Hi Rob,
Unfortunately I have noted some inaccuracies in another Hasselblad oriented article by Ming Thein.
Take this article:
https://blog.mingthein.com/2013/01/26/intro-to-hasselblad-v-series/
Let's look at this statement:
"Bodies
Generally, for a shooter, you want to look at buy the 500-series (also known as the V series; includes 500, 500C, 500C/M, 501, 501C, 501C/M, 503CW, 503CX etc). The C means that it uses C-mount lenses which have built in Copal leaf shutters; anything with /M means upgraded/ modified"
What is the issue with that? Well, no Hasselblad V-series camera ever had a Copal shutter. The original C-series had Synchro-Compur while the later CF models all use Prontor shutters. What may be of a certain importance that the Prontor shutters are regarded to be much more reliable than the Synchro-Compurs. But, that may be an urban myth.
So, let's check this statement:
"CF lenses are the best bang for the buck. They have coupled aperture/shutter speed rings (with the exception of the 80/2.8 CF T*) and upgraded shutter mechanisms; CFE and CFI lenses are later models with electronic coupling and are several times more expensive than CF, often for no particularly good reason. "
The CF lenses have normally decoupled aperture/shutter speed rings. There is a button you can press to couple the rings. The C-series have continuously coupled rings. As said before CF-lenses have Prontor shutters. CFi lenses don't have electronic couplings. Hasselblad claims that the CFi lenses are significantly improved regarding light shielding, even if I have my doubts. The CFE lenses allow for aperture coupled metering on F-series bodies. With CFi and older you need to manually set aperture the metering prism and manually set the EV value on the exposure scale.
So, Ming Thein says:
"The good lenses – all CF or higher – are the 40/4 Distagon FLE, the 50/4 Distagon FLE, the 80/2.8 Planar, 120/4 Makro-Planar, 150/4 Planar and 180/4 Planar. These are roughly 24, 28, 45-50, 85, 100 and 120 equivalents. The FLE lenses have a separate correction ring for optimising close-range performance."
A small issue with that statement is that two of those lenses don't actually exist. The 150/4 and the 180/4 are not Planars but Sonnars. Saying that the 40/4 Distagon FLE is a good lens may be over the edge, it suffers from severe astigmatism and probably quite extensive field curvature. More importantly, Hasselblad actually has a truly excellent 40/4 Distagon, the Distagon® T* 4/40 IF CFE. The later lens is clearly superior to the older versions. I clearly feel the new lens deserve a mention…
The Planar 100/3.5 CF (in all vesions) is know to be a superior lens at long distances. Zeiss recommends the Planar 100/3.5 CF if the subject area is above 1 square meter and the Planar 120/4 CF below that. The Planar 120/4 CF has good performance at macro distances, but has a lot of field curvature at long distances. Worth mentioning, is it not?
The Distagon 60/3.5 is a decent lens, in the same league as the 50/4.
I own or have owned most of those lenses.
Distagon 40/4 CF FLE, (Distagon 50/4 CF FLE), Distagon 60/3.5 CF, Planar 80/2.8 CFE, Planar 100/3.5 CF, (Planar 120/4 CF), Planar 120/4 CFi, (Sonnar 150/4 C T*), (Sonnar 150/4 CF) and the Sonnar 180/4 CFi. The lenses in parenthesis are the ones I no longer have. I have been shooting those lenses with a 555/ELD combined with a Phase One P45+ back. So, I feel I have some experience with the system and with the lenses.
Just to say, I don't think the information from Ming Thein is bad, just that his writing is not accurate, with quite a few factual errors. I perhaps also feel some bias.
Just to complement, here are MTF data for a few lenses, first the two 40/4 Distagons:
Followed by the Planars 120/4 and 100/3.5 at infinity:
Just to say, the Makro Planar 120/4 is pretty good at close up range, so claiming it is a good lens is not far fetched, assuming that you intend to shoot close up:
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Emphasis mine.
Ming Thein clearly talks about a mechanical rear curtain, presumably referring to the (obviously mechanical) leaf shutter:
"Sloppy writing" is not synonymous with "Ming Thein".