Menu
What's new
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!

Hassy 60/3.5 or 50/4 for CFV II?

darr

darr

Well-known member
Ben730 said:
Darr
I completely understand you.
I still use my Hasselblad V lenses on my Phase One XF and my Fuji GFX.
Normally my clients don't appreciate the the difference, when I use these lenses.
When I use them, I do it only for my preferences, for portraits with environment. It's often more time consuming (manual focus etc.)...
Since I shoot more and more video, sharpness has a new facet.
...and I love the 5 bladed bokeh of the HB-V lenses.
BTW, the 40 IF and the 150 CFi have almost no focus breathing - great lenses for medium format video with GFX 100.
What about focus breathing with the CF 60?
The 80 is breathing too much, for me.
Click to expand...
Ben,
I never had to worry about focus breathing as I do not do video, but I know where commercial photography is headed.
I read a little online about this, and here is a quote that I thought would get me out of setting up and looking through the 60 (LOL) ...

from: https://www.howtogeek.com/780326/what-is-lens-focus-breathing/
If you’re looking at the specs online, look for the “maximum magnification” number. You might also see it written as “maximum reproduction ratio” or “reproduction ratio.” The higher that number is, the less focus breathing the lens will have.
Click to expand...
I found all the Hasselblad CF60/3.5 data I have does not give a “maximum reproduction ratio” or “reproduction ratio" number.
Maybe someone else can find it.

I did setup my 501cm and placed the CFi 60/3.5 on it. The camera was on a tripod in a far corner of the studio (it is now night in Florida). I had a printed box about 3 feet (1 meter) in front to one side and focused on that as my near object. Then I focused 44 feet (13.4 meters) away on the front door's doorknob. Not infinity, but some distance. To my eyes, there was a small change on the sides, but nothing like some other lenses I have used, and the center appeared not to change other than going a little in and out of focus (wide angle on 6x6). I tried the CFi 100/3.5 and got similar results.

Will that help you? Maybe not, but to me, there was no noticeable shift in focal length, just a small amount on the sides, and that was easily seen because the studio wall on my right side has brick framed with wood inside of drywall (different shooting backgrounds). If the wall was all drywall, I doubt I would have noticed at all.

Best to you,
Darr
 
B

Ben730

Active member
Thanks Darr
Your comment made me wonder how the CF 60 mm is compared to the FUJI GF 63 mm.
So I borrowed a CF60 for a quick test with my GFX 100s. Focus breathing is very well suppressed, it's a lot better than with the GF63.
I wouldn't call it a super sharp lens, but it is ok.
The CF60 needs a hood when used with the GFX. I had to move out my Proshade almost at max.
This lens is very prone to stray light.
For those who are interested I made 4 pictures with the CF60 at F3.5 and at F8, with the GF at F2.8 and at F8.

Raws: https://www.dropbox.com/t/325lMx0DBePUIOwX

Regards,
Ben
 
darr

darr

Well-known member
Ben730 said:
Thanks Darr
Your comment made me wonder how the CF 60 mm is compared to the FUJI GF 63 mm.
So I borrowed a CF60 for a quick test with my GFX 100s. Focus breathing is very well suppressed, it's a lot better than with the GF63.
I wouldn't call it a super sharp lens, but it is ok.
The CF60 needs a hood when used with the GFX. I had to move out my Proshade almost at max.
This lens is very prone to stray light.
For those who are interested I made 4 pictures with the CF60 at F3.5 and at F8, with the GF at F2.8 and at F8.

Raws: https://www.dropbox.com/t/325lMx0DBePUIOwX

Regards,
Ben
Click to expand...
That's good to know, Ben.
Thank you for posting images; it makes seeing the results easier.
Keep us posted if you decide to use the CF60 for videography and how it works.

Kind regards,
Darr
 
A

Ai_Print

Active member
Ben730 said:
Marco
I think if you have the sharpness of the 40 IF as a standard,
the 60 mm (and also the 100 mm) will never be sharp.
The 40 IF plays in another league.
Click to expand...
Interesting, My 60 CFI is very good but not quite as good as my CFI 50mm FLE when adjusted properly. My 100mm CFI on the other hand is simply spectacular, easily out resolves the CFVII 50C and pairs amazing with the X2D. My 180mm CFI comes in a close second to the 100 but the 100mmCFI is by far the best Hasselblad lens I own.

I can't help in wondering if that these lenses which were deigned for film fall into "sample variation" levels of calibration over time as lubricants degrade. It does not take much to do this so it stands to reason...
 
R

richardman

Well-known member
Ai_Print said:
..
I can't help in wondering if that these lenses which were deigned for film fall into "sample variation" levels of calibration over time as lubricants degrade. It does not take much to do this so it stands to reason...
Click to expand...
Yea, I suspect even for Zeiss, there were sample variations that are hidden by film. All my FE lenses are plenty good enough for me, and plenty good enough for what I use the CFV II 50C for. Indeed, the 50/2.8 is just ridiculously sharp. We will see about that 60 CF when it comes in.

I had a chance to use a Cooke Deep Field Panchro with the combo for a few months, and to me, that's the dream lens. Low contrast, so very malleable, and just soft enough for portraits. But too expensive to keep currently. Ah well.
 
ErikKaffehr

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
richardman said:
So I'm very happy with my 203FE + CFV II 50C combo. I have all the FE lens, including the 50/2.8 and (of course) the 80/2.8. I also have a SWC/M. With the "crop factor" of the CFV II, the 80 is "too tele" to be the normal lens, and while I absolutely LOVE the 50/2.8, it's too big to be a carry around lens.

So I would like to get either 60/3.5 or the 50/4 FLE. I know the 60 is one of the sharpest in the Hassy line up, and the MTF charts show as much, so I'm leaning toward that. I also normally don't want multiple lenses in the same FL, so it makes sense to get the 60 as well. Also, also, I figure that a 60/3.5 and my 110/2 would make an excellent walk around kit. Anything wider, I will use the SWC or the 907x with the 30mm XPan lens.

Having said all that, any reason not to get the 60/3.5 and the 50/4 FLE instead?
Click to expand...
I used to have the Distagon 50/4 CF (FLE) but replaced it with the Distagon 35/3.5 CF. I would not have preference to either lens. The reason for my switch was that I reorganized from 40/50/80/120/180 mm to 40/60/100/120/180 mm and did not want to carry to many lenses.

I wouldn't think there is a lot of difference in IQ between the two. I used my lenses on a Phase One P45+ back, that has a 37x49 mm sensor.

Best regards
Erik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top