent scotches they have.

Jack
9th March 2009, 15:59
i used to drink plymouth gin, now it's boodles...maybe i'll try that hendricks. must have something to do with keeping my angst under control. try it straight with a couple of cubes and a splash or two of angostura bitters, something i picked up from travis mcgee ;)

John:

I read all the Travis McGee's -- and *used* to drink my Tank or Sapphire with a dash of bitters. But the Hendricks is too delicate even for a small dash of the pink ;)

Jack
9th March 2009, 16:00
Hmm, I'll have to try it then. I'll keep an eye out for it in my favorite store. Shouldn't be too hard to find, given the number of decent scotches they have.

It's in a squattish, very dark brown or possibly sepia-black bottle ;)

carstenw
9th March 2009, 16:02
PeterA, I just went back and carefully re-read everything that you wrote, and discovered that I missed nothing.

The difference between 6x6 and 645 is, to me, irrelevant, because I use my 110/2 on both a Hasselblad 2000FC/M and a Contax 645, i.e. the one lens covers both formats. Apart from that, the only differences you list amount to electronics and flash sync, neither of which interest me, since I don't use flash and prefer manual focus.

To be honest, I have no idea why you got so upset in the first place. David Grover seems to have taken my post in the way intended. My original comment was a slightly flippant remark, and I wasn't expecting anyone to really take it seriously, and I especially wasn't expecting anyone to feel mortally wounded, get all wound up, and start calling me a troll.

My stance is simply to be slightly underwhelmed that it took Hasselblad 25 years to slightly worsen the specs of a lens, and to add a dab of electronics. Nothing more.

If you hold my opinion in such low regard, I don't even know why you bother with an ad hominem attack on me. Why not just ignore me? That's what my friends do.

David Grover / Phase One
9th March 2009, 22:28
My stance is simply to be slightly underwhelmed that it took Hasselblad 25 years to slightly worsen the specs of a lens, and to add a dab of electronics. Nothing more.



Slightly worsen the specs?

Please take a look at the MTF graphs again (not that they particularly interest me).

Are we going to quibble over f2 to f2.2? Really?

A 'dab' of electronics would include...

A completely new electronic shutter with a massive increase in accuracy. (holds a number of patents)
In Lens AF Drive motors with instant switch over to manual
Aperture dependant Focus Correction


David

carstenw
10th March 2009, 00:20
Oh dear. Et tu, Brute? I only ever meant it as a flippant remark, and really don't understand why people are getting so upset instead of just skipping over it. Okay, since I respect you a great deal, I will try to go along.

- Since I said "slightly", I think f2 vs. f2.2 is allowable. I never said it was significant, just that it is there. Also, 100/110 is quite short for a portrait lens, yet the characteristics of both lenses make them very interesting exactly in this field. Hasselblad shortened an already short portrait lens. Slightly. Those two factoids were all my comment was about. Nothing deeper than that. It was really not meant as an insightful, helpful, deep comment.

Continuing...

- You mention that the shutter of the HC100/2.2 is massively improved. Presumably, you don't mean over the Zeiss 110/2... This is a non-issue for me, and keep in mind, what I write is just my opinion. Both the cameras I use for my 110/2 are focal plane.

- AF, well I don't use it, so I will skip this.

- Aperture dependent focus correction: well, that sounds very nice. I am in no position to say whether either lens needs this, nor whether the difference made by this is significant, so I will just leave this point. I tend to shoot mine wide open or stopped down to f/4 or f5.6, so I may avoid any nasty issues. I also don't have a high-res DB so I may not see the potential problems in my lens.

This leaves just the question of MTF. Now, the 110/2 is kinda like the Noctilux or the 75 Lux/80 Lux in that these lenses are a bit soft wide open, while still appearing quite sharp, and also in that they are somewhat legendary.

I personally consider it a complete failure to understand what is going on when manufacturers (Hasselblad and Leica here) go in and *sharpen* a slightly soft lens, when this slight softness is exactly what people love! As I understand from PeterA and others, the 100/2.2 still has enough of this look left that it is similar to the 110/2, so that sounds great. Still, everyone I have heard of who have compared the two and have preferred one over the other has picked the 110/2. I am sure that they are very similar, but why do manufacturers feel compelled to change something which doesn't need changing??? In this case, I understand that Fuji needed to replicate the performance of the Zeiss lens, so that H owners could also use it, but they still chose to make specific changes and these were simply not requested by users of the old 110/2. Leica has done the same with the Noctilux and they have even dropped the 75 Lux and 80 Lux completely, with no replacement. What goes on inside the decision rooms of these companies that results in such a fundamental failure to understand this segment of their customers?

So in the end, improving the MTF of a lens like is bizarre. Not every lens has to be sharp, and people love these lenses so because they are not clinical. They have real mojo, real character. In other words, a slight improvement in the MTF is a slight failure to give people what they want. I am sure that there are people who swear by this lens, especially those who have never used the 110/2, but those who have tried both still seem to pick the 110/2 as their favorite, not the 100/2.2.

And so, I hope that this explains my opinion, and yes this is only my opinion on the matter, with sufficient clarity, and that there is no need for anyone to get further upset about it. Can we just move on, please?


Slightly worsen the specs?

Please take a look at the MTF graphs again (not that they particularly interest me).

Are we going to quibble over f2 to f2.2? Really?

A 'dab' of electronics would include...

A completely new electronic shutter with a massive increase in accuracy. (holds a number of patents)
In Lens AF Drive motors with instant switch over to manual
Aperture dependant Focus Correction

David

yaya
10th March 2009, 00:32
Carsten see my previous post with a sample from the 110mm/f2

I agree about the "mojo" of this lens but I don't think that it is not sharp because it IS. However like most other Zeiss MF lenses it's got less contrast compared to the HC lenses, which, in part, gives it a different look.

I also think that the HC100/2.2 is a very good lens but for portraits I personally prefer the look from the 110/2, wide open or stopped down.

Yair

David Grover / Phase One
10th March 2009, 00:46
Oh dear. Et tu, Brute? I only ever meant it as a flippant remark, and really don't understand why people are getting so upset instead of just skipping over it....

Ok ok ok ok. Lets just leave it there.

However, it is important to note that this lens is used in not only portrait photography and you could argue that 100mm is a better length on the 645 format compared to 110 on 6x6.

Aperture dependent focus correction wasn't really so necessary with film (although the H1 did have a basic correction for it) but as resolution in sensors creep up, every little bit of accuracy you can squeeze out of a system as a whole helps.

Also you can easily soften an image, but you can't make a soft one sharp. ;)

David

georgl
10th March 2009, 01:11
We're talking about the high-end-market, systems that try to do the work of large format-cameras (commericals...). Photographers spend 10000-40000$ for digital backs every few years. Even if you're willing to pay more, this is the absolute best the industry has to offer.

About 30 years ago Zeiss developed most of the lens designs of the Hasselblad/Rollei-System and while being technologically outdated, most of them are on par with the best lenses available today!
Leica pushed lens-quality in the 35mm-segment to an entirely new level with their Asph/Apo-lenses using entirely new technologies and design approaches, Zeiss develops a set of cine lenses which are twice as fast as other lens-sets and offering superior performance even at open aperture and an incredible "natural" look (No country for old men, Revolutionary Rod, Children of Men...) - giving artists new possibilities!

But what's with the high-end-photography-market? A hand full new, innovative designs in the last 15 years (mostly exotics like the TPP).

Are there MF-lenses which don't significantly drop in performance above f4?

The most legendary company in the MF-market develops an entirely new system, entirely new lenses, even switching suppliers.
They have "digital apo" (everytime you say that, one optical engineer dies... ;-), 3 new bodies within 4 years, everything cool and digital.

But the optical designs and their performances are similar to the tecnnological standard achieved 25 years ago!

I'm sorry, but I think it's understandable that not everybody is über-excited about this strategy and while having the most powerful systems (IQ-wise) it leaves doors open for other strategies...

Optics are an investment, unlike the digital components we shouldn't hesitate to pay a little bit more to get the best quality available.

carstenw
10th March 2009, 01:53
However, it is important to note that this lens is used in not only portrait photography and you could argue that 100mm is a better length on the 645 format compared to 110 on 6x6.

Okay, I really really don't want to take this any further, but you made two new points, so I will respond to just them.

I bought my 110/2 for use on a 645 camera. I liked it so much that I also bought a 2000FC/M, but the primary use, once I get a back, will be on 645. On my Contax, the 110/2 is 10mm longer than the 100/2.2 on the H. Not a big difference, but as you say, every little bit helps.


Also you can easily soften an image, but you can't make a soft one sharp. ;)

You know what? I haven't thought this through well, so if I am completely off, feel free to tell me so, but I have an inkling that it is much easier to take a shot which is *slightly* soft, and sharpen it up a bit (Canon's entire camera range would be the proof here ;)), than it is to take a shot which is sharp, and somehow achieve the look of the 110/2. Certainly once you factor in the probably not insignificant time to produce such a fake-110/2 image, the cost of the 110/2 will appear to be a relative bargain.

This is the opposite of the standard saw you use, but I think that the *look* of a lens is very much underestimated in importance *by manufacturers*. Photographers know where it is at, but manufacturers seem to universally think that softness is bad, no matter what kind. It just ain't so.

Paratom
10th March 2009, 02:13
I dont understand the discussion.

Why do we allways need/expect more and more and more?

The 110/2.0 is a great lens.
If we say the 100/2.2 is quite some years newer and not much improvement to see (or maybe for some taste a slightly less appealing) is one thing.

But I see it that way:
2 great lenses:
The Zeiss, great lens, fully usable even wide open smooth bokeh, and I am happy that even though its not the latest design it still holds up. I wouldnt even know what should be improved if I had a free wish (price maybe)

The Hassy 100 - probably also great lens, lower price than the Zeiss 110 (at least the Rollei version), included AF etc etc

So we have 2 great lenses.
One for the H-system, and one for Hasselblad V/Rollei system
So everbody can be happy. If you use H system-buy the 100/2.2, if you use Rollei/Hasselblad/Contax, buy the 110.

While manual focus works fine most of the times I wouldnt mind to have AF in the 110 though.

David Grover / Phase One
10th March 2009, 02:31
I dont understand the discussion.

Why do we allways need/expect more and more and more?

The 110/2.0 is a great lens.
If we say the 100/2.2 is quite some years newer and not much improvement to see (or maybe for some taste a slightly less appealing) is one thing.

But I see it that way:
2 great lenses:
The Zeiss, great lens, fully usable even wide open smooth bokeh, and I am happy that even though its not the latest design it still holds up. I wouldnt even know what should be improved if I had a free wish (price maybe)

The Hassy 100 - probably also great lens, lower price than the Zeiss 110 (at least the Rollei version), included AF etc etc

So we have 2 great lenses.
One for the H-system, and one for Hasselblad V/Rollei system
So everbody can be happy. If you use H system-buy the 100/2.2, if you use Rollei/Hasselblad/Contax, buy the 110.

While manual focus works fine most of the times I wouldnt mind to have AF in the 110 though.

Spot on. :thumbup:

And if anyone is interested there is a very indepth article regarding Zeiss and HC lenses in the online version of Victor Magazine... (pg 11 - Evolution of Lenses)

www.victorbyhasselblad.com/

woodyspedden
10th March 2009, 05:28
Hey guys, this is beginning to sound like a thread on LUF. I understand there can be differing points of view but when they are defended ad nauseum with little new data but many opinions, we learn little more but the heat goes up.

Carsten has tried to end this thread several times. Since this all comes down to opinion (better to soften a sharp image vs sharpening a soft one etc) why not leave it lie before some one gets upset and things go south. Not the GetDPI way.

Just my humble opinion and now you have me to flame to take your minds off this thread

Woody

Guy Mancuso
10th March 2009, 05:34
Thanks Woody. Let's not go to far not worth losing friendships.

ptomsu
10th March 2009, 12:12
Folks,

I do agree very much with Guy and Woody.

I really like this forum, mainly because you can say here things openly, get a discussion going - I mean a really good discussion - get good and helpful criticism and learn from each other. And I feel there is lot of respect for each other as well.

I unfortunately happen to know the LUF since many years and I can assure all of you who do not know it, that you CANNOT have open and helpful discussions there. And this is one of the reasons why I am spending much more time in forums like GetDPI and not in the LUF anymore!

Please let this be true also for the future - THANKS!

carstenw
10th March 2009, 12:14
I agree. The LUF forum (international side only; I have no idea why, but on the German side insults are common) was great around the time the M8 was released, for about 6 months, and then slowly but surely deteriorated. Getdpi is still great, for the most part. I am still sorry that Thierry left though. He was a great resource for the Sinar side of things.

aprillove20
7th May 2010, 09:54
Anyway, Not every lens has to be sharp, and people love these lenses.