Focus on a special lens: Hasselblad Planar T* 3,5/100

[FloatingLens]

In medium format photography, I am a big fan of the Hasselblad Planar T* 3,5/100. I've had two copies of the CF version so far. While both gave very good results at infinity, their performance at closer distances seemed lacking and did not reflect their general reputation as the jewel of the system. So I was wondering for some time if the CFi could even be an improvement over the copies that I owned until that point.

When I got the chance recently to acquire a well-cared-for copy of the CFi Planar, I jumped on it. Actually, I feel this lens is a much better performer for contrast and sharpness throughout the whole focussing range compared to the older variants. Now I got curious, if - contrary to often-repeated internet canon that all Planar 3,5/100 share the same optical formula - this is really true also for the latest version.

When I looked closer about apparent physical differences between CF Planar and CFi Planar, what I noticed are a couple of clues, which might suggest these lenses are actually different.

Here's what I got:
1) Zeiss' official datasheets suggest slightly different focal length (100,3mm against 101,3mm)
2) different physical parameters for front and rear lens elements
3) most apparent when comparing side-by-side, the CFi has a different coating on the front element (purple instead of green reflection)

Does anybody have similar experiences or background knowledge that would confirm that not only the housing but also the lens formula got improved very late?

 

[FloatingLens]

Supplemental
Historical product info from Zeiss

1. Planar T* 3.5/100 C
2. Planar T* 3.5/100 CF
3. Planar T* 3.5/100 CFi

 

[f.hayek]

Who knows if these minor tweaks make a great difference. The difference in price for CF vs CFI isn't insignificant ($500-700 at last check)

 

[FloatingLens]

Who knows if these minor tweaks make a great difference. The difference in price for CF vs CFI isn't insignificant ($500-700 at last check)

True, but that was partly why I was listing my observations here to collect feedback. Maybe people come up with real-world use cases where the improvements make some noticeable difference?

 

[mristuccia]

I remember Hasselblad recommending the use of the Planar 80mm for mid distances, the 100mm at around infinite, and the Makro Planar 120mm for subjects having the size of a window or smaller.
As far as the differences between CF and CFi, I've always thought (and read) they were the same.

 

[f.hayek]

I remember Hasselblad recommending the use of the Planar 80mm for mid distances, the 100mm at around infinite, and the Makro Planar 120mm for subjects having the size of a window or smaller.
As far as the differences between CF and CFi, I've always thought (and read) they were the same.

There are minute dimensional differences between the variations as well as mechanical updates and coating changes. But the optical formula remains unchanged. The differences are not comparable to the 40 and 50 CFI with the floating element correction that annoyingly needs to be changed manually (in contrast to other lenses incorporating FLE correction in the movement of the optical elements). I guess the 100 is best suited for landscape, aerial imaging and distortion-free architectural images.

 

[jng]

I've only used the CF version of the Planar 3.5/100. I have yet to find any flaws or limitations in my experience using this lens for landscapes on the IQ3100 (I imagine I'd come to the same conclusion on the IQ4 150, but I haven't actually tried it). One benefit of the CFE/CFi iterations is the silky smoothness of the focusing helicals compared to the older design. Properly maintained and lubricated, focusing the CF lenses is fine, but you may find it a bit easier to focus with the newer design.

John

 

[docholliday]

The 3.5/100 was designed originally as an aerial lens, so it's optimized for infinity and has very high resolving power. It's the reason why many shooters (like me) use the 100mm focal length often and don't use the 80mm (at all). Another difference between CF and CFi/CFe is the material used allows for smoother and more positive filter lock. With CF, many times one has to bend the filter tabs to get them to hold tightly and not come loose on their own. The newer material grabs well and still allows the filter to remain buttery smooth when removing.

The grip design on the CFi/CFe makes for better handling with gloves, wet weather, or as they age. Many CF "rubber bands" get slippery or break as they get older. I'd take a CFi/CFe any day over the older lenses. Well, except for the CB series, with the exception of the 160 Tessar which is a surprisingly decent lens despite not having any real strengths.

Another lens that the CFi/CFe design handles better is the 180mm. The CF version would regularly get very stiff focusing from the large helicoid and heavy front. The newer barrel remains buttery smooth.

 

[f.hayek]

The 3.5/100 was designed originally as an aerial lens, so it's optimized for infinity and has very high resolving power. It's the reason why many shooters (like me) use the 100mm focal length often and don't use the 80mm (at all).

How then does it perform at near and mid-distances, compared to the 80?

 

[Hasslebad]

I own and use the 100mm because I like the focal length. I mostly use it near to mid distance. Edge distortion is low all round but the lens is most blistering sharp at infinity. I remember one image that I shot at infinity to get the rather large structure and subject in the frame. I was shocked at the contrast and detail that I had never seen at mid distance.

I shot with the 80mm 15 years ago. If memory serves me right, it also is sharp at infinity but there is some nice “character” when up close especially wide open with the subject in the middle. The edges slowly blur into softness and makes for a decent environmental portrait. The 100mm doesn’t transition into blurriness as quickly, mainly because the edges don’t get as soft.

 

[docholliday]

How then does it perform at near and mid-distances, compared to the 80?

The 100, at any focus distance, "outsharps" the 80. It's a lens that is a favorite of many product shooters for a reason. The contrast, microcontrast, edge detail, resolving power, and color is one of the best. The only thing that it doesn't do well is bokeh...for that, there's the 110/2!

 

[f.hayek]

Hmmm...

Makes the decision all the more difficult. But is there a difference in resolving power between the version?

 

[FloatingLens]

Makes the decision all the more difficult. But is there a difference in resolving power between the version?

That was my suggestion to begin with. Since I have both CF and CFi 3,5/100, it is somewhat relevant to me. My assessment – no hard testing on my side – is that the CFi may be superior by a hair in the mid and near distance department, but I don't know if that's due to updated coatings or minute improvements in the optical formula; or I ended up with a "bad" CF lens sample from the get-go.

Either way, datasheets suggest that something happened after the CF. Either to perfect overall performance or maybe changes necessitated by environmental regulations like with the 905 SWC?

 

[jng]

Hmmm...

Makes the decision all the more difficult. But is there a difference in resolving power between the version?

FWIW, the MTF curves are essentially indistinguishable for the CF and CFi versions. Some of these old lenses have been more well loved by their previous owners than others. Any differences on paper may be moot when considering sample to sample variation combined with possible abuse. It’s probably more important to find a good copy of either iteration and keep it if it meets your standards. If cost is an issue then start with the CF. My 100 CF is spectacular - I can shift well over 10mm on the full sized 40x54mm sensor and it’s razor sharp out to the edges, rivaling if not equaling my tech cam lenses.

John

 

[FloatingLens]

FWIW, the MTF curves are essentially indistinguishable for the CF and CFi versions.

To me performance of both the CF and CFi at infinity are identical as the curves (for infinity) suggest, no doubt! But please read carefully: the difference CF/CFi may lie in mid to near performance. Did you mean that, too?

If nobody else shares such observations, you may well be right that optical differences are minimal in comparison to sample variation.

 

[jng]

To me performance of both the CF and CFi at infinity are identical as the curves (for infinity) suggest, no doubt! But please read carefully: the difference CF/CFi may lie in mid to near performance. Did you mean that, too?

If nobody else shares such observations, you may well be right that optical differences are minimal in comparison to sample variation.

Good point. This would be hard to determine absent a comparison of multiple copies of each lens type, but still wouldn't predict how any given copy performs especially if *on average* the differences are minor. My point (which perhaps I didn't make clear before) is that a "good" copy of a CF may out-perform a "bad" copy of a CFi at all distances, or at the very least be deemed to be "good enough," which is particularly relevant when finding a good copy of a 20-30 year-old lens on the used market can be hit or miss. YMMV, of course!

John

 

[f.hayek]

The problem is also that there’s little out there on the 100, aside from the praise Zeiss heaped on its design. I have a Rollei 6008 and a 2/80. I need something longer to complement the 4/50 CFI and a 100 seems correct but I’m concerned about it’s performance closer in. The 120 is too long and aside from Macro, not sure it’s all that flexible. 100 CFI lenses are so much costlier and I still don’t know whether it’s worth the 50% upcharge compared to an older CF.

 

[anyone]

The problem is also that there’s little out there on the 100, aside from the praise Zeiss heaped on its design. I have a Rollei 6008 and a 2/80. I need something longer to complement the 4/50 CFI and a 100 seems correct but I’m concerned about it’s performance closer in. The 120 is too long and aside from Macro, not sure it’s all that flexible. 100 CFI lenses are so much costlier and I still don’t know whether it’s worth the 50% upcharge compared to an older CF.

The 110mm /2 is also another option, especially for closer focus (portraits?).

 

[f.hayek]

The Hasselblad version would require another camera body, and the Rollei version is close to US$5k.

 

[mristuccia]

Honestly, by looking at the schema design I don't think there is any difference between the CF and CFi. If any (I see some differences in the specs) it has been done to compensate something at the expense of something else, as for example a little less sharpness at infinite and at little more at mid distance. Without a floating lens solution, or a schema refactoring, there cannot be miracles.
But I'm just speculating.

Me? When possible, I'll continue using the 100mm at long-infinite distances and the 80mm at short-mid ones.