The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Contax 210mm f/4 vs. Hasselblad FE 250mm f/4

carstenw

Active member
I am considering adding a tele to my stable, and own both a Hasselblad 2000FC/M and a Contax 645 AF, which I use with film and film+digital respectively.

The two obvious choices are the Contax 210mm f/4 and Hasselblad F/FE 250mm f/4. The AF of the Contax is not important, and neither is the stop-down aperture of the F/FE, when used on the Contax. I work slowly and manually by preference.

I am wondering if there are any advantages with respect to metering of the Contax?

Secondly, the Contax appears to be slightly sharper, according to MTF and other charts available from Zeiss.

The advantage of the F/FE is of course that I can use it on my Hassie, as well as the 20% extra reach. I don't use it as often as the Contax, but I do like it and will keep it until I upgrade to a 203FE or 205FCC one fine day.

Does anyone have experiences to share about these two lenses? How do they do with an extension tube for portrait duty? For wildlife? For landscape?

What are the going prices for each of these?

Thanks in advance for all tips.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
That's a tough one. I guess it depends on what subjects you're shooting.

Can't remember how close you could focus with the Contax 210/4 ... but the 250/4FE focuses down to 2.5 meters and you can do a head shot without a tube. I sometimes use a 8mm tube to extend the reach just a little bit more.

MTF charts aside I really couldn't see much difference in sharpness ... both being very good.

If you shoot stopped down, the OOF highlights are nicer on the Contax where the FE lens produces those pentaprism shaped ones.

An argument for the FE is that it's mechanical and can be adapted to your Contax or any focal plane camera like a Mamiya, Nikon, Sony or Canon ... but the Contax can't be used on anything except the Contax.

=Marc
 

David K

Workshop Member
I've found a lot of sample variation with the Contax 210 f/4 and had to go through four copies to get a sharp one. Sorry I can't compare the two having never had the Hassy lens. As far as current pricing, I'd suggest checking KEH. Last time I looked they had several of the Contax lenses.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
i found a 250/4 C superachromat. seems pretty good so far. has the odd ability to focus beyond infinity, should you be in warp space. wasn't cheap: over $1800
 

David K

Workshop Member
The SuperAchromat lenses are never cheap and always very much in demand, but they are outstanding.
 

David Klepacki

New member
The Contax 210 is the closest focusing lens in this focal range with a distance of 1.4m. To me, it was a huge difference and much preferred over the FE 250 lens. I also found the FE 250 lens to be softer, but that may be desirable to some for portrait work.

Another advantage of the Contax 210 is that it actually gets sharper with the Contax 1.4x Mutar attached. So, you basically get an effective 300/5.6 lens that can focus to 1.4m, which is the closest of any lens in this focal range. On the other hand, the Mutar adds size and weight which makes it difficult to hand hold for long periods. And, once you get to F5.6, the Contax AF sensor rarely gets enough light to autofocus accurately, if at all (ie, anything F5.6 becomes manual focus on the Contax, unless there is a lot of available light).

If you want sharper, the CFi/CFE 180/4 would be another lens to consider. I found it to be as sharp as the 250 Superachromat, but with better close focusing distance (about 1.6m). I never liked the 250 Superachromat lens, since it was too slow at F5.6, and the close focus of 3m was just way to long for me, and I could never back up far enough to get the shot when I wanted.
 

carstenw

Active member
Thanks everyone, that is a lot of food for thought. The Contax sounds like a better deal in general, as long as I can find a sharp copy. However, I wonder sometimes if I won't sell the Contax camera before the Hassie? I guess I have to decide about this first.

David (Klepacki), could you describe what you mean with "softer" w.r.t. the FE 250mm?

I will mainly be using this lens in landscape-type duty, i.e. to crop the world in ways that I cannot otherwise. It will surely also be pushed into portrait duty at some point, as well as being dragged to the zoo as a family lens for animal portraits :) I use all my stuff in many ways, being an amateur.
 
Last edited:

David Klepacki

New member
I found the C210 to be sharper overall, but especially wide open. The FE250 looks sharp, but when compared side by side with the C210 images, the Contax had better defined edges in high contrast areas, whereas such areas from the FE250 were more gradual and "fuzzy". Areas of fine detail were much better defined with the C210, and were often blurred by the FE250. Again, I am not saying that this is necessarily "bad", just a different rendering of the light. Basically, the FE250 is a lower contrast lens, which has its uses.

Once you add the Contax 1.4x mutar to the equation, then things are substantially different. Wide open, the C210+1.4x becomes really sharp and "3D like", and starts to look like the image was rendered with a FE110.
 

carstenw

Active member
David, I am trying to connect your description with something I already know, and come up empty-handed. Is the comparison of C210 and H250 similar to, say, Leica M 90 Cron ASPH vs. 90 Cron pre-ASPH? Does the Hasselblad clean up at a certain aperture?

The Hasselblad for me has some strong advantages, and I am mainly trying to make sure here that it isn't a mistake to buy one. I do like sharp, but I am not a fanatic about it (the 75 Lux-M is an example). Do you have any sample shots from which you could post crops to demonstrate?

Ultimately, if the H250 is really not that good, I will get the Contax 210 or perhaps the Hasselblad 180, but the 250 would be great for what I want to do, as long as it is good (and as long as it is reasonable with a teleconverter).
 

David Klepacki

New member
Unfortunately, I am not that familiar with the Leica 90 lenses that you cite, so I can not relate to those terms.

It was years ago that I used these 210/250 lenses (early Aptus 65 days), and I have nothing on hand to post at this time.

I do remember that I was not happy with any of the 200+ mm lenses at infinity, except for the three superachromats, but then they could not focus as close as the C210. Also, my CFi 180/4 was much sharper than either of these two lenses, and especially at infinity. If you don't mind a slightly shorter focal length, the 180 might have the best all around balance for your needs, since it has exceptional infinity performance, exceptional wide open performance, will work with both of your cameras, and can also focus close (1.6m, I think).

If you need the longer reach, then I would recommend the C210 if you plan to also combine it with the Contax 1.4x mutar. That combination is crazy sharp. Whereas, the FE250 did not improve its contrast with a 1.4x, but instead lost some contrast. If you have no plans for a 1.4x, then it is probably a toss-up between the two lenses. I had a personal preference for the C210, but I would say it is too subjective to justify one lens over the other, except for the specific reasons above.
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this, I will think about it a little longer then. Perhaps I can get along fine with the 180/4, and it even has the extra advantage of having a leaf shutter, in case that should ever be relevant. I suppose if I really need the length, I can look for a 350mm later.
 

Evanjoe610

New member
I found the Hasselblad 180mm to be "Biting Sharp". In fact too sharp. Some people use the 1/4 XE along with the 180mm and found it to be a good combination. I don't have a 1.4XE to verify it myself, but do find the 180mm to be sharp.
 

carstenw

Active member
I am still struggling with this choice, but I am now leaning towards a Hasselblad lens, since I am more keen to get back to 6x6 film at the moment, and I can also adapt it when needed.

The choice then is the 250mm by itself, or the 180mm + a 1,4XE or 2XE. Have you tried focusing with the 2XE? I am not so concerned with the loss of sharpness, given that the 180 has plenty to start with, but am a little worried about focusing at f/8. My 2000FC/M has an original Acute Matte screen. The 1,4XE is a little hard to come by, and also more expensive. The 180mm is a nice step up from my 120/4 Macro in any case, whereas the 250 is quite a jump.
 
T

tetsrfun

Guest
I am still struggling with this choice, but I am now leaning towards a Hasselblad lens, since I am more keen to get back to 6x6 film at the moment, and I can also adapt it when needed.

The choice then is the 250mm by itself, or the 180mm + a 1,4XE or 2XE. Have you tried focusing with the 2XE? I am not so concerned with the loss of sharpness, given that the 180 has plenty to start with, but am a little worried about focusing at f/8. My 2000FC/M has an original Acute Matte screen. The 1,4XE is a little hard to come by, and also more expensive. The 180mm is a nice step up from my 120/4 Macro in any case, whereas the 250 is quite a jump.
I just tried the 2XE + 180mm f/4 combination with mod/low indoor light. It just works as far a focusing. I have the Acute Matte D with split-image. The effective f/8 is pushing the usability of the "split-image". I don't have a 1.4XE to try but I think that would be a much better TC to use with the 180mm.

Steve
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks! I guess I will get the 180mm and hold out for a 1,4XE.
I used that combo for years, and it's a good choice. Look for the 180 CFE version so it will index with the 200 camera you may get sometime in future. The 1.4XE will then also work.

Like I said in my first post, it depends on what subjects you tend to shoot. I found the 180/4, even with the 1.4XE too brutally accurate even "clinical looking" for portraits. Since almost all my work is people, the 250/4 seemed just he right amount of Zeiss look and character, and I sold the 180.

With the 1.4XE I have a 350/5.6 when traveling lighter and the occasional need arises. Not the same IQ as the 350/4FE I have, but we are splitting hairs since this is Zeiss we are talking about.

Plus, I adapt the 250/4FE to my Sony A900 which fills in a missing longer focal length in the Zeiss line-up for that camera. The 180/4 was a bit to close to the ZA 135/1.8 which is AF.

Lots of good options. A wealth of riches so to speak :thumbup:

-Marc
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
I found a clean CF for a really nice price, so I will get that for now. If I get along with it, I will certainly trade it for the CFE at some point, hopefully at no loss, and yes, I do intend to buy a 203FE at some point (or a 205FCC, which I find intriguing, even if the general consensus is that it is too complex for what it is).

I have the 110/2, and tend towards shorter rather than longer lenses for portraits anyway, so with the 1.15 crop factor of my back, I think I am covered there, especially when I add the 1,4XE.

I think 180/4, 1,4XE and perhaps the 350/4 later would have me covered. I have struggled for hours and hours over H250/4 vs. H180/4 vs. C210/4, but I have found extremely little info about the 250/4 which makes me nervous. Essentially, the official docs say it is good, you say it is nice for portraits (which means a tad soft for other uses?), and David Klepacki confirms that it is a tad soft. If I ever get a chance to try one before buying, I will do so, just to know for the future. They are not that expensive so I could even add one at some point, and then sell the lens which I use less. For now I am happy about the 180/4 choice, and will keep my eyes open for a 1,4XE in clean condition for a good price.

In fact, my system is settling down nicely. I am adding the 180/4 and the 50/2.8FE, and with those two and the 1,4XE I am pretty much done for now. It has been a long time since I wanted another Leica M lens (apart from the old Noctilux which I might add one day), and for MF the 50 and tele areas are all that I miss. I am looking forward to just getting comfortable with what I have and settling down to shooting more and speculating less. I don't even have an itch for the M9, and love my M8u. Maybe I'll get the M10 one day.

In fact, more exciting to me in some ways is what else I am fine-tuning in my system, like replacing my tripod and head, getting a brighter focusing screen for my Contax, a used by nice Pentax Digital Spotmeter, a better (Novoflex) Hasselblad-to-Contax adapter, and so on. Little stuff, but it makes such a difference! I just need to find a clean NC-2 now.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I found a clean CF for a really nice price, so I will get that for now. If I get along with it, I will certainly trade it for the CFE at some point, hopefully at no loss, and yes, I do intend to buy a 203FE at some point (or a 205FCC, which I find intriguing, even if the general consensus is that it is too complex for what it is).

I have the 110/2, and tend towards shorter rather than longer lenses for portraits anyway, so with the 1.15 crop factor of my back, I think I am covered there, especially when I add the 1,4XE.

I think 180/4, 1,4XE and perhaps the 350/4 later would have me covered. I have struggled for hours and hours over H250/4 vs. H180/4 vs. C210/4, but I have found extremely little info about the 250/4 which makes me nervous. Essentially, the official docs say it is good, you say it is nice for portraits (which means a tad soft for other uses?), and David Klepacki confirms that it is a tad soft. If I ever get a chance to try one before buying, I will do so, just to know for the future. They are not that expensive so I could even add one at some point, and then sell the lens which I use less. For now I am happy about the 180/4 choice, and will keep my eyes open for a 1,4XE in clean condition for a good price.

In fact, my system is settling down nicely. I am adding the 180/4 and the 50/2.8FE, and with those two and the 1,4XE I am pretty much done for now. It has been a long time since I wanted another Leica M lens (apart from the old Noctilux which I might add one day), and for MF the 50 and tele areas are all that I miss. I am looking forward to just getting comfortable with what I have and settling down to shooting more and speculating less. I don't even have an itch for the M9, and love my M8u. Maybe I'll get the M10 one day.

In fact, more exciting to me in some ways is what else I am fine-tuning in my system, like replacing my tripod and head, getting a brighter focusing screen for my Contax, a used by nice Pentax Digital Spotmeter, a better (Novoflex) Hasselblad-to-Contax adapter, and so on. Little stuff, but it makes such a difference! I just need to find a clean NC-2 now.
You can't go wrong here, as it all depends on applications. You know your applications and focal length needs better than anyone.

My 250/4 isn't "soft" by any measure I know of. It's the out of focus areas and focus fall off that gives it the character I like for portraits. I found out about the 250/4 from fashion shooters in NY who use it for head shots for the same reason. Tack sharp eyes with a beautiful focus fall off.

The 180/4 is probably one of the sharpest of the Zeiss V lenses ... on par with the 100/3.5 IMO. But I wouldn't use the 100/3.5 for portrait work either ... preferring the 110/2FE even stopped down a bit.

Like you I'm zeroing in on less stuff and completing the most used areas of my gear closet. I sold off all of my C type V gear (except the 30/3.5 fisheye speciality lens to use on a 203FE from time-to-time), and settled in on the FE system because I like the character and faster maximum aperture of most the FE lenses. The only camera I kept was a 230FE to use for film work with the E-Backs ... but I'm lucky enough to have secured a Imacon 949 scanner some time ago ... so film is a very viable alternative to digital when I want it ... especially for B&W.

Best of luck with your search for a 180/4 ... to bad, I just sold my excellent copy of that lens. But I'm not selling my 1.4XE because I use it on the 203FE with the 350/4FE giving me more reach when I need it (490mm f/5.6).

:thumbs:

-Marc
 

carstenw

Active member
My 250/4 isn't "soft" by any measure I know of. It's the out of focus areas and focus fall off that gives it the character I like for portraits. I found out about the 250/4 from fashion shooters in NY who use it for head shots for the same reason. Tack sharp eyes with a beautiful focus fall off.

The 180/4 is probably one of the sharpest of the Zeiss V lenses ... on par with the 100/3.5 IMO. But I wouldn't use the 100/3.5 for portrait work either ... preferring the 110/2FE even stopped down a bit.
Argh, now you are making me doubt again; stop it! :) Are you saying that the 250/4 has a similar look to the 110/2, not as in identical, but perhaps related in a family kind of way? If I got the 1,4XE, I could bridge the gap between 110 and 250 with the 110*1,4 = 150 or so... Hmm.

Ultimately both would probably make me happy. I have been looking at different photographers' work recently, and one thing that strikes me is that sharpness is overrated. I might even go so far as to say that too much sharpness detracts actively from many photos.

There is a Nick Brandt show on at Camera Work here in Berlin, and his shots are just stunning. One theme running through his work is that they give a great impression of sharpness, but aren't actually all that sharp when you go up close. Of course, the prints are often 2x1,5m, but even the smaller prints, like 1x1,5m, aren't pin-sharp when you walk up to them. They probably would be, had he used a P65+, and I think they would have lost a lot of mystery in the translation.

He uses a Pentax 67 with 55, 105 and 200mm lenses, according to one interview, although he is also somewhat secretive about it. If he can make such great-looking shots with a Pentax 67, I don't see what could go wrong with the 250/4 :)

I have to admit that I would expect to find the 250/4 more to my taste focal length-wise than the 180, which is just a tad short for a general-use tele.

I can still change my mind... Until Monday.

Best of luck with your search for a 180/4 ... to bad, I just sold my excellent copy of that lens. But I'm not selling my 1.4XE because I use it on the 203FE with the 350/4FE giving me more reach when I need it (490mm f/5.6).
Yes, the 350/4 is a special lens, I really look forward to trying that out one day. It is long, and I am not totally sure how much I would end up using it in anger, but I think that some things should just be tried. Who knows, maybe it would end up being one of my favorites. Then again, I might sell it after a year or two, but at least then I would know instead of guessing.
 

carstenw

Active member
Marc, do you have a representative shot with the 250/4 either on film, or perhaps from the H3DII-39, perhaps with a crop? I am still struggling to pigeon-hole the various comments about the sharpness of this lens.
 
Top