Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

  1. #1
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    My experience with V lenses are all CF - 40, 80, 120, 250, 350 and would like some advice from users of the lenses in the title!

    The F 110/2 seems really interesting but I read that the Cf 100/3.5 is among the best performing lenses of them all. I cannot find the image circle of the lenses? Does anybody know?

    Which one would you choose in combination with the Credo 60? I want the f2 but will reconsider if the slower lens has more resolving power (and maybe larger image circle?)

    Pros and cons appreciated between these two contenders!
    Alpa FPS • MAX • TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 • Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Well, first obvious thing is that the 110mm f2 won't have a shutter, it was made for the SLR Hasselblad cameras.

    I don't know the precise image circle, but the 110 and 100 will both cover 6x6cm.

    I love my 110mm f2 lens, for its beautiful bokeh and crisp depth of field. I shoot it more often than the 100mm, because the 110 is natively mated to my 203fe.

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    I have both lenses and while I love the FE110 for its wonderful bokeh I prefer the CF100 because my work is more technical oriented .
    Both lenses give very Good results when used with my CFV-50 but I don't know
    how they perform with 60MB or even 80MB backs .
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    I used to have both (100mm CFE to be exact) and tried them on IQ180 via a 645DF with adaptor. Resolving power on the CFE is a much better. Not quite schneider LS quality, but close. If you don't need Hasselblad V mount lens, try the Pentax 67 lens - 105mm F2.4. Cheap and even resolve better than 100 CFE.
    Yat

    www.flickr.com/yatlee
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member PSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    145

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    The 100mm is a CFi not CFE. This lens is an architectural lens so its best performance is mid distance and at infinity.

    The 110mm FE is an impact lens especially for portrait. Thus it's performance is extradinarily at close up for bokeh and resolution.

    The Pentax 67 105mm is a nice lens as well. This lens is also the fastest 67 format lens for fashion and portrait.

    Thus, it all depends on your subject.
    Last edited by PSon; 19th February 2013 at 19:54.

  6. #6
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Just thinking aloud here...after reading these posts, I really should mount my Hasselblad CFi 100/3.5 and Pentax 67 SMCP 105/2.4 on my Nikon D800e for a quick comparison. Unfortunately, I don't have a Hasselblad 110/2 lens to include. :-(

    I will say that the 100/3.5 lens has performed very well on my CFV-16II.....wish I could mount it on a CFV-50 like Jurgen. Heck, I'd be happy to put it on a CFV-39!

    Gary

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Thanks Son for the correct. Yes, CFi. I sold all my Hassy camera quite a while ago.

    and How about this for bokeh. ;-)


    CF001971 by yatlee, on Flickr

  8. #8
    Senior Member PSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    145

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Hi Yat I know all these C, C T*, CF, CB, CFi, CFE, F and FE could be mixed up.
    Very nice bokeh.

    Gary, the CFV16 digital backs are special. Here is one combination for you. Hasselblad CFV16 digital back + Hasselblad 205TCC + Rollei 180mm F2.8
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Quote Originally Posted by yatlee View Post
    and How about this for bokeh. ;-)


    CF001971 by yatlee, on Flickr
    Yikes!! To my eyes, that is some very ugly bokeh!

    Maybe I need new glasses.

  10. #10
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    I do like the CFV-16 and will never part with mine...but I would love to have a CFV-39 or CFV-50 too!

    Re the CFi 100mm lens....here's one of mine shot with that lens and the lowly CFV-16.

    I really need to get out more often and shoot with this lens/back combo.


  11. #11
    Member pozzello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Quote Originally Posted by yatlee View Post
    Thanks Son for the correct. Yes, CFi. I sold all my Hassy camera quite a while ago.

    and How about this for bokeh. ;-)


    CF001971 by yatlee, on Flickr
    That bokeh is pretty bad, what lens was that ?!

  12. #12
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Gary

    You shoud be happy to still have your CFV-16 .
    I traded mine in when I got the CFV-39 but have already regretted that many times .
    Back to the CF3,5/100 , which I have . I have never seen a table from CZ to show the image circles of their lenses , but I could not see any loss of light to the corners and the distortion is very low .
    What I like with that lens is that it resolves finest details and the rather high contrast .
    Is there a big difference between the CF3,5/100 and the CFi3,5/100 ? ? ? if any .
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Thanks for good info guys!

    Quote Originally Posted by jotloob View Post

    Is there a big difference between the CF3,5/100 and the CFi3,5/100 ? ? ? if any .
    Interested in this answer too....
    Alpa FPS • MAX • TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 • Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Sorry to distract from topic. But I too regretted in getting the CFV39. Somehow I just can't hoax the sharpness out of this back combined with the 80mm CFE lens. tried in almost every condition with tripod and mirror up. I'm thinking of selling it and getting a CFV16. that back is hard to find these days.


    Quote Originally Posted by jotloob View Post
    Gary

    You shoud be happy to still have your CFV-16 .
    I traded mine in when I got the CFV-39 but have already regretted that many times .
    Back to the CF3,5/100 , which I have . I have never seen a table from CZ to show the image circles of their lenses , but I could not see any loss of light to the corners and the distortion is very low .
    What I like with that lens is that it resolves finest details and the rather high contrast .
    Is there a big difference between the CF3,5/100 and the CFi3,5/100 ? ? ? if any .
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    No surprise that the 80 doesn't perform on the cfv39, IMHO. The MTF shows why.

    The 100/3.5 has not changed optically since the C, judging by MTF data.

    Here are MTF data for V lenses: Hasselblad Historical - Zeiss Lens Data Sheets
    Leica Monochrom, Olympus EM-5, Ricoh GR

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Dan,

    If you're considering image circle on V lenses, no matter shutter or shutterless... I can smell your Alpa FPS module... aren't you?

    Currently I have both FE110/2 and the old C 100/3.5 T* in silver rim. Simple comment from me: C100 works great on Hassy body & CFV16; FE110 is shinning on adapted body, which I use Mamiya AFD2 and P40+.

    Here are some shots to show the FE110 adapted on Mamiya AFDII, P40+, ISO800 Sensor+, all wide open


    IMG_0050 by Wesley Tsang, on Flickr


    IMG_0039 by Wesley Tsang, on Flickr



    IMG_0051 by Wesley Tsang, on Flickr
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad CF 100/3.5 Vs. F 110/2

    Quote Originally Posted by wesley View Post
    Dan,

    If you're considering image circle on V lenses, no matter shutter or shutterless... I can smell your Alpa FPS module... aren't you?
    That was sharp!

    The Alpa FPS is indeed intriguing and yes, I am studying 'if and why' I would need one There seems to be plentiful of possibilities and a great complement to my classic Alpa bodies.
    Talking about the Hasselblad V lenses I could use the FPS as a shutter module in combination with any of my exisitng bodies. If I want to keep a small package I can mount the TC and have a walk-about with a CF 50, CF 80 or CF100! And should the V lenses have enough imagecircle AND resolving power, then I can use the FPS together with the MAX for movements. Tilt is there all the time!

    Imagine my Hasselblad CF 350/5.6 with the FPS and Credo 60 - now that is pretty cool

    On top of all possibilities, I actually find the FPS reasonably priced for what it is and what it can do!
    I am still at the 'studying phase' but it sure looks tempting....
    Alpa FPS • MAX • TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 • Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com

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
  •