Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 30 of 30

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

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.
    Carsten - Website

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    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

  3. #3
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

    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.

  4. #4
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

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

    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

  5. #5
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

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

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

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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 by carstenw; 25th November 2009 at 23:27.
    Carsten - Website

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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).
    Carsten - Website

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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 by David Klepacki; 26th November 2009 at 10:11. Reason: correction

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.
    Carsten - Website

  12. #12
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.
    Carsten - Website

  14. #14
    tetsrfun
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    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

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Thanks! I guess I will get the 180mm and hold out for a 1,4XE.
    Carsten - Website

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    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

    -Marc
    Last edited by fotografz; 28th November 2009 at 02:29.

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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 by carstenw; 28th November 2009 at 03:19.
    Carsten - Website

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    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).



    -Marc

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.
    Carsten - Website

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.
    Carsten - Website

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I ended up risking it all and getting the 250/4FE, as well as the 50/2.8FE. Added to my 110/2FE I have a nice threesome for my V-kit, and also three lenses which fill in gaps in my 35/80/120 Contax 645 lineup, so it all works together really well.

    I haven't had the chance to shoot anything yet, since work is frantic and on the home-front we were all ill for a spell, but hopefully sometime soon this will work out. I have spent some time looking through the 2000FC/M with the 250/4 on it, and focusing at different distances, examining the out-of-focus-blur as well as I could, and I must admit that the lens appears to render very nicely.

    The only flies in the ointment are that 1) it appears I am missing the front half of the two-piece hood for the 50/2.8, so I can't use filters as is, and 2) the lettering is coming off the otherwise really clean 250/4. What on earth was Hasselblad/Zeiss thinking when they went to silk-screened letters on lenses this expensive???
    Carsten - Website

  22. #22
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    carsten
    I am curious why you got the FE, not just a 250 F or CF
    are they not available? On the Contax I think they all behave the same no? I have avoided the CFE based on extra cost and was told the CFi were actually not as robust.
    The 250 I think you will like. For really long reach you might want to consider the 2x Mutar (I do think you can mix FE and CF Mutar, yes?

    Victor

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    carsten
    I am curious why you got the FE, not just a 250 F or CF
    are they not available? On the Contax I think they all behave the same no? I have avoided the CFE based on extra cost and was told the CFi were actually not as robust.
    The 250 I think you will like. For really long reach you might want to consider the 2x Mutar (I do think you can mix FE and CF Mutar, yes?

    Victor
    He said his goal is to eventually get a 203FE ... thus the FE.

    CFEs (E data Bus contacts) are more valuable because they also auto index on the 200 series camera when set to F ... and the CFEs also auto index on the H camera when using the CF adapter ... the H camera instantly recognizes which lens is mounted ... where all others, including the CFis have to be manually programed in.

    Just curious, who told you the CFi lenses were not as robust? CFs were made well but the sync port was prone to need replacement (been there, done that), and CFs are a bit more prone to flare ... both of which were addressed in the CFi and CFE versions with the newer sync port lock and better internal flare suppression ... along with some stronger springs and a better shade mount finish. I also noted that the focus grip material doesn't come loose on the CFi/CFE like a number of CFs did on me.

    -Marc

  24. #24
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    who told me? likely somebody on some forum.
    Just 'rumor'
    What I do remember is hints at 'cost saving' via more plastic? but hardly seems worth it.
    the 'i' was supposed to be 'improved' vs 'E' for electronic. That makes sense in carsten's case.

    all in all, I have had over a dozen V and 200 lenses and all seemed pretty fine. still have the 50mm F (from Graham actually) 100, 110 FE, 180, 250 and 350. latter SA
    actually also the 30, 40 IF and 500/8

    I'm in the market for a SAFE!

  25. #25
    martin
    Guest

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

    Hello, I just joined this forum and got very interested in the opinions on this thread...I use a 503cw and have had a Contax 645 system (with 210/4) which I sold off, and I'm still not sure why. I was a bit ambivalent about my 210/4. It made some very nice landscapes, but I was always looking for just a little more reach.
    I wanted the 250sa but initially could only afford the 180/4 cfi. I now have a 250/5.6 sa cf for small landscape views and plan to sell the 180 because I don't need both. The sa has much more than mere sharpness, in my opinion...the 4-colour corrected lens also gives nicer out of focus areas, colour saturation and, dare I say it, 3d realism than all the others except the C120ApoMakro, but it is expensive, and must be used on a very solid support to maximise its potential. I guess for portraits you can always Softar it, and use a tube to bring its 3m minimum focus in a bit, although I don't do portraits much myself. Lastly I would add that practical comparisons often go further than mtf chart differences.
    I haven't let go of my C120 Apo Makro yet, as some of its images are real beyond all others I have made (not meaning to wax lyrical, though). Officially, Zeiss confirms that it outperforms the 100 and 120 Hasselblad lenses at all distances. Because of this lens alone I am tossing up buying another Contax 645, with a Novoflex for other Blad lenses. One of my issues would be for its simplicity of use, especially close up and semi auto aperture priority exposure, but offsetting this, it is a dead system with now limited service backup, and sadly a reply I recently received from Zeiss said they are unlikely to find a camera maker willing to risk taking over the C645 production as it is too small a niche even in the medium format market.
    I would be grateful to hear some other opinions on this as I'm quite happy with the 503 system, but keeping 2 systems is a bit extravagant for me, and I keep thinking, yeah, but what about that 120Apo?...

  26. #26
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Dear Martin

    I actually like the cONTAX 645 better for the V lenses than the hasselblad - you get focus confirm and the AE isnt automatic but by changing the speed you can see directly the degree of under or over exposure

    Neat!

    Also for long lenses the 2sec delay for shutter acts like 'mirror up'

    Victor

    PS If you think the 250 SA is a great lens, you should try the 350mm SA!

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    Dear Martin

    I actually like the cONTAX 645 better for the V lenses than the hasselblad - you get focus confirm and the AE isnt automatic but by changing the speed you can see directly the degree of under or over exposure

    Neat!

    Also for long lenses the 2sec delay for shutter acts like 'mirror up'

    Victor

    PS If you think the 250 SA is a great lens, you should try the 350mm SA!

    Not to mention flash metering in-camera and 1/4000th shutter with the C645

    Personally, I still prefer the 203FE for it's brighter viewfinder, and auto stop down aperture focusing and shooting. The C645 is okay if you shoot everything wide open. Focus Confirmation works okay on the C645 IF the aperture is wide open ... stop down some and it ain't so hot.

    Marc

  28. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post

    PS If you think the 250 SA is a great lens, you should try the 350mm SA!
    After you try 350SA, you should try 300SA TPP.

  29. #29
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    actually had a used version and returned, wasnt in good shape.
    maybe-arsenal has one of the last new
    can be had for $37,000

    For real speed I have a 300mm f2Schneider with hassey mount made for military
    no wTHAT is a fast lens (and 16 lbs )

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    300mm f/2??? Post a pic, please Does it have a fixed aperture or fixed distance?
    Carsten - Website

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •