Hassy 60/3.5 or 50/4 for CFV II?

[richardman]

So I'm very happy with my 203FE + CFV II 50C combo. I have all the FE lens, including the 50/2.8 and (of course) the 80/2.8. I also have a SWC/M. With the "crop factor" of the CFV II, the 80 is "too tele" to be the normal lens, and while I absolutely LOVE the 50/2.8, it's too big to be a carry around lens.

So I would like to get either 60/3.5 or the 50/4 FLE. I know the 60 is one of the sharpest in the Hassy line up, and the MTF charts show as much, so I'm leaning toward that. I also normally don't want multiple lenses in the same FL, so it makes sense to get the 60 as well. Also, also, I figure that a 60/3.5 and my 110/2 would make an excellent walk around kit. Anything wider, I will use the SWC or the 907x with the 30mm XPan lens.

Having said all that, any reason not to get the 60/3.5 and the 50/4 FLE instead?

 

[darr]

I chose the 60 over the 50, and glad I did.
I first had a black 60 C, which worked with the CFV 50c without problems.
For my current three-lens Hassy kit, I wanted CFi lenses in 60, 100 & 180.
I prefer the haptics of the CFE & CFi lenses.

My experience with the 50 is only on film, and I used it professionally for a couple of decades.
Back then, my three-lens kit was 50, 80 & 150.

The 50 is a nice lens (on film), but not one I wanted with my CFV II.
Others may say otherwise, but not me.

For anything wider than 60 on the CFV II, I use the digitar Schneider 35 (and 28 if necessary).
I have an ALPA kit that uses Hasselblad and ALPA lenses.
I looked into a Hasselblad 40 for the CFV II but decided to stay with the Schneiders for wides.

Best to you, Richard.

 

[richardman]

Thanks Darr! My experience is that the SWC/M also makes great images with the CFV II

 

[mristuccia]

For anything wider than 60 on the CFV II, I use the digitar Schneider 35 (and 28 if necessary).

Hi Darr,

from what you write about the "Schneider 35 (and 28 if necessary)" coupled with the CFV II it seems you don't have problems.
I remember I've read bad things about the use of the Schneider wide angle lenses with the Sony sensor of the CFV CMOS backs, as it has microlenses which don't perform well with symmetric wide angle lenses.
How are such lenses performing with the CFV II? Do you need to correct colour aberrations when shifting, or even without shifting?

I'm asking because I have the CFV 50c MkI (same sensor as the CFV II) which I use with a Cambo technical camera and I'm considering a wide angle lens.
Currently I'm using the Hasselblad 40 IF, but sometimes I don't find it wide enough.
Rodenstock lenses are too expensive to me, and they have more distortion, so if the Schneider 28/35 will work it would be great.

As for the main topic of this thread, I have the 60 3.5 but I find it lacks some sharpness when used with my CFV 50c MkI back. Maybe I have a bad copy, cause other owners here and in other forums tell good things about its performance.

 

[UlbabrabB]

I have the schneider 35xl and with the cfv 50c II shows color casts when shifted. I also have the rodenstock 35mm HR and at the same shift it doesn’t show any cast (I can’t remember how much shift sorry, but not too extreme, probably around 8mm?). Regarding sharpness I don’t see any difference for my purposes (max A2 prints).
If you search posts from Alkibiades he did lots of tests with those lenses and various sensors (including the 44x33 sensore that is in the cfv 50c backs and phase o e iq250)

 

[usm]

Currently I'm using the Hasselblad 40 IF

How much can you shift the 40 IF with the CFVii50c?

 

[mristuccia]

How much can you shift the 40 IF with the CFVii50c?

I didn't test this rigorously but I remember that a vertical shift (along the long size of the frame) can reach around 12-13mm. Starting from 15mm the end of the image circle becomes clearly visible.
Here below is an example shot with 16mm vertical shift where vignetting is clearly visible. No color casts, but a good amount of distortion which I usually correct by using the ALPA tool.

 

[Godfrey]

Just a data point for the discussion:

I have the older Distagon 50mm f/4 C lens for the Hasselblad 500CM. I tested it with the CFVII 50c and found that it wasn't really a particularly good match: the XCD 45P lens is a better performer (on the 907x body, of course) with better sharpness, easier to focus (manually, of course), and less chromatic aberration. The Distagon 50/4 works better on film exposures with the 500CM body.

G

 

[darr]

Hi Richard,

from what you write about the "Schneider 35 (and 28 if necessary)" coupled with the CFV II it seems you don't have problems.
I remember I've read bad things about the use of the Schneider wide angle lenses with the Sony sensor of the CFV CMOS backs, as it has microlenses which don't perform well with symmetric wide angle lenses.
How are such lenses performing with the CFV II? Do you need to correct colour aberrations when shifting, or even without shifting?

I'm asking because I have the CFV 50c MkI (same sensor as the CFV II) which I use with a Cambo technical camera and I'm considering a wide angle lens.
Currently I'm using the Hasselblad 40 IF, but sometimes I don't find it wide enough.
Rodenstock lenses are too expensive to me, and they have more distortion, so if the Schneider 28/35 will work it would be great.

As for the main topic of this thread, I have the 60 3.5 but I find it lacks some sharpness when used with my CFV 50c MkI back. Maybe I have a bad copy, cause other owners here and in other forums tell good things about its performance.

Marco,

It sounds like your 60/3.5 needs to be looked at. Maybe it was dropped or bumped before you owned it as my CFi 60 and the C 60 I owned are both sharp; I'd say as sharp as my CFi 100/3.5 with film and absolutely with the CFV II, as it only gets used in the sweet spot. I know you are in Europe, but I was able to have Hasselblad USA do a CLA on my CFi 60 after I purchased it last year. The slower shutter speeds were off. They went over the lens, and it is a beautiful lens. Maybe you can have it serviced.

Regarding my ALPA-Schneider 35xl and 28xl lenses: I do not shift wide-angle lenses. I shift the camera via pano rail, not the back or the lens, separately. When building my kit years ago, I started with these lenses with a Phase One P45 CCD back (~ 2012) and an ALPA Max that could do all types of front and back, vertical and horizontal shifting. Even back then, using LCC files did not get all the color aberrations from shifting out at times, so I had to go down a different path. I have wide-angle lenses, so I do not have to shift, and if I do, the camera goes on a pano rail setup and gets moved. I use center filters on both lenses, and it is the 28xl that can cause color aberrations when I need to use an LCC file, never the 35xl, from my experience. And it all cleans up in post.

Best to you,
Darr

 

[mristuccia]

Marco,

It sounds like your 60/3.5 needs to be looked at. Maybe it was dropped or bumped before you owned it as my CFi 60 and the C 60 I owned are both sharp; I'd say as sharp as my CFi 100/3.5 with film and absolutely with the CFV II, as it only gets used in the sweet spot. I know you are in Europe, but I was able to have Hasselblad USA do a CLA on my CFi 60 after I purchased it last year. The slower shutter speeds were off. They went over the lens, and it is a beautiful lens. Maybe you can have it serviced.

Regarding my ALPA-Schneider 35xl and 28xl lenses: I do not shift wide-angle lenses. I shift the camera via pano rail, not the back or the lens, separately. When building my kit years ago, I started with these lenses with a Phase One P45 CCD back (~ 2012) and an ALPA Max that could do all types of front and back, vertical and horizontal shifting. Even back then, using LCC files did not get all the color aberrations from shifting out at times, so I had to go down a different path. I have wide-angle lenses, so I do not have to shift, and if I do, the camera goes on a pano rail setup and gets moved. I use center filters on both lenses, and it is the 28xl that can cause color aberrations when I need to use an LCC file, never the 35xl, from my experience. And it all cleans up in post.

Best to you,
Darr

Hi Darr,

firstly, apologies for having addressed you with the name of "RIchard", I was following your discussion exchange and got confused with the names.

Yes, definitely I'll try to sort out my doubts about the 60/3.5 performances on digital. I've bought it second-hand and it is in mint conditions, it does not have any scuffs nor signs that make one think it was dropped. Anyway, I'll have it checked.

Regarding the Schneider lenses, now it is clear. As I need to shift, I'll stick with my 40 IF for now.

All the best
Marco

 

[darr]

Hi Darr,

firstly, apologies for having addressed you with the name of "RIchard", I was following your discussion exchange and got confused with the names.

Yes, definitely I'll try to sort out my doubts about the 60/3.5 performances on digital. I've bought it second-hand and it is in mint conditions, it does not have any scuffs nor signs that make one think it was dropped. Anyway, I'll have it checked.

Regarding the Schneider lenses, now it is clear. As I need to shift, I'll stick for now with my 40 IF.

All the best
Marco

Marco,
I have known Richard for more than a few years, and he is a "cool dude" .
I do not think he minds me being addressed as him, although I am not as cool as he.
Anyhow, I understood you very well.

Take care,
Darr

 

[Ben730]

Yes, definitely I'll try to sort out my doubts about the 60/3.5 performances on digital. I've bought it second-hand and it is in mint conditions, it does not have any scuffs nor signs that make one think it was dropped. Anyway, I'll have it checked.

Marco
I think if you have the sharpness of the 40 IF as a standard,
the 60 mm (and also the 100 mm) will never be sharp.
The 40 IF plays in another league.

 

[richardman]

Marco
I think if you have the sharpness of the 40 IF as a standard,
the 60 mm (and also the 100 mm) will never be sharp.
The 40 IF plays in another league.

That's a pretty bold claim, so I checked the MTF. The 40mm IF FLE definitely seems better, but loses in illuminance department (and more wonky distortion). Not entirely sure that if the 40mm is the standard of sharpness, that the other lenses will "never be sharp" though.

 

[Ben730]

I never read those curves. I can only speak of my experiences with the lenses.
My comment is only about sharpness.
Illuminance and distortion are something else. Those lenses don't have the same focal length.
From F8-11 the 100 was ok, the 60 never was crisp.
I never measured, I only looked at 100 % at my pictures. I'm not an engineer and I had only one copy of each lens.
I actually saw only a minimal difference in performance between the 80 CFE and the 100.
That's why I sold the 60 and the 100.

 

[richardman]

From F8-11 the 100 was ok, the 60 never was crisp.
I never measured, I only looked at 100 % at my pictures. I'm not an engineer and I had only one copy of each lens.
I actually saw only a minimal difference in performance between the 80 CFE and the 100.
That's why I sold the 60 and the 100.

I only have FE lenses, and the 60 will be my first non F lens. By all accounts from other people though, both the 100 and 60 are supposed to be two of the sharpest lenses in the Hasselblad / Zeiss portfolio. So either they were over stated or you have bum copies....

 

[richardman]

BTW, I only showed the MTF because they are available. Normally I don't care about sharpness that much, as long as it serves my purpose. For example, on my 4x5 and 8x10, I have mostly soft focus / portrait lenses. Indeed, @darr sold me the extraordinary PS945 Cooke portrait lens, and I have taken well over 1000+ sheets of 4x5 color portrait with it. It's only sharp in the places where it needs to be

 

[mristuccia]

I can assure you all that the IF is in another league (in terms of sharpness).
But, landing back to planet Earth, my 80 C is definitely better than my 60 CF on my CFV-50c Mk I.
The 100 is slightly better than the 80. Another great one is the 180.
So, for the above reasons I'm not using the 60 that much with digital right now. Which is a pity, because It would be a perfect standard lens when using my 44x33 sensor.

 

[darr]

My love for the older Hasselblad lenses is not that they may be as sharp as can be (mine are for sure), but they have a look that is not sterile looking, a personality different than my Rodenstocks or Schneiders.

Sharpness is expected for architecture and some product imagery, but not everyone always shoots for sharpness. As a commercial portrait photographer, my clients would not have been happy if my portraits all looked sharp unless it was group portraiture. Yes, the most important aspects are sharp (i.e., eyes). Still, not everything needs to be sharp, and some things may look better slightly out of focus, especially when you aim to capture someone's personality, mood, or a look of emotion.

I have been shooting with digital backs since 2011. I love my digital backs, especially for studio work and landscape shooting, but I still shoot film for the look I can get that I cannot replicate with digital. Some may say that is BS because they do not see a difference, and I will say that's okay because I know people who are tone-deaf too. If a person can be audibly tone deaf, as a photography instructor for 30 years, I had students that could not replicate visual exercises, so I know not everyone sees the same.

Digital is great for sharpness, but when I want to return to my photography roots, I go back to film because the tools have personalities that sometimes help me better communicate as an artist. YMMV

Darr

 

[Ben730]

My love for the older Hasselblad lenses is not that they may be as sharp as can be (mine are for sure), but they have a look that is not sterile looking, a personality different than my Rodenstocks or Schneiders.

Sharpness is expected for architecture and some product imagery, but not everyone always shoots for sharpness. As a commercial portrait photographer, my clients would not have been happy if my portraits all looked sharp unless it was group portraiture. Yes, the most important aspects are sharp (i.e., eyes). Still, not everything needs to be sharp, and some things may look better slightly out of focus, especially when you aim to capture someone's personality, mood, or a look of emotion.

I have been shooting with digital backs since 2011. I love my digital backs, especially for studio work and landscape shooting, but I still shoot film for the look I can get that I cannot replicate with digital. Some may say that is BS because they do not see a difference, and I will say that's okay because I know people who are tone-deaf too. If a person can be audibly tone deaf, as a photography instructor for 30 years, I had students that could not replicate visual exercises, so I know not everyone sees the same.

Digital is great for sharpness, but when I want to return to my photography roots, I go back to film because the tools have personalities that sometimes help me better communicate as an artist. YMMV

Darr

Darr
I completely understand you.
I still use my Hasselblad V lenses on my Phase One XF and my Fuji GFX.
Normally my clients don't appreciate the the difference, when I use these lenses.
When I use them, I do it only for my preferences, for portraits with environment. It's often more time consuming (manual focus etc.)...
Since I shoot more and more video, sharpness has a new facet.
...and I love the 5 bladed bokeh of the HB-V lenses.
BTW, the 40 IF and the 150 CFi have almost no focus breathing - great lenses for medium format video with GFX 100.
What about focus breathing with the CF 60?
The 80 is breathing too much, for me.

 

[richardman]

... Still, not everything needs to be sharp, and some things may look better slightly out of focus, especially when you aim to capture someone's personality, mood, or a look of emotion.
..

Yup, 100% agree. For my personal portraits work, it's definitely still the PS945 on the 4x5, or the 8x10.