Hasselblad Sonnar 150- F or CF?

[freaklikeme]

Hi, all, and thanks for clicking in.

I recently picked up a 645D and have been using it with Hassy lenses, primarily a CF 40 FLE and CF 100/3.5, both of which I love. Now I'd like to get something longer for portraits. I really like what I've seen from both the CF 150/4 and F 150/2.8 and I think that would be the right focal length for me.

But now I can't decide between the two. I've compared the info in Zeiss' documentation and looked at sample photos and it seems like the CF is a better all-arounder where the comparatively flawed performance of the F works out better for portraiture. Or it's entirely possible that I'm seeing things I want to see because the F is a little bit lighter, faster, and comes with no chance of the central shutter tripping while I'm trying to get a time-sensitive shot.

So I'm seeking opinions. Any advice from users of one or both will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Brad

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I had two samples of the 150/4 a CF and a CB, both were very good. Never had the 100/2.8.

Looking at the MTF curves from Zeiss, I would say they are both good and would be difficult to choose one over the other. The 150/2.8 is a bit sharper at the center I would say, but it looses a bit towards the corners.

Best regards
Erik

Hi, all, and thanks for clicking in.

I recently picked up a 645D and have been using it with Hassy lenses, primarily a CF 40 FLE and CF 100/3.5, both of which I love. Now I'd like to get something longer for portraits. I really like what I've seen from both the CF 150/4 and F 150/2.8 and I think that would be the right focal length for me.

But now I can't decide between the two. I've compared the info in Zeiss' documentation and looked at sample photos and it seems like the CF is a better all-arounder where the comparatively flawed performance of the F works out better for portraiture. Or it's entirely possible that I'm seeing things I want to see because the F is a little bit lighter, faster, and comes with no chance of the central shutter tripping while I'm trying to get a time-sensitive shot.

So I'm seeking opinions. Any advice from users of one or both will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Brad

 

[freaklikeme]

Thank you, Erik. That's what I'm seeing as well. I should probably just get over myself and pick up the F while I can find one at a good price.

Out of curiosity, did you use the CF or CB for portraits? Were you content with the MFD or did you feel the need to use tubes?

Thanks again.

Brad

 

[SHV]

Perhaps a bit short but have you considered adding the 110 F2. It is perhaps the best of the Hasselblad F series. I have been looking at adding a 150 f 2.8 but it seems that it was never a particularly well thought of lens and I have seen several recommendations that the 110 F2 + Zeiss 1.7 is better than the 150mm.

Steve

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have not shot portraits for 40 years…

The reason I switched from CB to CF on the 150/4 was that I felt that the the CF's were much nicer "in the hand".

After having the 150/4 CF a while I decided to replace it with a 180/4 CFi, as I felt that the Macro Planar 120/4 has seen much more use, 150 is sort of a bit too long and to short. So I got the 180/4 CFi, and I am quite happy.

Now I have the

40/4 FLE (non IF)
50/4 FLE
80/2.8
120/4
180/4

But I am contemplating to "upgrade" to

40/4
60/3.5
100/3.5 (which is an outstnading lens)
120/4 (which is a "macro lens")
180/4 (which may be the best of the classic lenses)

Best regards
Erik

Thank you, Erik. That's what I'm seeing as well. I should probably just get over myself and pick up the F while I can find one at a good price.

Out of curiosity, did you use the CF or CB for portraits? Were you content with the MFD or did you feel the need to use tubes?

Thanks again.

Brad

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have not shot portraits for 40 years…, but I may be interested in shooting portraits in the future.

The reason I switched from CB to CF on the 150/4 was that I felt that the the CF's were much nicer "in the hand".

After having the 150/4 CF a while I decided to replace it with a 180/4 CFi, as I felt that the Macro Planar 120/4 has seen much more use, 150 is sort of a bit too long and to short. So I got the 180/4 CFi, and I am quite happy.

Now I have the

40/4 FLE (non IF)
50/4 FLE
80/2.8
120/4
180/4

But I am contemplating to "upgrade" to

40/4
60/3.5
100/3.5 (which is an outstnading lens)
120/4 (which is a "macro lens")
180/4 (which may be the best of the classic lenses)

Best regards
Erik

Thank you, Erik. That's what I'm seeing as well. I should probably just get over myself and pick up the F while I can find one at a good price.

Out of curiosity, did you use the CF or CB for portraits? Were you content with the MFD or did you feel the need to use tubes?

Thanks again.

Brad

 

[freaklikeme]

Perhaps a bit short but have you considered adding the 110 F2. It is perhaps the best of the Hasselblad F series. I have been looking at adding a 150 f 2.8 but it seems that it was never a particularly well thought of lens and I have seen several recommendations that the 110 F2 + Zeiss 1.7 is better than the 150mm.

Steve

Thanks, Steve. I have considered the 110, but aside from being shorter than I want, I don't like the bokeh, particularly on smaller than 6x6 frames. I really like the bokeh and gentler focus transitions on the 150's.

 

[freaklikeme]

Hi,

I have not shot portraits for 40 years…, but I may be interested in shooting portraits in the future.

The reason I switched from CB to CF on the 150/4 was that I felt that the the CF's were much nicer "in the hand".

After having the 150/4 CF a while I decided to replace it with a 180/4 CFi, as I felt that the Macro Planar 120/4 has seen much more use, 150 is sort of a bit too long and to short. So I got the 180/4 CFi, and I am quite happy.

Now I have the

40/4 FLE (non IF)
50/4 FLE
80/2.8
120/4
180/4

But I am contemplating to "upgrade" to

40/4
60/3.5
100/3.5 (which is an outstnading lens)
120/4 (which is a "macro lens")
180/4 (which may be the best of the classic lenses)

Best regards
Erik

Couldn't agree more about the 100, Erik. Using that lens puts a big, dopey grin on my face.

I would love to have the 180, particularly if I were shooting film or even a digital sensor closer to 645, but on the smaller sensor, 150 makes more sense to me.

One you might want to consider adding to your upgrade list is the S-Planar 135/5.6 and bellows. I've been using it with 135 format DSLRs on shifting adapters for backs to create panos, and it's one of the finest close-focus/macro lenses I've used.

Some samples...

a7r_SPlanar135_Closed by thisgunforhire70, on Flickr

a7_SPlanar135_BW_Tea_Rose by thisgunforhire70, on Flickr

a99_SP135_Stitch by thisgunforhire70, on Flickr

 

[SHV]

" I've been using it with 135 format DSLRs on shifting adapters for backs to create panos,"
****
You lost me with the 135mm 5.6 and panos. I have used the 135mm 5.6 with a Nikon D800e with good results but not with a shift adapter.

Steve

 

[freaklikeme]

The Hassy bellows doesn't allow for rotation on the rear mount, but the Mamiya Auto-Bellows N does (it also allows for tilt-shift movements on the lens side). So, pairing it up with a Hassy C to M645 adapter on the lens side, and then a Kipon Shift M465 to either Canon or Nikon adapter (like this one here: New Kipon Shift Adapter for Mamiya 645 M645 Mount Lens to Nikon F Mount Camera | eBay) allows you to shift the sensor out 15mm from the center and then take a 13-17 shot circular pano with a 66mm diameter (some of which is lost to mechanical vignetting). With your D800e, you could best both the sensor size and resolution of the of the best current MF back. The set up looks like this...

a7_Lux35_The_Rig by thisgunforhire70, on Flickr

 

[SHV]

Thanks for the explanation. I'll try playing around with what I have in the "parts" box. Hassy bellows and Mirex tilt/shift/rotate adapter.

Steve

 

[freaklikeme]

Oh, yeah, you're good to go. Now you just need some very still subjects.

 

[SHV]

Now you really have me diving into the old Hassy stuff boxes. :>)

 

[freaklikeme]

That's awesome, Steve. I haven't seen the PC Mutar in quite some time.

 

[itsdoable]

Hi, all, and thanks for clicking in.

.... I really like what I've seen from both the CF 150/4 and F 150/2.8 and I think that would be the right focal length for me.

But now I can't decide between the two. I've compared the info in Zeiss' documentation and looked at sample photos and it seems like the CF is a better all-arounder where the comparatively flawed performance of the F works out better for portraiture. Or it's entirely possible that I'm seeing things I want to see because the F is a little bit lighter, faster, and comes with no chance of the central shutter tripping while I'm trying to get a time-sensitive shot.

So I'm seeking opinions. Any advice from users of one or both will be greatly appreciated.

I have both the 150/4CF and the 150/2.8F & FE, and have owned and used the 150/4C non-T*.

From the images I've gotten, I like the 150/4C the best, it's lower in contrast, which works well for people picrtures, and has a very nice "look". The CF is just as nice, but contrastier, I upgraded to it for better ergonomics, and it worked with the 2000 serise bodies better.

In practise, I use the 150/2.8FE because I currently shoot with the 200fe. It's lighter, easier to focus (f/2.8), has open aperature metering, and just handles faster on that body. It is optically good.

The 150/4CF can share filters/hood with your 100/3.5CF.

 

[freaklikeme]

Thanks for your input and I like your thinking about the C, itsdoable. That lower contrast draw is the reason I'm holding on to C 80. I just don't know if I want two lenses with that same draw.

How do you feel about the MFD on the 150's for portraiture? I've seen recommendations for adding a 10mm extension.

 

[itsdoable]

...How do you feel about the MFD on the 150's for portraiture? I've seen recommendations for adding a 10mm extension.

I'm still shooting film, and I have not done many sit-down protraits, mostly environment and candid "protraits". I have 10mm, 16mm and 21mm extension tubes (I think I have a 55mm as well) which I got for close up portraits, but in practice I used a 1m proxar (a 2m would probably be more useful). Mostly I don't use either.

For digital, depending on the crop factor (Pentax 645d is ~1.3), you may not need an extension tube/proxar.

 

[Bill_Green]

Look into the 180 as well. I remember it being a better lens than the 150, but maybe the 150 focused closer.

 

[freaklikeme]

I'm still shooting film, and I have not done many sit-down protraits, mostly environment and candid "protraits". I have 10mm, 16mm and 21mm extension tubes (I think I have a 55mm as well) which I got for close up portraits, but in practice I used a 1m proxar (a 2m would probably be more useful). Mostly I don't use either.

For digital, depending on the crop factor (Pentax 645d is ~1.3), you may not need an extension tube/proxar.

That's what I'm hoping for. Thanks again for the response.

 

[freaklikeme]

Look into the 180 as well. I remember it being a better lens than the 150, but maybe the 150 focused closer.

If I can't make it work with one of the 150s, then I will likely go with the 180 (or maybe the Pentax 67 165/2.8, but that's a whole other decision).

For now, I've got an F 150/2.8 coming and fingers crossed that the smallest and lightest of the bunch is the one. I'll post samples once it get here.