Advantages of using Hasselblad C/CF/CFI/CFE lenses with XV adapter on X1D/X2D/907x vs CF II 50v on a 5xx body with the Cxx lenses

[elm]

I have been reading the thread "Hasselblad XV Lens Adapter Questions".

I was just wondering what your thoughts are relating to the advantages (respectively) of using C/CF/CFI/CFE lenses on:
(a) X1D/X2D/907x CF II 50v with the XV adapter (or similar adapter)
(b) 5xx body with a CF II 50V

I know the XCDs are pricy and if you have the Cxx lenses, why not use them.

Can you please share your use cases and the advantage of using one vs the other. Each of these cases are personal preferences, but I would enjoy hearing why us use one vs the other.

(I have been using the 2 XCD lenses on my 907x CF II 50c and the CF II 50c on my 500cm with CF lenses. However, not with XV adapter on my 907x with the CF lenses yet--thus want to year your thoughts and opinions.)

Thank you for sharing.

 

[UlbabrabB]

I have the 907x with the XV adapter, but I prefer to use my V/F lenses on my 500cm and 2000fcw both because I like more to compose and focus on a reflex camera. I also always had better results with them in handeld portraits, especially with long lenses, avoiding the rolling shutter effect.

Not to say that they are a lot sexier

 

[KC_2020]

I remember reading that thread. Some people were having issues with the Hasselblad XV adapter. They must have had a bad production run at some point. I bought one and it has worked just fine with all my V lenses. I also have the Fotodiox Pro adapter Leica R to X mount and it's fine until you want to use something longer than the 180mm.

But to your question. I use the Flex body in the studio with the CFV II because like using a 500 series body you can use the leaf shutter for flash sync. With the V 40mm up the 100mm I even can tilt a little bit, there's enough coverage.

I think the need for flash sync and what's comfortable in your shooting scenario are the determine factors on which way to go.

The rendering of the lenses can be different, particularly the bokeh and color accuracy, when working with and X vs V lens. Both have their 'look.'

 

[glennedens]

WRT b). like KC_2020 I also use a Flexbody, in the studio and sometimes in the field, with the CFV50cII since it takes advantage of the leaf shutters in the V lenses and avoids e-shutter issues. I have an old 501 and 503cwd and that is fun with the CFV back, however if I'm going to go to that trouble then the Flexbody is used more often. Lens wise there are plenty of reports online about which ones work better than others. Of the CF/CFe/CFi lenses I've used with the X bodies and backs my experience is the 100, 135 and 180 are very good - the 80, 120 (Makro version) and 250 are good, the 40 FLE is rough, 40 and 50 rougher, and the 50 FLE is okay (I don't have the IF version of the 40). The 250SA is stellar. The 60 was so-so. I've never tried the 24, 30, 105UV, 350, 500 or the 140-280 zoom. YMMV!!!! The weather here has been cold and snowy so I've not had a chance to get out and try any of the V-lenses on the X2D+XV adaptor yet - I'd imagine one would have to be going after a look and "rendering"

WRT a). I have the XV adaptor I haven't used it much, okay only two times to try it out

jng has some beautiful work posted here and on his Flickr using the V-lenses with the X-system.

 

[KC_2020]

.. the 40 FLE is rough.. The 60 was so-so.

I have 40 FLE and a CF 60 so I'm curious what 'rough' means. My 60 was wonderful with film but I don't think I ever really tested it with the CFV II. I'll have to do that.

 

[vs-foto]

Using 907X-50C wih XV-adapter und Carl Zeiss V-lenses with the advantage of aperture priority or EV simulation in manual mode.

 

[FloatingLens]

Using 907X-50C wih XV-adapter und Carl Zeiss V-lenses with the advantage of aperture priority or EV simulation in manual mode.

That is very true. I never really understood why the CFV II can‘t do this in stand-alone mode just mounted to a V body.

 

[FloatingLens]

I have 40 FLE and a CF 60 so I'm curious what 'rough' means. My 60 was wonderful with film but I don't think I ever really tested it with the CFV II. I'll have to do that.

The 60 Distagon digitally has some CA easily solved with Adaptive CA removal in Phocus.
With that out of the way, I suppose one can call it a sharp lens.

 

[MGrayson]

jng has some beautiful work posted here and on his Flickr using the V-lenses with the X-system.

@jng uses the 350/5.6 Superachromat a lot. The SA lenses (well, I don’t know if anyone has ever seen the 300/2.8. It runs $60,000 or so on eBay) are extraordinary.
I’ve used the 250/5.6 SA as a walk around lens. With IBIS it’s quite doable. The 110/2 also has a very special look wide open and is very sharp stopped down. Although if I know I’ll want large DoF, I’ll use the XCD 90/3.2.

 

[Godfrey]

...
I was just wondering what your thoughts are relating to the advantages (respectively) of using C/CF/CFI/CFE lenses on:
(a) X1D/X2D/907x CF II 50v with the XV adapter (or similar adapter)
(b) 5xx body with a CF II 50V
...
Can you please share your use cases and the advantage of using one vs the other. Each of these cases are personal preferences, but I would enjoy hearing why us use one vs the other.
...

I have both XV adapter tube and tripod mount.
I also have 500CM bodies and lenses, and the 907x/CFVII 50c and XCD lenses.

Which to choose depends on what I'm trying to do. Fitting the CFV back onto the 500CM nets a super 500CM with an infinitely long roll of film in it, essentially, operating the 500CM in its native mode. The square crop, for sake of using a WL finder and not having rotate the camera for a vertical, nets a 39 Mpixel image. For studied work with the camera on a tripod using the electronic shutter ... well, this works, but then the 500CM is acting the part of a large and heavy adapter tube, and rolling the camera on its side for a full frame vertical with the digital back is somewhat awkward.

For that latter type of work, the XV adapter and tripod mount with the 907x body is more convenient as the assembly is marginally lighter and the tube allows one to rotate the 907x easily, allows more facile positioning of the framing and such. The V system lens operation is identical, and the rolling shutter is as well. I have used this setup extensively for copy camera use with the Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 and extension tubes.

I've also done walkabout photography with the 907x and an adapted lens (XV with the lens fitted, but also Leica R and M mount lenses), keeping in mind when shooting the eshutter's long capture time.. You have to be careful what you're subject is doing when you use the eshutter but you can get some lovely photos with it.

One of the funnier looking setups is an M-mount adapter, an MS Optical Aporia 24mm f/2 lens fitted to the 907x.

907x_w_Aporia-24-3

It actually images pretty nicely when cropped to square (33x33 format):

Light Beam on Surface Texture

G

 

[jng]

jng has some beautiful work posted here and on his Flickr using the V-lenses with the X-system.

@jng uses the 350/5.6 Superachromat a lot. The SA lenses (well, I don’t know if anyone has ever seen the 300/2.8. It runs $60,000 or so on eBay) are extraordinary.

Late to the party (again). Agree that the Superachromats are superb on whatever resolution sensor you can put behind them. Ditto for the 3.5/100. I've lusted after the 2.8/300 SA but the price tag is even too ridiculous for me to consider seriously. Yet.

The renderings of the legacy V lenses and newer XCDs are quite different (the latter being cooler and more clinical), so this is a factor worth considering. In any case, the gap in the XCD lens lineup is on the long end, which is where you'll find me using the 250 SA and 350 SA adapted to my X2D (and also IQ4 150 on the Cambo).

My entrée into what I refer to as the medium format digital rabbit hole was with an IQ160 mated to my old 500C, which was basically impossible to focus accurately with its old (non-replaceable) focusing screen. Then moved to a 501CM with an Acute Matte screen (better) and a Flexbody (a clever and versatile contraption, as alluded to by others here, also relatively easy to focus with live view on the more modern CMOS backs). However I found focusing with accuracy and precision to be a pain. YMMV, of course, and in full disclosure I never was great at focusing even when my eyes (and I) were much younger and brighter. And discounting user error, making this work on the reflex bodies requires proper alignment of the focusing path relative to the sensor plane - the high resolution digital backs are unforgiving in this regard. So, for me the choice between legacy lenses on 500-series bodies vs XV-adapted would boil down to actual use cases, e.g., whether you need x-sync for flash etc., not to mention the visceral pleasure of that ka-chunk associated with triggering the old 500-series bodies. Otherwise, I find it much easier to use these lenses adapted to the X-series bodies.

The end of my active 500-series days came when I upgraded from my V-mount IQ160 to the IQ3100 (and now IQ4 150), which are not available in V-mount. TBH, I've never looked back although I have hung on to my old bodies just in case Dante comes calling again and I succumb to the allure of the (still hypothetical) CFV-100C.

John

P.S. The 4/40 CFE IF (not the FLE or any of the other 40mm variants) is superb. However it's a beast and also rare and therefore expensive. I reluctantly sold mine as I couldn't justify keeping it when the XCD45 came along with my X1D. But I had a lot of fun with it, especially when mounted on the Flexbody.

 

[glennedens]

Ah, reading messages serially, this already well discussed by jog and others . I definitely have to get the XV adaptor out with the X2D!
-----------

The 40 FLE has significant CA/LoCA and corner issues + smearing, the 40 FLE IF is very good. The 60 CF had corner issues, the center is good, I found I had to crop the 60 often winding up with more like 80 FoV, this could be a CFV50cII sensor stack issue, I've not tried any of the V glass on the X2D yet. My 60 was great on film. Let us know what you find!

Glenn

I have 40 FLE and a CF 60 so I'm curious what 'rough' means. My 60 was wonderful with film but I don't think I ever really tested it with the CFV II. I'll have to do that.

 

[KC_2020]

Thanks Glenn and FloatinngLens. Good information to have. I'll have to do some comparisons shots vs my XCD 35-75.

Back in the day when I was actively working with my V system I remember I was thrilled to buy the 40 CF FLE. Of course that was 1991 and it was just so much easier to work with than an SWC.

 

[kent_14]

Likewise, I haven't really used my 40 FLE on my X1D given the E shutter issues and marginal FOV difference from the easier to use + compact XCD 45P.
Sadly, the rolling shutter artifacts are kind of a deal breaker for adapted lenses in my available light workflow.
I do like experimenting w the 80CF though and may eventually pick up the XCD 80/1.9

 

[vs-foto]

That is very true. I never really understood why the CFV II can‘t do this in stand-alone mode just mounted to a V body.

I also never understood, that Hasselblad did not implement these two features for the CFV II 50C on the 503CW. As I guess, it would definitely be technically possible.

 

[FloatingLens]

I also never understood, that Hasselblad did not implement these two features for the CFV II 50C on the 503CW. As I guess, it would definitely be technically possible.

Ah, the more I think about it: may have to do with the auxiliary shutter obstructing the sensor shortly before the exposure. I suppose this cannot be coordinated with the release pin cycle of the V body.

The way to shoot in this mode would be somewhat limited: keeping V body shutter open (e.g. in T mode) and then the CFV II could start the Aperture priority measurement and exposure for the determined duration. Another issue would be that the user is responsible to keep the shutter open for long enough, imagine a low light scene.

 

[vs-foto]

Ah, the more I think about it: may have to do with the auxiliary shutter obstructing the sensor shortly before the exposure. I suppose this cannot be coordinated with the release pin cycle of the V body.

The way to shoot in this mode would be somewhat limited: keeping V body shutter open (e.g. in T mode) and then the CFV II could start the Aperture priority measurement and exposure for the determined duration. Another issue would be that the user is responsible to keep the shutter open for long enough, imagine a low light scene.

I don't mean "normal operation" such as film-magazine or using the CFV-39 on a 501CM or 503CW. But using the CFV II 50C with live view and electronic shutter. Since the shutter
and the auxiliary shutter are already open with B (bulb setting).