Hasselblad 40mm F4 CFE or CFE IF ?

[FloatingLens]

BTW: If you are looking for 40 IF level performance, you may want to consider the Distagon 3,5/35 on Contax 645 + digital back as an excellent performer. This lens has internal focussing (IF) and MFT charts look similar to the 40 IF. My guess is that those two lenses are based on the same design, but the 35 is to be had at a fraction of the cost. Of course, CONTAX as a brand no longer exists...

 

[FloatingLens]

I would enjoy reading about your user experience with either lens, and please share photos made with your 40/4 if you can.

FlexBody CP + Distagon 4/40 FLE at f11 + CFV II 50c

Full image unedited

Full image processed

 

[anyone]

Pretty place, pretty image! Where was this shot? Lake Bled, Slovenia?

 

[FloatingLens]

Pretty place, pretty image! Where was this shot? Lake Bled, Slovenia?

Thanks, anyone! Yes, that's the place.

Just as an aside, the composition is not perfect since it was tuned for 6x6 at 60mm focal length. With the digital sensor, I chose the 40mm to approximate the same field of view and check the results.

 

[darr]

Hi Darr,

I once had the CF 4/40 FLE, it was great with film.
Once I tried it on my CFV-50c I immediately noticed poor performances out of the center area: sharpness and a bit of smearing.
I've sold it and bought the IF and have no regreets at all. It is way sharper till the corners.
The only problem, as "anyone" has already pointed out, is the distortion, very noticeable especially when doing architectural works. However it can be corrected with Phocus when no shift is applied or with the Alpa tool when shifting it (I use it with my Cambo WDS too), at the expense of a very little amount of sharpness IMHO.

Long story short:
- if you want to use it on film, avoid the extra money and go for the FLE.
- if you need tack sharp corner-to-corner digital images out of your CFV-50c, go for the IF.

Thanks Marco!
I appreciate you sharing your user experience.

 

[darr]

BTW: If you are looking for 40 IF level performance, you may want to consider the Distagon 3,5/35 on Contax 645 + digital back as an excellent performer. This lens has internal focussing (IF) and MFT charts look similar to the 40 IF. My guess is that those two lenses are based on the same design, but the 35 is to be had at a fraction of the cost. Of course, CONTAX as a brand no longer exists...

Thank you for this info as I am sure someone may find it interesting.
Only interested in the Hasselblad lenses as I like to keep things simple, and Hasselblad and I go way back.
I have too much gear and need to start selling off what I am not using.

Thank you again.

 

[darr]

View attachment 176901
FlexBody CP + Distagon 4/40 FLE at f11 + CFV II 50c

Full image unedited

Full image processed

Very beautiful!!

 

[mristuccia]

View attachment 176901
FlexBody CP + Distagon 4/40 FLE at f11 + CFV II 50c

Full image unedited

Full image processed

Beautiful shot!
May I ask which RAW developer you've used?

 

[FloatingLens]

Beautiful shot!
May I ask which RAW developer you've used?

Cheers! I am still figuring out what the best way is to develop my CFV II 50C raw files. I didn't expect anybody to ask this... but I think it's fair, given the disappointing situation with C1.

I am still struggling with Phocus, so I developed the examples with Aperture 3.7 for Mac. It is not so long ago that I moved on to C1, but I have it still running and actually Aperture is quite snappy with the 3FR files... and it's seamless. No native lens corrections of course, but it took 2 minutes to have an optimized and sharpened version ready for export.

 

[nathantw]

Contemplating adding a 40/4 to my Hasselblad kit. I currently use a 60/3.5 but want to go wider.
Do I seriously look at the CFE IF, or do I save ~ 2k and go for the CFE?

My widest used to be the 60mm f/3.5. I have a Phase One P25 back and the combo works well. I purchased a 40mm f/4 CF and it's a wonderful lens. However, for me at least, I have a hard time focusing the lens because the difference between in focus and out of focus is very small, especially when scene from a microprism and split image rangefinder. I've resorted external measuring devices, such as a laser measuring device, to determine accurate distance. Granted my eyesight with bifocal glasses aren't helping the situation so you may not run into the problem I have.

 

[jng]

Hi Darr,

Wow, your post elicited quite a response. I'm a bit late to the party but here's my two cents' worth: from what I've read about the 40 FLE, when shooting on a digital sensor you might find it to be just good enough. In contrast, the IF CFE is simply stellar - on paper based on the MTF charts (available on Hasselblad Historical as you noted) as well as in actual practice. On film nothing renders quite like the SWC's 38mm Biogon but it's a somewhat different story when shooting digital where the Biogon struggles a bit owing to its symmetrical lens design. Others have experience with the IF as did I before I sold it when I moved on to the Cambo. I loved using it but couldn't justify keeping it. It has an image circle large enough that allowed me to shift pretty much to the limits of the Flexbody on a 54 x 40mm sensor. Yes the IF is quite a bit more expensive than the FLE but if you can swing it, you won't look back on that decision with any regrets.

 

[jng]

I managed to dig up an old file showing the kind of image the 40 IF is capable of making. This was on my 501CM + IQ160, shot at f/8 and cropped vertically to give a wide aspect ratio. If you click your way through the Flickr link you can take a look at the full-sized image.

CF003351_C1 by John Ngai, on Flickr

Here's another image using the 40 IF on the Flexbody:
Dunes, hoodoos & bluffs, Monument Valley by John Ngai, on Flickr

John

 

[rmueller]

Hi,

i’d recommend the IF version. You won’t need it for film but for digital it really stands out and above all other V Zeiss lenses IMO. My wife shoots it on a 503CW with CFV-50c and its her primary lens. If you like, we can put some RAW images on our dropbox and share with you, send me your email per DM if you’re interested. Can’t speak for the other 40mm, we only have the IF. Attached is a BTS and the result, the level of detail in the curtain is amazing.

Best Regards,
Ralf

 

[mristuccia]

Cheers! I am still figuring out what the best way is to develop my CFV II 50C raw files. I didn't expect anybody to ask this... but I think it's fair, given the disappointing situation with C1.

I am still struggling with Phocus, so I developed the examples with Aperture 3.7 for Mac. It is not so long ago that I moved on to C1, but I have it still running and actually Aperture is quite snappy with the 3FR files... and it's seamless. No native lens corrections of course, but it took 2 minutes to have an optimized and sharpened version ready for export.

Thanks for answering FloatingLens.

As I've said, I like the image very much! But upon close inspection I've noticed quite a bit of color noise in the water, and just wondering which RAW processor has been used. This is what I usually notice and struggle with when using Phocus. LR being a little bit better on that side, and C1 being the best from my experience. It could only be a different level of default color noise suppression however...

But I don't want to hijack Darr's thread. This is a subject for another thread.

 

[FloatingLens]

Thanks for answering FloatingLens.

As I've said, I like the image very much! But upon close inspection I've noticed quite a bit of color noise in the water, and just wondering which RAW processor has been used. This is what I usually notice and struggle with when using Phocus. LR being a little bit better on that side, and C1 being the best from my experience. It could only be a different level of default color noise suppression however...

But I don't want to hijack Darr's thread. This is a subject for another thread.

True, let's not do that. Just briefly, I did notice that too and it is not too pretty. It thought it might just be a weird interaction between lens and the sensor.

 

[darr]

My widest used to be the 60mm f/3.5. I have a Phase One P25 back and the combo works well. I purchased a 40mm f/4 CF and it's a wonderful lens. However, for me at least, I have a hard time focusing the lens because the difference between in focus and out of focus is very small, especially when scene from a microprism and split image rangefinder. I've resorted external measuring devices, such as a laser measuring device, to determine accurate distance. Granted my eyesight with bifocal glasses aren't helping the situation so you may not run into the problem I have.

Thank you NathanTW for your reply.

I too have had difficulties focusing some wide angle lenses. My remedy is testing the lens for hyperfocal distances at different apertures and shoot landscapes using hyperfocal. This has worked for me and one reason I do not like lenses that do not have hyperfocal markings. I also shoot some cameras (ALPA, Cambo Wide, Linhof) that do not have a reflex viewfinder and choose only to use a handheld viewfinder to scope out compositions, then use a ground glass for framing, and hyperfocal for focusing. It always works for me, but the step of testing my lenses at the start is a must as some of the markings can be a little off. I have heard from photographers that hyperfocal does not work for them, and I believe understanding the focus accuracy of each lens via markings (remember they can be a little off), and have a solid shooting technique is what can make it a successful way of landscape focusing. Focus stacking (which I do use at times), is just another form of multiple slices of hyperfocal distancing meshed together IMO.

Thank you again for sharing your experience.
Darr

 

[darr]

Hi Darr,

Wow, your post elicited quite a response. I'm a bit late to the party but here's my two cents' worth: from what I've read about the 40 FLE, when shooting on a digital sensor you might find it to be just good enough. In contrast, the IF CFE is simply stellar - on paper based on the MTF charts (available on Hasselblad Historical as you noted) as well as in actual practice. On film nothing renders quite like the SWC's 38mm Biogon but it's a somewhat different story when shooting digital where the Biogon struggles a bit owing to its symmetrical lens design. Others have experience with the IF as did I before I sold it when I moved on to the Cambo. I loved using it but couldn't justify keeping it. It has an image circle large enough that allowed me to shift pretty much to the limits of the Flexbody on a 54 x 40mm sensor. Yes the IF is quite a bit more expensive than the FLE but if you can swing it, you won't look back on that decision with any regrets.

Thank you John, always appreciate your contributions.

I have a beautiful ALPA kit with SK lenses: 28, 35, 47, 72 and 120 lenses. I have had the kit for a few years, but over time I find myself using my Hasselblad gear more. And the only reason I use the Hasselblad gear more is because I like shooting with it more. Surely many photographers could argue the ALPA and SK lenses are more stellar in ways, but I just seem to be drawn to the Hasselblad charm. The Hasselblad lenses to me have a particular look (personality?) I just prefer. I never gave up shooting film, so I never gave up shooting my 500 system cameras and I am glad I chose not to. I am at a turning point right now, and I believe it was sparked by the 907x. Not that I am going to buy the 907x, but I gave some serious thought to shooting a 907x with newer Hasselblad lenses. I came to the conclusion that the newer lenses may produce similar results as the SK lenses, and right now it seems I am not interested.

I understand many photographers have the need for shifting and require the equipment to do so. I do not have much need for shifting these days and traded away my ALPA Max not long ago. But, I am glad to hear how you were able to shift with the FlexBody and the IF as I have a FlexBody in my kit. It does sound like I should go with the IF lens or I may regret it. This of course could all change in the future. I can be a fickle photographer!

Thank you again!
Darr

 

[darr]

I managed to dig up an old file showing the kind of image the 40 IF is capable of making. This was on my 501CM + IQ160, shot at f/8 and cropped vertically to give a wide aspect ratio. If you click your way through the Flickr link you can take a look at the full-sized image.

CF003351_C1 by John Ngai, on Flickr

Here's another image using the 40 IF on the Flexbody:
Dunes, hoodoos & bluffs, Monument Valley by John Ngai, on Flickr

John

Wow John, I went to Flickr and saw the top image at 100%. You are right, the sharpness across the distance is incredible!
Thank you so much for sharing your images!!

 

[darr]

Hi,

i’d recommend the IF version. You won’t need it for film but for digital it really stands out and above all other V Zeiss lenses IMO. My wife shoots it on a 503CW with CFV-50c and its her primary lens. If you like, we can put some RAW images on our dropbox and share with you, send me your email per DM if you’re interested. Can’t speak for the other 40mm, we only have the IF. Attached is a BTS and the result, the level of detail in the curtain is amazing.

Best Regards,
Ralf

Thank you Ralf!

I can see why your wife favors the IF lens.
I appreciate you took the time to share your images.

Kind regards,
Darr

 

[darr]

Thanks for answering FloatingLens.

As I've said, I like the image very much! But upon close inspection I've noticed quite a bit of color noise in the water, and just wondering which RAW processor has been used. This is what I usually notice and struggle with when using Phocus. LR being a little bit better on that side, and C1 being the best from my experience. It could only be a different level of default color noise suppression however...

But I don't want to hijack Darr's thread. This is a subject for another thread.

Continue on Marco as I am interested in the post processing differences as well.