Hasselblad 180/4 with teleconverter and CFV

[nameBrandon]

I got the 2XE in last night and did a quick test today with the 4/120 CF. I'm really impressed. I also have the Mutar 2X on order from Japan, so we'll see what that does when it shows but really I don't know how things are going to improve from here.. very pleased with the performance of the 2XE.

First are full frames resized to 1600px, then 100% crops at 1600px wide. These were all with the CFVii50c + XV adapter.

2XE + 4/120 wide open - 1/60 ISO 1600

FULL

100% CROP

4/120 wide open - 1/60 ISO 1600 (-0.4 exposure in post)

FULL

100% CROP

 

[glennedens]

Those look excellent, look forward to hearing what you learn. Was there any CA that had to be corrected?

Kind regards, Glenn

 

[nameBrandon]

Those look excellent, look forward to hearing what you learn. Was there any CA that had to be corrected?

Kind regards, Glenn

There is some CA, if you notice on that last image in the soap dish, but this is shown as is / uncorrected.. so in my opinion, it's very well controlled.

I have the 4/180 CF and 5.6/250 CF Superachromat coming by this weekend, and the Mutar 2X from Japan is already in Indianapolis(!!), so assuming decent weather I'll get out in the backyard and run some tests with the 180 and 250 each with the 2XE and Mutar 2X.

 

[FloatingLens]

There is some CA, if you notice on that last image in the soap dish, but this is shown as is / uncorrected.. so in my opinion, it's very well controlled.

I have the 4/180 CF and 5.6/250 CF Superachromat coming by this weekend, and the Mutar 2X from Japan is already in Indianapolis(!!), so assuming decent weather I'll get out in the backyard and run some tests with the 180 and 250 each with the 2XE and Mutar 2X.

Excellent stuff! In my case, the 2XE creates some CA within the image circle, which (of course) is not present with the 250Sa alone.

 

[anyone]

Serious shopping, Brandon! Enjoy the lovely new lens.

 

[jng]

I have the 4/180 CF and 5.6/250 CF Superachromat coming by this weekend, and the Mutar 2X from Japan is already in Indianapolis(!!), so assuming decent weather I'll get out in the backyard and run some tests with the 180 and 250 each with the 2XE and Mutar 2X.

Message from Dante: Attaboy!

 

[nameBrandon]

Message from Dante: Attaboy!

Haha.. don't tell him, but the 250SA will probably get re-sold after the Colorado trip.

 

[nameBrandon]

OK, had time to test today but unfortunately it was super rainy outside so had to make do in the kitchen.

If you want to do your own pixel peeping you can get all the full sized images here.

Hasselblad-Extender-Testing

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Quick summary, I'm really impressed with the 250SA and the 180. I also have a hard time telling which extender works best.
I was looking at center sharpness in this test, so perhaps corners will tell a different story, but I wouldn't be surprised if the results here hold true for corners as well.
I think the 2XE and Mutar 2X are pretty much interchangeable as far as these two lenses.

Testing was done via Cambo WRS 1600 and Hasselblad V adapter plate, with CFVii50c as the back. Electronic shutter was used with Hasselblad remote release cord.
Tripod was RRS TVC-24L Mk2 CF with Arca Swiss cube.

Lenses were shot wide open, the 180 @ f4 and the 250 SA at 5.6.

Images are resized to 1600 px, the first image is the whole scene, the second is a 1600 px (100%) crop of the focus area. I tried to focus on the camera icon on the sticker. I took three shots, defocusing between each, and picked the best for each lens/extender combination.

First up, the 250 SA CF. - 500mm with extender.

No Extender - Full Scene

2XE - Full Scene

MUTAR 2X - Full Scene

No Extender - 100%

2XE @ 100%

MUTAR 2X @ 100%

Now the 180mm f/4 CF - 360mm with extender.

No Extender - Full Scene

2XE - Full Scene

MUTAR 2X - Full Scene

No Extender - 100%

2XE @ 100%

MUTAR 2X @ 100%

 

[jng]

OK, had time to test today but unfortunately it was super rainy outside so had to make do in the kitchen....

This looks promising, Brandon. As commented on above, you'll want to check performance further out toward the edges as well. One thing I've found with my 250SA is that, while the image quality is fine at close distances (< ~15 ft), the lens performs much better on more distant subjects. I'd be interested to see the results of your testing outside once the weather cooperates!

John

 

[glennedens]

Brandon, great experiment and very interesting. I notice two things - first, the micro contrast and acuity on your copy of the 2XE looks better than your copy of the Mutar and second, the background blur (I won't use the 'word' on the Mutar looks better to me than the 2XE. On my copies (a while ago) the Mutar was nicer than the 2XE on all counts - so I'd say this is pretty close with maybe a slight nod to the 2XE. I never had a 250SA so my experience was with the CF 180 and CF 250.

Glenn

 

[nameBrandon]

Brandon, great experiment and very interesting. I notice two things - first, the micro contrast and acuity on your copy of the 2XE looks better than your copy of the Mutar and second, the background blur (I won't use the 'word' on the Mutar looks better to me than the 2XE. On my copies (a while ago) the Mutar was nicer than the 2XE on all counts - so I'd say this is pretty close with maybe a slight nod to the 2XE. I never had a 250SA so my experience was with the CF 180 and CF 250.

Glenn

I've been pretty impressed with the 2XE, though the Mutar certainly does hold up well. I'm just amazed at how much IQ is retained adding in the 2X extenders in general. I think in that regard they both prefer admirably. It could be the underlying lens IQ contributing as well, both the 180 and 250SA are phenomenal. Perhaps we'd see more of a difference with a weaker CF lens.. though now that I look at my CF lens lineup, it's pretty darn hard to find a poor one!

 

[onasj]

Since I never met a testing opportunity I didn't like, I ran a quick comparison of the 250SA + Mutar 2x vs. 250SA + 2XE. Both tests shot under challenging conditions for a 2x teleconverter: wide open (f/5.6), ISO 800, 151-MP Phase One IQ4 back. Tripod mounted of course, trying to keep the position of the camera as consistent as possible between shots. I took several with each setup and selected the best frame for each. Shot RAW, converter in Capture One into JPGs.

For what it's worth, I found the 2x Mutar to be better than the 2XE for this lens under these conditions. It's sharper and the colors were warmer, which was more accurate for the scene. While both teleconverters do a good job with a very demanding back, and while the sharpest parts of the 2XE image approached the sharpness of the better parts of the 2x Mutar image, overall the Mutar seemed somewhat better—sharper, more contrast, and less glow or other aberrations. Full-resolution JPGs:

250SA + 2XE: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gywpbklzy6fcz6o/250SA + 2XE f5.6 P0003278.jpg?dl=0
250SA + 2x Mutar: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bw74xgfx9916bm9/250SA + Mutar 2x f5.6 P0003274.jpg?dl=0

 

[nameBrandon]

Since I never met a testing opportunity I didn't like, I ran a quick comparison of the 250SA + Mutar 2x vs. 250SA + 2XE. Both tests shot under challenging conditions for a 2x teleconverter: wide open (f/5.6), ISO 800, 151-MP Phase One IQ4 back. Tripod mounted of course, trying to keep the position of the camera as consistent as possible between shots. I took several with each setup and selected the best frame for each. Shot RAW, converter in Capture One into JPGs.

For what it's worth, I found the 2x Mutar to be better than the 2XE for this lens under these conditions. It's sharper and the colors were warmer, which was more accurate for the scene. While both teleconverters do a good job with a very demanding back, and while the sharpest parts of the 2XE image approached the sharpest of the better parts of the 2x Mutar image, overall the Mutar seemed somewhat better—sharper, more contrast, and less glow or other aberrations. Full-resolution JPGs:

250SA + 2XE: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gywpbklzy6fcz6o/250SA + 2XE f5.6 P0003278.jpg?dl=0
250SA + 2x Mutar: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bw74xgfx9916bm9/250SA + Mutar 2x f5.6 P0003274.jpg?dl=0

Awesome, thanks for sharing those results!

 

[glennedens]

Onasj, your findings are the same as my experience when I compared the Mutar 2x to the 2XE, again not with a 250SA (drool). Great to see all of this wonderful work and these old lenses are still works of optics art.

 

[mristuccia]

Since I never met a testing opportunity I didn't like, I ran a quick comparison of the 250SA + Mutar 2x vs. 250SA + 2XE. Both tests shot under challenging conditions for a 2x teleconverter: wide open (f/5.6), ISO 800, 151-MP Phase One IQ4 back. Tripod mounted of course, trying to keep the position of the camera as consistent as possible between shots. I took several with each setup and selected the best frame for each. Shot RAW, converter in Capture One into JPGs.

For what it's worth, I found the 2x Mutar to be better than the 2XE for this lens under these conditions. It's sharper and the colors were warmer, which was more accurate for the scene. While both teleconverters do a good job with a very demanding back, and while the sharpest parts of the 2XE image approached the sharpness of the better parts of the 2x Mutar image, overall the Mutar seemed somewhat better—sharper, more contrast, and less glow or other aberrations. Full-resolution JPGs:

250SA + 2XE: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gywpbklzy6fcz6o/250SA + 2XE f5.6 P0003278.jpg?dl=0
250SA + 2x Mutar: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bw74xgfx9916bm9/250SA + Mutar 2x f5.6 P0003274.jpg?dl=0

Thanks for taking the time to perform this test, I find it very useful!

If my eyes don't trick me, the Mutar 2x image has fringing at the corner (pink-cyan), while the 2XE seems to produce no fringing. Checked on the upper-left corner.
As far as sharpness is concerned, I think that the Mutar 2x is a little bit sharper at the image center, and also at the corners.

Edit: upon a closer inspection I've now realized that the 2XE produces pink-cyan fringing in the upper-left corner as well, only, it is way more spread as a large semi-transparent halo, making everything a little bit softer. At this point I vote for the Mutar 2x as well.

 

[FloatingLens]

For what it's worth, I found the 2x Mutar to be better than the 2XE for this lens under these conditions. It's sharper and the colors were warmer, which was more accurate for the scene. While both teleconverters do a good job with a very demanding back, and while the sharpest parts of the 2XE image approached the sharpness of the better parts of the 2x Mutar image, overall the Mutar seemed somewhat better—sharper, more contrast, and less glow or other aberrations. Full-resolution JPGs:

Thanks a lot for those samples, onasj! What kind of body did you use? If I didn't know better, the corner almost looks like a lens misalignment wrt the sensor plane.

 

[onasj]

Thanks a lot for those samples, onasj! What kind of body did you use? If I didn't know better, the corner almost looks like a lens misalignment wrt the sensor plane.

I was using an ALPA TC body for that test, with no tilt adapters and no spacers of any kind, so unless my Hasselblad V-to-ALPA adapter was machined incorrectly, the alignment should be ok. The subject was a very round tree that had been pruned into the shape of a lollipop, not a flat wall of leaves, and the 250SA + 2x teleconverters were shot wide open so I would expect parts of the tree to be out of focus, depending on the distance from the lens to that part of the tree.

 

[FloatingLens]

OK, that makes sense and explains it. Cheers!

 

[nameBrandon]

Really nice weather today, almost 80 degrees here in Chicago and some not overly bright conditions, so I set off to do some more testing on the extenders.

Below is the BTS setup, same as last time as far as the equipment.

• Cambo WRS 1600 w/ Litz Studio V adapter
• Hasselblad CFVII50c digital back
• RRS TVC-24L with C1 Cube
• Hasselblad 250mm CF Superachromat
• PC Mutar 2X
• 2XE
• Special Guest Appearance - 180mm CF

Each scene was shot 3 times, manually defocusing and refocusing between each shot and then I picked the image I felt was most in focus for this comparison.

The operating distance is roughly 50 ft or 15.25 meters. I've also printed out a B&H test chart and taped it to the shed door so I had a target and we had some decent detail to try and resolve. Full sized images are linked, and in this post you'll find 1200px wide versions of the full scene followed by 100% crops @ 1200px (1:1). Since the light was changing a bit I did let AWB do it's thing and for the most part color shift should be minimized. For the two extender 100% crops, I did set the WB to the sheet of paper since that filled the image frame (500mm is fun!).

All images were shot at f/11 and used the redicioulsy priced X shutter release cable.

I have my impressions but don't want to bias you all, I"m curious to hear your thoughts. I included a 180mm shot as well for refernce, and have linked to that full size image as well in case it's of interest.

Let's start off with the full scene. First is the 180mm followed by the 250SA.

180mm - Full Size (note the CA here on the door hinges and compare with the lack of CA in the 250mm SA image below)

250mm Superachromat - Full Size (Where'd that CA go?! That is pretty cool to see..)

Now the full scene as seen with the 250SA and each 2X extender. First the Mutar 2X, then the 2XE.


250SA + Mutar 2X - Full Size

250SA + 2XE - Full Size

And finally the 1200px, 100% crops. No full size links here, they are crops from the above full sized images. Ideally at 1200px these should be displaying on the forum at full size.

Also a quick note here on the B&H Test print out.. There is no dark black on this image, this was all a lighter shade of gray, so don't interpret that as a lack of contrast. If you're looking for the closest thing to black it will be my handwritte "Test Target" in black magic market. Also the color in the small lines is moire, it's not present in the actual test target.

For reference, that test target PDF file is here. - https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/bandh-test-target.jpg


To set the stage, this is a 1200px (100% crop) from the 250mm without any extender (taken from the full sized image labeled "250mm Superachromat" above).

250SA - No Extender - 100% crop

First up, the Mutar 2x, then the 2XE follows.

250SA + Mutar 2X - 100% crop

250SA + 2XE - 100% crop

And bonus 100% crop of the 180mm CF.


180mm CF - 100% crop

Curious to hear your thoughts, and feel free to check the corners and edges on the full sized images.. the 250SA certainly doesn't disappoint.

 

[onasj]

Thanks for the excellent test, Brandon! Both look quite good to me. The Mutar looks like it offers a bit more contrast to my eye but they are both doing very well for a 2x telephoto extender and I couldn't see any significant acuity difference between the two teleconverters in your shots. Starting with a world-class lens helps!