Hasselblad 250SA and Teleconverter 1.4XE (not mutar)

[mristuccia]

Has anyone tried this combination on digital?
Any feedbacks you can share?

Will we break the "superachromatismus" by doing so? I think so.

Thanks in advance.

 

[jng]

Has anyone tried this combination on digital?
Any feedbacks you can share?

Will we break the "superachromatismus" by doing so? I think so.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Marco,

Yes, I have used the 1.4XE on the 250SA. Based on images I made of the moon, it maintains excellent sharpness. However, if memory serves me correctly, the tele converter introduces some chromatic aberration most pronounced at the edges of the image, which negates the “superachromaticity” of the lens. Whether this is an issue for you depends on the subject matter and is purely subjective, but it’s certainly a functional setup and easy enough to test without too much expense (I haven’t looked for a while but I don’t think the 1.4XE is commanding premium prices). Or just crop. My solution was to get the 350 Tele-Superachromat + APO1.4XE! The APO1.4XE works flawlessly on the 350 but is NOT compatible with the 250SA owing to the protrusion that would physically clash with the main lens’s rear element (I tried). Hope this helps.

John

 

[mristuccia]

Hi Marco,

Yes, I have used the 1.4XE on the 250SA. Based on images I made of the moon, it maintains excellent sharpness. However, if memory serves me correctly, the tele converter introduces some chromatic aberration most pronounced at the edges of the image, which negates the “superachromaticity” of the lens. Whether this is an issue for you depends on the subject matter and is purely subjective, but it’s certainly a functional setup and easy enough to test without too much expense (I haven’t looked for a while but I don’t think the 1.4XE is commanding premium prices). Or just crop. My solution was to get the 350 Tele-Superachromat + APO1.4XE! The APO1.4XE works flawlessly on the 350 but is NOT compatible with the 250SA owing to the protrusion that would physically clash with the main lens’s rear element (I tried). Hope this helps.

John

Thank you John for sharing your experience.

Since I will not need a 350mm for most of the time, with the exclusion of some rare moon/comet shots and city skylines, I was just considering an affordable solution which is able to maintain a good-to-great quality, even if not stellar. I think I'll give it a try.
Having the 350SA + the APO 1.4XE would be stellar but overkill to me, although I'd be honored to own such a technical beauty. Maybe one day.

Marco

 

[bags27]

I use the SA 250 with the mutar and it's brilliant. The mutar is pretty cheap, at least mine was, and nearly a "rounding error" on the lens's price. Wondering whether there's any technical reason, besides the additional loss of an f/stop from 1.4x to2x, that this isn't your preferred solution. I ask, because I'm still trying to learn this things. Thanks!

 

[mristuccia]

I use the SA 250 with the mutar and it's brilliant. The mutar is pretty cheap, at least mine was, and nearly a "rounding error" on the lens's price. Wondering whether there's any technical reason, besides the additional loss of an f/stop from 1.4x to2x, that this isn't your preferred solution. I ask, because I'm still trying to learn this things. Thanks!

If you mean the Mutar 1.4, this is the one also offering the shift and I don't intend to one this cumbersome one.
If you mean the Mutar 2x, I've already it but this one will turn my 250 into a 500mm and sometimes I need a 350mm.

 

[jng]

Thank you John for sharing your experience.

Since I will not need a 350mm for most of the time, with the exclusion of some rare moon/comet shots and city skylines, I was just considering an affordable solution which is able to maintain a good-to-great quality, even if not stellar. I think I'll give it a try.
Having the 350SA + the APO 1.4XE would be stellar but overkill to me, although I'd be honored to own such a technical beauty. Maybe one day.

Marco

I think the 250SA + 1.4XE is a good and relatively portable solution, especially if you’re not shifting the CFV100C back. In fact this is why I haven’t sold my 1.4XE, just in case I need the extended reach but can’t haul around the 350.

 

[Geoff]

At one time had the Schneider 300 APO for the Rollei cameras - and replaced it with the 250 Zeiss - which I think is the same lens here (not sure - I don't think it was APO). At f8 or f11, was just as sharp, almost the same focal length and about ½ the weight. I really liked that Zeiss lens.

 

[mristuccia]

At one time had the Schneider 300 APO for the Rollei cameras - and replaced it with the 250 Zeiss - which I think is the same lens here (not sure - I don't think it was APO). At f8 or f11, was just as sharp, almost the same focal length and about ½ the weight. I really liked that Zeiss lens.

The normal 250 and the 250 Superachromat are two different beasts.
The Superachromat, as its name implies, is not only a conventional APO (apochromat) lens, it is more. Its correction extends to even more color wavelengths, including infrared.

The normal 250 is a great lens but it is not even APO. Of course the 1.4XE can also be used with it, but I was more interested in the effects of the extender when used with a Superachromat lens.

 

[Geoff]

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry to go aside.

 

[mristuccia]

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry to go aside.

No worries Geoff, you're welcome!
It is great to know that the Zeiss 250 is able to give the Schneider 300 APO a hard time.

 

[FloatingLens]

Has anyone tried this combination on digital?
Any feedbacks you can share?

Will we break the "superachromatismus" by doing so? I think so.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, all of them that work with the 250 break superachromatism. My experience is: 1.4XE < 2x Mutar < 2XE in terms of aberrations.

 

[mristuccia]

Yes, all of them that work with the 250 break superachromatism. My experience is: 1.4XE < 2x Mutar < 2XE in terms of aberrations.

Just tested.
I have the 2x Mutar and the just acquired 1.4XE.

Can confirm both:

1. Superahcromaticy/smus broken together with my heart 🥲
2. 1.4XE < 2x Mutar

The 1.4XE is quite usable.

Thank you all for your feedbacks.

m/

 

[anyone]

Will have a look how my new PC-mutar works with the Superachromat.

Concerning 2x converters, my testing suggests that Mutar is better than 2XE.

 

[FloatingLens]

Is the 1.4XE APO more SUPER rather than APO?

 

[bags27]

Will have a look how my new PC-mutar works with the Superachromat.

Concerning 2x converters, my testing suggests that Mutar is better than 2XE.

There was an extensive discussion of this last year on Photrio that suggested the same.

 

[mristuccia]

250 SA straight (1/500 f5.6, 100% crop from frame center center-left):



250 SA + 1.4XE (1/500 f5.6, 100% crop from frame center center-left):



250 SA + 2x Mutar (1/500 f5.6, 100% crop from frame center center-left):


CFV-100c on Cambo Wide DS Digital, illuminated with flash, flash power adjusted in order have the same exposure.
Processed with Phocus. White balance applied, sharpness at default value (100). All other tools disabled.

 

[FloatingLens]

Is the 1.4XE APO more SUPER rather than APO?

Actually, serious question that one. From members who have first hand experience.

 

[jng]

Actually, serious question that one. From members who have first hand experience.

The answer is yes. On the 350 Tele-Superachromat, the APO is indeed apo, whereas the non-apo version, while excellent, introduces some chromatic aberration.

John

 

[FloatingLens]

Would you say it is even better? 1.4XE SUPER or ‘just’ APO. I’m curious…

 

[mristuccia]

Would you say it is even better? 1.4XE SUPER or ‘just’ APO. I’m curious…

A shot in the near infrared frequencies by using an IR filter which only allows wavelengths above 800nm, or better around 900nm, would reveal the truth.
Just focus without the filter, then put the filter and take the shot without re-focusing.
Is the resulting image perfectly in focus? If yes, it is "super". If no, it is at best "APO".