The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Who makes better lens Hasselblad H or Phaseone blue rings?
- Thread starter BigBoy
- Start date
kdphotography
Well-known member
I don't think the answer really is as easy as it may seem. This is one of those times that you really really really need to "try before you buy." It really becomes a question about the totality of the entire camera system: Digital back, camera body, lenses, and post processing workflow. Unless you're familiar with the companies and systems, you really need to see what floats your boat personally and checks off all the feature sets that are important to you.
And welcome to Dante's world...
And welcome to Dante's world...
bab
Active member
Not sure how you would tell the difference unless you have several copies of each of the same even then I'll bet they all come out within 5% BUT each system has dogs and winners. That you can get up to speed from users reviews, like Hasselblad 35 it's the dog in the line up!
Either system would make great tools for your image making possibilities, however Apple says the IPhone makes great images too! Try before you buy.
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
Hasselblad publishes measured MTF data for all their lenses. MTF does not tell the whole story, but it tells a lot.
Phase One doesn't publish MTF data for their lenses, but Capture Integration has digged up some MTF data. You cannot compare those with Hasselblad's though, as data is presented differently.
BlueRing is more about tolerances. Sample variation between lenses is enormous. If your Ferrari dealer told you that your car can go 275 km/h officially, but some very good ones go for 290 and the dogs just 130 km/h you would probably a bit upset, but lens variation could be that bad: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
So, companies like Alpa cherry pick lenses from Schneider and they are sending back a lot. They don't measure MTF, else they would send back even more lenses. MTF testing is far more demanding than visual inspection.
With "Blue rings" Phase One has tightened up the tolerances. Some lenses also have improved designs.
Best regards
Erik
Hasselblad publishes measured MTF data for all their lenses. MTF does not tell the whole story, but it tells a lot.
Phase One doesn't publish MTF data for their lenses, but Capture Integration has digged up some MTF data. You cannot compare those with Hasselblad's though, as data is presented differently.
BlueRing is more about tolerances. Sample variation between lenses is enormous. If your Ferrari dealer told you that your car can go 275 km/h officially, but some very good ones go for 290 and the dogs just 130 km/h you would probably a bit upset, but lens variation could be that bad: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
So, companies like Alpa cherry pick lenses from Schneider and they are sending back a lot. They don't measure MTF, else they would send back even more lenses. MTF testing is far more demanding than visual inspection.
With "Blue rings" Phase One has tightened up the tolerances. Some lenses also have improved designs.
Best regards
Erik
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Eric, the MTF curves CI posted are from Phase One / Schneider.
To the topic... anyone who tells you one line is across-the-board better than the other is clearly in sales.
1) "good" depends on use case. For someone who shoots shallow DOF portraits with longish lenses, someone shooting wide-angle landscape at f/11, and someone who shoots high magnification macro product shots the definition of "good" lenses will be drastically different.
2) Not every lens in a line is equal. A line of lenses always has lenses that are above-the-average-of-the-line and below-the-average-of-the-line. The best lens in either lineup is definitely better than the worst lens in the other. So the question is really less about the whole line, and more about the specific lenses you're likely to use. That's a far more nuanced question.
3) Weight, size, feel matter. They don't (directly) effect image quality, but if you tire of picking up a lens then you probably won't use it as much.
4) Tools of the camera matter. A great lens that you can't achieve focus on is not as good as a great lens that you can. A great lens + body shake = poor image. So tools like the Hyperfocal focus tool, focus stacking tool, vibration-avoidance mode, and quality of autofocus matter.
5) Service/support matter. For example IQ3 kits come with 5-year unlimited-shot warranties on all lenses purchased with the kit, including a loaner during any service/repair. The quality of a lens doesn't matter when you don't have it in your hands in working order.
Moreover depending on what you're shooting you may be asking the wrong question, and the best option may be tech camera lenses like Rodenstock on an Arca, or a crazy old lens with a weird look (much more possible on the XF since it has a focal plane shutter that can be used with lenses that lack a central shutter).
It is unquestionably true that Phase One has been on a roll the last five years releasing new and improved lenses, all of which were designed for full-frame 645. But which lens line up will do the best job for your use-case and for your priorities is something you should decide with your own hands on shooting.
We'd be glad to help you with that testing. Our test studio / office is in midtown Manhattan, a few hour train (our office is 10 min from Penn Station where Amtrak stops) or short flight away from you and we can also arrange rental-toward-purchase evaluations. Or if you can't get the time to do your own testing we have a test catalog of a few hundred gigabytes worth of test images with different lenses; some are available on our website (35mm, 45mm, tech camera), but most are available only upon request.
Finally, let me put a strong word in for real testing over reading MTFs. There are any number of issues with using MTFs to guide purchase decisions, and I'll just highlight one. Incredibly sharp lenses that have slight field curvature can score worse on "corner sharpness" MTF analysis than a mediocre lens with a flat field. If your use case is shooting landscapes at f/11 then slight field curvature is not a problem, while mediocre optics are. An actual shot of landscape with both lenses (preferably a series of shots where you set up from scratch several times) will tell you far far more than an MTF curve.
To the topic... anyone who tells you one line is across-the-board better than the other is clearly in sales.
1) "good" depends on use case. For someone who shoots shallow DOF portraits with longish lenses, someone shooting wide-angle landscape at f/11, and someone who shoots high magnification macro product shots the definition of "good" lenses will be drastically different.
2) Not every lens in a line is equal. A line of lenses always has lenses that are above-the-average-of-the-line and below-the-average-of-the-line. The best lens in either lineup is definitely better than the worst lens in the other. So the question is really less about the whole line, and more about the specific lenses you're likely to use. That's a far more nuanced question.
3) Weight, size, feel matter. They don't (directly) effect image quality, but if you tire of picking up a lens then you probably won't use it as much.
4) Tools of the camera matter. A great lens that you can't achieve focus on is not as good as a great lens that you can. A great lens + body shake = poor image. So tools like the Hyperfocal focus tool, focus stacking tool, vibration-avoidance mode, and quality of autofocus matter.
5) Service/support matter. For example IQ3 kits come with 5-year unlimited-shot warranties on all lenses purchased with the kit, including a loaner during any service/repair. The quality of a lens doesn't matter when you don't have it in your hands in working order.
Moreover depending on what you're shooting you may be asking the wrong question, and the best option may be tech camera lenses like Rodenstock on an Arca, or a crazy old lens with a weird look (much more possible on the XF since it has a focal plane shutter that can be used with lenses that lack a central shutter).
It is unquestionably true that Phase One has been on a roll the last five years releasing new and improved lenses, all of which were designed for full-frame 645. But which lens line up will do the best job for your use-case and for your priorities is something you should decide with your own hands on shooting.
We'd be glad to help you with that testing. Our test studio / office is in midtown Manhattan, a few hour train (our office is 10 min from Penn Station where Amtrak stops) or short flight away from you and we can also arrange rental-toward-purchase evaluations. Or if you can't get the time to do your own testing we have a test catalog of a few hundred gigabytes worth of test images with different lenses; some are available on our website (35mm, 45mm, tech camera), but most are available only upon request.
Finally, let me put a strong word in for real testing over reading MTFs. There are any number of issues with using MTFs to guide purchase decisions, and I'll just highlight one. Incredibly sharp lenses that have slight field curvature can score worse on "corner sharpness" MTF analysis than a mediocre lens with a flat field. If your use case is shooting landscapes at f/11 then slight field curvature is not a problem, while mediocre optics are. An actual shot of landscape with both lenses (preferably a series of shots where you set up from scratch several times) will tell you far far more than an MTF curve.
voidshatter
Member
I was told that some Hasselblad lenses are crop lenses which do not cover fullframe sensors very well. You might want to be careful with their wide angles eg HCD24?
Hasselblad makes two types of lenses HCD and HC. HCD lenses cover a smaller area than HC, they were designed to work optimally with the smaller 50mp sensor (H6D50c). Owners of the larger 100mp sensor (H6D100c) are saying that HCD lenses work very well with larger sensors as well, e.g. : https://nordhaugphotography.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/h6d-100c-and-the-hcd-lenses/
This is true on the larger sensors. However, I own a HCD 28mm and HCD 35-90mm and have never found the amount of crop to be significant or limiting on my H6D-100c.
Last edited:
From the Hasselblad site
http://static.hasselblad.com/2015/02/versatileasaswissknife.pdf
http://www.hasselblad.com/support/manuals/technical-articles
(35-90) It is the second HCD lens after the HCD 4/28. The ‘D’ alludes to optimization for H3D digital cameras while simultaneously signifying incompatibility with film cameras. To achieve compactness, the lens’s light projection was adapted to the ‘48 mm full format’ sensor of the H3DII-39 and -50. At the wide-angle setting in particular, designers balanced improvements in lens performance against a slightly greater distortion and vignetting as these can be eliminated without quality concessions with the aid of DAC. The outcome is a powerful tool that zooms between an extreme 83-degree wide-angle and just beyond the fringes of the normal lens. Because it is optimized for digital use it remains nice and compact and relatively light in weight.
http://static.hasselblad.com/2015/02/versatileasaswissknife.pdf
http://www.hasselblad.com/support/manuals/technical-articles
(35-90) It is the second HCD lens after the HCD 4/28. The ‘D’ alludes to optimization for H3D digital cameras while simultaneously signifying incompatibility with film cameras. To achieve compactness, the lens’s light projection was adapted to the ‘48 mm full format’ sensor of the H3DII-39 and -50. At the wide-angle setting in particular, designers balanced improvements in lens performance against a slightly greater distortion and vignetting as these can be eliminated without quality concessions with the aid of DAC. The outcome is a powerful tool that zooms between an extreme 83-degree wide-angle and just beyond the fringes of the normal lens. Because it is optimized for digital use it remains nice and compact and relatively light in weight.
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi Doug,
I tried to give some correct and relevant information based on what I have found and what I know after following Hasselblad since 1970 and Phase One since 2006.
I don't think that MTF curves I referred to are any longer available at Phase One home site. If you feel there are better data available, feel free to post a link. If you do so, please also explain the fundamental differences between the way Schneider presents data and Hasselblad does. I tried to do that, to some extent.
MTF data does not tell all about a lens, but it tells a lot. Foremost, lens designers calculate a lot of different sets of MTF data while designing a lens.
Hasselblad has deliver measured MTF for all their lenses going back 1980, or so, I guess. Data for older lenses is available here: Hasselblad Historical - Zeiss Lens Data Sheets
The guy doing those tests is also the guy doing a part of the lens designs for Hasselblad, Per Nordlund.
I am aware of issues like field curvature, but I would make the point that field curvature is bad for landscape shooters or those shooting architecture.
I am a bit familiar with Zeiss Planar lenses, just as an example, as i happened to own four of them. Specifically:
I have been shooting with those lenses and a few others (Distagons 40/4, 50/4, 60/3.5 and Sonnars 150/4, 180/4) and I can assure you that you get better info from the MTF data than shooting a few dozen samples over a few days. But also very clearly, MTF data - at least as presented - does not give all data for a lens.
Regarding good - consider this:
If you want shallow focus, you would strive for high MTF in the focus point and you would not want to have high degree of astigmatism. So you would like to have tangential and sagittal curves to be close, but you would accept a "bell shape". A lens like this would serve you well:
If you shoot macro at f/11, real aperture will probably close to f/22 (at 1:1) and diffraction will dominate. If you want to shoot repro at close up you would want a lens with a flat field at close up range:
The lenses show are the same, Zeiss Planar 120/4 at infinity and at 1:5.
Now, would you shoot architecture, which of the two images below, would you prefere?
In all honesty, the 120/4 cleans up really well at f/11:
Best regards
Erik
I tried to give some correct and relevant information based on what I have found and what I know after following Hasselblad since 1970 and Phase One since 2006.
I don't think that MTF curves I referred to are any longer available at Phase One home site. If you feel there are better data available, feel free to post a link. If you do so, please also explain the fundamental differences between the way Schneider presents data and Hasselblad does. I tried to do that, to some extent.
MTF data does not tell all about a lens, but it tells a lot. Foremost, lens designers calculate a lot of different sets of MTF data while designing a lens.
Hasselblad has deliver measured MTF for all their lenses going back 1980, or so, I guess. Data for older lenses is available here: Hasselblad Historical - Zeiss Lens Data Sheets
The guy doing those tests is also the guy doing a part of the lens designs for Hasselblad, Per Nordlund.
I am aware of issues like field curvature, but I would make the point that field curvature is bad for landscape shooters or those shooting architecture.
I am a bit familiar with Zeiss Planar lenses, just as an example, as i happened to own four of them. Specifically:
- The Planar 100/3.5 is a high performance lens intended for long distance. Used in a proper context it is very good. The Planar 100/3.5 has very nice MTF at infinity.
- The Planar 80/2.8 I also had and I had some mixed feeling about.
- The Planar 120/4 is a macro lens and needs to be stopped down for decent sharpness to f/11 at infinity. The issue is field curvature.
- Modern macro lenses often have a floating group to correct field for different focusing distances.
I have been shooting with those lenses and a few others (Distagons 40/4, 50/4, 60/3.5 and Sonnars 150/4, 180/4) and I can assure you that you get better info from the MTF data than shooting a few dozen samples over a few days. But also very clearly, MTF data - at least as presented - does not give all data for a lens.
Regarding good - consider this:
If you want shallow focus, you would strive for high MTF in the focus point and you would not want to have high degree of astigmatism. So you would like to have tangential and sagittal curves to be close, but you would accept a "bell shape". A lens like this would serve you well:
If you shoot macro at f/11, real aperture will probably close to f/22 (at 1:1) and diffraction will dominate. If you want to shoot repro at close up you would want a lens with a flat field at close up range:
The lenses show are the same, Zeiss Planar 120/4 at infinity and at 1:5.
Now, would you shoot architecture, which of the two images below, would you prefere?
| Sonnar 150/4 at f/5.6 | Planar 120/4 at f/5.6 |
|
|
In all honesty, the 120/4 cleans up really well at f/11:
Best regards
Erik
Last edited:
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
It was I who dug up the Schneider MTF curves on the 55mm/80mm/110mm lenses. I leaned on an old friend at Schneider (who has since retired). Phase One had nothing to do with providing any MTF charts to me.
On the topic of lens size - keep in mind that some of the Schneider lenses are actually no larger or even smaller than their Hasselblad counterparts, such as the SK 55mm/80mm/110mm/120mm/150mm (non Blue Ring)/240mm. To me, the only lenses that really jump out as relatively huge are the zoom lenses and the 150mm/2.8.
Steve Hendrix/CI
BIGBOY
first and before anything, excuse my english, I am latin and is difficult for me express myself properly
well, let me give you an advice.
Brands, as big companies, knows how much important is the work on the net, on the forums, on the social networks...
This is not a shop, this is a forum. There are two kinds of opinions, the non interested ones, and the interested ones...
So, everytime I talk with a commercial agent, the chat or conversation ends like this: "if you want the best camera, call me"... and bla bla bla...
Then, dont trust in the information from interested people who are making marketing in your private networks...
Excuse me every people, but im tire of this marketing "mantra"...
So, test both systems by your self, in your hands
ciao
first and before anything, excuse my english, I am latin and is difficult for me express myself properly
well, let me give you an advice.
Brands, as big companies, knows how much important is the work on the net, on the forums, on the social networks...
This is not a shop, this is a forum. There are two kinds of opinions, the non interested ones, and the interested ones...
So, everytime I talk with a commercial agent, the chat or conversation ends like this: "if you want the best camera, call me"... and bla bla bla...
Then, dont trust in the information from interested people who are making marketing in your private networks...
Excuse me every people, but im tire of this marketing "mantra"...
So, test both systems by your self, in your hands
ciao
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Well you're half right. There are biased opinions.
Some, like me, will be biased because of a job. Others will be biased by an emotional brand affinity, or biased because they feel compelled to justify a previous purchase, or biased because of unbalanced personal experience (years of becoming an expert on one camera and only passing understanding of another). Etc etc.
If you search for truly unbiased opinions, you'll be searching forever.
I think more useful divisors of opinion are informed/uniformed and relevant/irrelevant (to your needs).
And of course the most informed and relevant opinion is the one you form after your own extensive research and hands on testing (preferably in scenarios relevant to your own photography).
I am user of products from both brands, for my personal work and also for some client`s studios wich I have been working for as a photographer, and also as intermediary between clients-shops-brands in the last 10 years.
First of all I apologize. It was not a personal message. I just wrote it to keep the marketing out, in sites I consider public and non commercial, like a forum. Sometimes marketing is everywhere, and we dont have any space to have a breath
I would like to say I have, of course, the best wishes for you and for your business, sincerely. I repeat, It was not a personal message, sorry.
For the biased consequences, after my message, I dont make any comment about the quality of the lenses, of course haha..
Regards and apologize for the off-topic
ciao
Pablo
First of all I apologize. It was not a personal message. I just wrote it to keep the marketing out, in sites I consider public and non commercial, like a forum. Sometimes marketing is everywhere, and we dont have any space to have a breath
I would like to say I have, of course, the best wishes for you and for your business, sincerely. I repeat, It was not a personal message, sorry.
For the biased consequences, after my message, I dont make any comment about the quality of the lenses, of course haha..
Regards and apologize for the off-topic
ciao
Pablo
We all want a friendly atmosphere on this forum, but your original post was right on target. You have no need to apologize.I am user of products from both brands, for my personal work and also for some client`s studios wich I have been working for as a photographer, and also as intermediary between clients-shops-brands in the last 10 years.
First of all I apologize. It was not a personal message. I just wrote it to keep the marketing out, in sites I consider public and non commercial, like a forum. Sometimes marketing is everywhere, and we dont have any space to have a breath
I would like to say I have, of course, the best wishes for you and for your business, sincerely. I repeat, It was not a personal message, sorry.
For the biased consequences, after my message, I dont make any comment about the quality of the lenses, of course haha..
Regards and apologize for the off-topic
ciao
Pablo
Greg
jerome_m
Member
Actually, I like the HC 35. The reviews are negative because the lens lacks punch full open, but one rarely uses MF lenses full open so it is not a real problem. On the other hand, the HC 35 has pleasing bokeh.
Hasselblad lenses have also one nice property: the colours and rendering are similar accros them. That is important to me.
I don't use Phase One, so cannot comment on their products.