Hasselblad 180/4 with teleconverter and CFV

[nameBrandon]

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!

Thanks! I agree, both are very close. I'm just glad my 250SA appears to be a well-centered and pretty accurate copy.. not like those are easy to return / exchange for a different one!

 

[Smoothjazz]

Since many of you have a lot of experience with Hassy telephoto lenses, let me ask a brief question. Any difference in optical quality between the C and CF versions of the Hasselblad 250mm auperachromats? I notice that the C version can be found for quite a bit less, so if the optics are equal, I may then go with the C version.
Thanks,
John

 

[glennedens]

The optical formulations of the lens catalog were improved from the C to CF versions - I believe they were all updated but there could have been one or two that were not. The C versions have two versions the C and C T* - the T* lenses are multicoated and the original C lenses are not. The C lenses couple the shutter speed and F/stop by default, whereas the CF lenses keep them uncoupled by default - so on C lenses you move a lever to decouple them and for CF lenses you push a button to couple them. The shutters were improved as well from Compur to Prontor - although if you find a good copy of a C lens it can serve you well. My personal experience is with the CFV50cII the CF lenses are generally sharper, better micro-contrast and color rendition - although one must be cautious here since the C lenses can have a very unique and charming look and they can still be very very good.

 

[jng]

I think the optical formulas for most of the lenses were unchanged through the C, CF and CFE/I iterations except for the 40 and 50mm variants, or in cases where a new lens was added to the line up. However the light baffling may have been improved and only the T* variants of the late C lenses onward were multicoated (the 250 Superachromat is not multicoated in any of its embodiments).

In general I prefer the newer CF and CFE/I variants as their focus helicals are a bit smoother (especially so with the latter) and as noted above the Prontor shutters are more robust. They are newer as well although how well the lens was cared for matters more than just age. Indeed, the 120 S-Planar is one of my favorites among my collection (I found a pristine copy) and my 150/4 C - bought new in 1976 - maintains its spot in the bag.

John

EDIT: You can find the spec sheets (which include MTF curves) for the V system lenses on the Hasselblad Historical website: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx.

 

[mristuccia]

The optical scheme of the 250 SA never changed over time.
As other already stated, it never had T* coating in order not to block infrared light.

 

[FloatingLens]

Since many of you have a lot of experience with Hassy telephoto lenses, let me ask a brief question. Any difference in optical quality between the C and CF versions of the Hasselblad 250mm auperachromats? I notice that the C version can be found for quite a bit less, so if the optics are equal, I may then go with the C version.
Thanks,
John

I can vouch for the C version... I own an early copy with the chrome ring. Apart from being more affordable, it's lighter and less bulky than the CF, if that has any merit for you.