Hasselblad CF 50mm vs. CFi 50mm lens?

[Jager]

I own both the CF/FLE 50 and the newer CFi 50. Both used primarily with the CFV-50c.

As others have mentioned, they are optically identical. Although I slightly prefer the CFi, I confess I cannot really see the purported color/contrast benefits the newer lens is supposed to bring. I understand the theory behind it... better internal light control gives you those things. But I don't think they are significant enough to be measurable in the lighting scenarios photographers usually encounter.

I think it's fair to say that either FLE 50 variant is an outstanding bit of glass. And both are exceptional with high-resolution digital backs.

That said, who would begrudge a photographer from buying a new lens? ;-)

Best of luck...

 

[tjv]

I'll give this thread yet another lease on life...

I'm thinking of getting a 50mm FLE in either variation, CF or CFi.

The links to images and references on Erik's site above don't appear to be working anymore, so I'd appreciate some pictures and more comments.

I'm wanting to use the lens with both film and my Credo 60. I shoot mainly around the middle apertures, favouring f11, but sometimes like a more shallow DOF look. If money were no object I'd get the 40mm IF, but I'd rather save my money for a Rodenstock 40 HR-W to use on my Linhof so I can employ shifts, etc.

Anyway, any more comments, observations, examples etc. to add to the above would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

TJV

 

[Photon42]

I'll give this thread yet another lease on life...

I'm thinking of getting a 50mm FLE in either variation, CF or CFi.

The links to images and references on Erik's site above don't appear to be working anymore, so I'd appreciate some pictures and more comments.

I'm wanting to use the lens with both film and my Credo 60. I shoot mainly around the middle apertures, favouring f11, but sometimes like a more shallow DOF look. If money were no object I'd get the 40mm IF, but I'd rather save my money for a Rodenstock 40 HR-W to use on my Linhof so I can employ shifts, etc.

Anyway, any more comments, observations, examples etc. to add to the above would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

TJV

The 50 FLE is a no-brainer in my eyes. Very sharp - already at f4. Only downside may be to some the distance control ring (the FLE thing). I have no issues with it. I used in on film and now use it with the CFV-50c. I prefer the 50 CF FLE to the 40 CF FLE (not IF, which I do not know) for better sharpness, weight and filter size (bay 60).

Regards
Ivo

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My experience is with 40/4 CF, 50/4 CF, 60/3.5 CF and 80/2.8 CFE.

My take is really that the CFE/CFi lenses are about rational production. There is more plastics and more stamped metal parts.

I have happened to have both the 120/4 CF and the 120/4 CFi and I have seen little benefits to the CFi, except that it was designed for more rational production.

Best regards
Erik

The 50 FLE is a no-brainer in my eyes. Very sharp - already at f4. Only downside may be to some the distance control ring (the FLE thing). I have no issues with it. I used in on film and now use it with the CFV-50c. I prefer the 50 CF FLE to the 40 CF FLE (not IF, which I do not know) for better sharpness, weight and filter size (bay 60).

Regards
Ivo