Hasselblad 40mm F4 CFE or CFE IF ?

[glennedens]

John, only slightly hijacking Darr's thread - can you share any more about your experience using the Flexbody with whichever V-system lenses you've used it with?

I've wrestled with the same question of which 40mm to get (FLE or IF). I already had the FLE version and decided to stick with that for now - then decide if I really would use it enough to think about 2X the price (or more). With all the smoke and haze it hasn't been the best of times to really evaluate any lens, although I've shot plenty of Siemens Star patterns with the CFE 40 FLE, CF 80, CFi 100, CFi 120 and CFi 150. I have a CF 250 but haven't found the box that it is in yet. My experience with the CFE 40 FLE is there is CA outside of 3/4 center (CFV50c II so already a crop), it does clean up just fine in Phocus or LR. Everything I've heard and seen (printing for others who've used that lens) is that the 40 IF is a very very fine lens.

 

[darr]

John, only slightly hijacking Darr's thread - can you share any more about your experience using the Flexbody with whichever V-system lenses you've used it with?

I've wrestled with the same question of which 40mm to get (FLE or IF). I already had the FLE version and decided to stick with that for now - then decide if I really would use it enough to think about 2X the price (or more). With all the smoke and haze it hasn't been the best of times to really evaluate any lens, although I've shot plenty of Siemens Star patterns with the CFE 40 FLE, CF 80, CFi 100, CFi 120 and CFi 150. I have a CF 250 but haven't found the box that it is in yet. My experience with the CFE 40 FLE is there is CA outside of 3/4 center (CFV50c II so already a crop), it does clean up just fine in Phocus or LR. Everything I've heard and seen (printing for others who've used that lens) is that the 40 IF is a very very fine lens.

Thanks Glenn for sharing your experience.
I have thought about the crop factor with the 44x33 sensors, if it could leave any CA outside of the sensor frame with either lens, and now I know regarding the FLE.

Thanks again!

 

[jng]

Thank you John, always appreciate your contributions.

I have a beautiful ALPA kit with SK lenses: 28, 35, 47, 72 and 120 lenses. I have had the kit for a few years, but over time I find myself using my Hasselblad gear more. And the only reason I use the Hasselblad gear more is because I like shooting with it more. Surely many photographers could argue the ALPA and SK lenses are more stellar in ways, but I just seem to be drawn to the Hasselblad charm. The Hasselblad lenses to me have a particular look (personality?) I just prefer. I never gave up shooting film, so I never gave up shooting my 500 system cameras and I am glad I chose not to. I am at a turning point right now, and I believe it was sparked by the 907x. Not that I am going to buy the 907x, but I gave some serious thought to shooting a 907x with newer Hasselblad lenses. I came to the conclusion that the newer lenses may produce similar results as the SK lenses, and right now it seems I am not interested.

I understand many photographers have the need for shifting and require the equipment to do so. I do not have much need for shifting these days and traded away my ALPA Max not long ago. But, I am glad to hear how you were able to shift with the FlexBody and the IF as I have a FlexBody in my kit. It does sound like I should go with the IF lens or I may regret it. This of course could all change in the future. I can be a fickle photographer!

Thank you again!
Darr

Hi Darr,

I hear you! Out of the 5 lenses I keep in my tech cam bag, two (sometimes three) are Hasselblad/Zeiss. I sold off the 40 IF when I got the Cambo + Rodie 40HR, a decision I sometimes regret but it just wasn't getting any use.

Good luck with whatever decision you make on this. And don't forget that Dante is watching carefully!

John

John, only slightly hijacking Darr's thread - can you share any more about your experience using the Flexbody with whichever V-system lenses you've used it with?

I've wrestled with the same question of which 40mm to get (FLE or IF). I already had the FLE version and decided to stick with that for now - then decide if I really would use it enough to think about 2X the price (or more). With all the smoke and haze it hasn't been the best of times to really evaluate any lens, although I've shot plenty of Siemens Star patterns with the CFE 40 FLE, CF 80, CFi 100, CFi 120 and CFi 150. I have a CF 250 but haven't found the box that it is in yet. My experience with the CFE 40 FLE is there is CA outside of 3/4 center (CFV50c II so already a crop), it does clean up just fine in Phocus or LR. Everything I've heard and seen (printing for others who've used that lens) is that the 40 IF is a very very fine lens.

Hi Glenn,

Yes, only slightly. The 40 IF is terrific. Distortion is not insignificant (but in theory correctable in Phocus) and there's a tiny bit of fringing at the far edges (generally correctable), but those are about the only downsides that I can find aside from the fact that this lens is a beast. I did a not very rigorous comparison of this lens against the XCD45 on the X1D. Without any lens corrections, the 40 IF more than held its own against the XCD45 with lens corrections. I don't recall using my other V system lenses very much on the Flexbody although I can say that the 100, 120 Macros, 150, 180, and 250 Superachromat are all sharp and render beautifully. Moreover, based on my more extensive experience on the Cambo, the 100, 150 and 250 SA are all pretty "shifty" - i.e., all can manage 10mm of horizontal shift on a 40x54mm sensor (I've pushed the 100 further).

John

 

[darr]

Hi Darr,

Moreover, based on my more extensive experience on the Cambo, the 100, 150 and 250 SA are all pretty "shifty" - i.e., all can manage 10mm of horizontal shift on a 40x54mm sensor (I've pushed the 100 further).

John

Only in photography is being "shifty" a good thing!!

 

[jng]

I just went through some old files again just now. Many of the images in this set were taken with the 40 IF (some on the Flexbody, others on the 501CM), as well as the 100 CF, 180 CF and 250 SA, as indicated in the notes section for each image. They seem pretty nice from a technical standpoint at least.

John

P.S. h/t Ken Doo and Don Libby. Pigs rule!

Bluff 2017

Chasing the light with the "Pigs Anti-Workshop" group in Bluff, UT

flic.kr

 

[nathantw]

Taken with a handheld 553ELX, 40mm CF lens, and a 36x48 sensor Phase One P25 at f/4 1/60, ISO 50. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, it really isn't at its best wide open. It does start getting hazy and blurry wide open. Here's a full-frame photo with a 40mm lens shot wide open.

 

[FloatingLens]

I have thought about the crop factor with the 44x33 sensors, if it could leave any CA outside of the sensor frame with either lens, and now I know regarding the FLE.

I think if you want to utilize the full flexibility of the V lens (FLE version), you have to take CA into consideration, my unprocessed shot on the CFV II shows it. But thinking further of it, I believe I had employed a couple of mm of rear rise in that case.

 

[sog1927]

I'm a landscape shooter, so I rarely use any other setting than 'infinity'. It's a mystery to me why Hasselblad made the separate FLE rings - in other designs (e.g. the 50mm 2.8), they coupled the FLE mechanism with the focusing ring. But that's more a detail.

The CF 40mm FLE was not as good as my SWC, so it often stayed home. It lacks the crisp sharpness of other V lenses. While it's not particularly bad, it also is not really good. Perhaps best compared to the CF 250mm: a solid performer, but nothing spectacular. The 50mm is just quite a bit better, so I took that one or the SWC instead, and the 40mm stayed home.

I believe the presence of the leaf shutter and the mechanical gearing necessary to cock and fire it in the CF/CFE lenses made it more difficult to couple the FLE mechanism with the main focusing ring.

 

[FloatingLens]

Continue on Marco as I am interested in the post processing differences as well.

With respect to the color noise in the water: I added Apple's Aperture RAW Fine Tuning adjustment, which is not active by default, and turned up the slider for moiré and the problem is essentially gone. The correction seems rather compute intensive as the rendering took 10 or more seconds to complete in my environment.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Contemplating adding a 40/4 to my Hasselblad kit. I currently use a 60/3.5 but want to go wider.
Do I seriously look at the CFE IF, or do I save ~ 2k and go for the CFE?

I would enjoy reading about your user experience with either lens, and please share photos made with your 40/4 if you can.
The lens will be used with film and a 33x44 CMOS digital back.

I understand one difference between these lenses is how you focus. The CFE has two focus rings, whereas the CFE IF has only one.
Since I shoot my Hasselblad work using a tripod, I do not know if this makes a whole lot of difference with a shooting checklist, so please set me straight.

Thank you in advance!
Darr

Edit: I am not interested in a 903/905 SWC, so we can skip talks about how wonderful that camera is - I know it is, but I want just the lens this time around.

Hi Darr,

I have the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE. Some images here, shot at f/4, f/8 and f/16:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Distagon_40/

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon40/

Here is another one with good detail, f/11 I would believe: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/P45+_vs_A7rII/20150227-CF047094.dng

The IF lens is a much better design, it may be that I would go for that if intended to be used with shift.

Best regards
Erik

 

[usm]

The IF lens is a much better design, it may be that I would go for that if intended to be used with shift.

How much shift do you get?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi, I didn't buy the 40/4 IF. With the 40/4 CF FLE, I tried shifting once with my Flexbody and the P45+, but I did not really find it useful. Below is a shift stitch on 24x36 mm -15,0,+15 mm shift.

 

[darr]

Hi Darr,

I have the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE. Some images here, shot at f/4, f/8 and f/16:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Distagon_40/

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/Distagon40/

Here is another one with good detail, f/11 I would believe: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/P45+_vs_A7rII/20150227-CF047094.dng

The IF lens is a much better design, it may be that I would go for that if intended to be used with shift.

Best regards
Erik

Thank you Erik, I always appreciate your input.
Hope you are doing well.

Darr

 

[mristuccia]

Continue on Marco as I am interested in the post processing differences as well.

With respect to the color noise in the water: I added Apple's Aperture RAW Fine Tuning adjustment, which is not active by default, and turned up the slider for moiré and the problem is essentially gone. The correction seems rather compute intensive as the rendering took 10 or more seconds to complete in my environment.

I've seen those kind of color artefacts many times on images of lakes.
It seems that some RAW developer is more prone to this problem than others. If I remember well, C1 was the less prone, LR the more, and Phocus being in the middle. In fact I also think it could be moiré.

This is an example I've found among my images, although not so evident as the one in the FloatingLens's image.

LrC straight:



LrC with "Enhance Image":



Phocus:



Can't post C1 as this is an Hasselblad Image which cannot be "officially" managed by C1 (there are tricks however, but color profiles will be totally off).
In this case Phocus is doing the best work.

This is LrC again with moiré correction applied as brush on that area:



Thus it can effectively be corrected by treating it as moiré...

@FloatingLens: I'm glad that you've found a solution without having to move to another RAW developer. I tried many developers so far, but never used Aperture in all honesty.

 

[mristuccia]

Here is an example image shot with the 40 IF on Cambo WDS and 10mm rise on CFV-50c.
If I remember well, on 44x33 12mm is the acceptable limit for rise/fall in landscape mode.
No LCC applied, although the overall color grading is not natural, I've tailored it to my personal taste for this project.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Thank you Erik, I always appreciate your input.
Hope you are doing well.

Darr

That pleasure is on both sides!

I would add, things can be look little different in some perspective. I have made many good images with the Distagon 40/4 CF FLE. When I get a new lens, I will check it for weaknesses. With time I may discover strengths.

Just as an example, with the Distagon I would check tree tops in the upper corners. Those may matter in some pictures. But it is not that often I have critical detail in the upper corners.

On the other hand, the Distagon 40 has significant field curvature, and that often can help lower corners while upper corners are often just sky.

Another factor may be that looking at actual pixels there may be some part that is too soft by modern standards but my still be good in decent size prints.

I know that Chris Barret, who is an architecture photographer, uses the Distagon 40/4 CFi with a Cambo and Sony A7r# and he seems to be perfectly happy with it. But he is not shooting it for pixel peeping but to keep his customers happy.

To keep himself happy, he shoots large format film or even Hasselblad on film.

Erik

 

[PSon]

Hi Darr, late next week when I get sometime I can shoot both the Hasselblad 40mm CFE and 40mm CFE IF on any digital back you prefer. Just let me know what digital back and or camera you want me to use and I can send you the raw files. Also what distance do you want me to focus on?

 

[darr]

Hi Darr, late next week when I get sometime I can shoot both the Hasselblad 40mm CFE and 40mm CFE IF on any digital back you prefer. Just let me know what digital back and or camera you want me to use and I can send you the raw files. Also what distance do you want me to focus on?

Son,
That is so kind of you. If you feel up to it I would greatly appreciate it. I will be shooting with the CFV-50c digital back.
If you can shoot a frame focused at 15 feet and another at infinity that would be perfect, but I appreciate whatever you do!
If you feel like changing apertures, I usually shoot f/11, f/16 and f/22 for testing purposes.
Trees and buildings, a street scene, or a backyard, etc. is all I need to see what the lens can do.

Again, you are so very kind!!
Darr

 

[PSon]

Son,
That is so kind of you. If you feel up to it I would greatly appreciate it. I will be shooting with the CFV-50c digital back.
If you can shoot a frame focused at 15 feet and another at infinity that would be perfect, but I appreciate whatever you do!
If you feel like changing apertures, I usually shoot f/11, f/16 and f/22 for testing purposes.
Trees and buildings, a street scene, or a backyard, etc. is all I need to see what the lens can do.

Again, you are so very kind!!
Darr

OK Darr,
I will shoot for your specs.
-Son

 

[darr]

OK Darr,
I will shoot for your specs.

Thank you again!!