Use of 500mm APO versus 350mm Superachromat plus 1.4XE APO Converter

What advantages would I have using a 500mm APO versus a 350mm

Superachromat with a 1.4XE APO Converter (490mm)? Putting cost

aside, I am interested in differences regarding image quality,

features and user friendliness.

 

Also, does anyone have an idea of production figures of the 350mm

Superachromat since introduced?

 

Thanks for your inputs!

Personally I'd spend the money on a car and drive up closer so I can use a 150.

I am curious to know what you plan to photograph?

 

Pat

Patrick,

 

I would mainly use this focal length(s) for nature, although I like the look of portraits (on occasion) shot with a 350mm. Any focal length above 180mm would not used much by me, but I am interested in ALL Hasselblad equipment from a technical standpoint.

 

Regards,

 

J. P.

J.,

 

I have the 500mm f/8 Tele-Apotessar CF and the 350mm f/5.6 Tele-Tessar C T*. I have

not used them with any converters. With these long lenses one needs a sturdy mount. The

C type 350mm does not have a tripod socket, so it depends on the camera body. This

makes the outfit front heavy. Both these lenses are so long that one would be advised to

use the mirror pre-fire for critical work. Also, I've heard suggestions to place a soft wait on

the lens above the tripod mount on the Tele-Apotessar to dampen vibrations. I plan to use

these two lenses mostly for piggyback guided astrophotograpy. I have had flexure issues

with my mount hardware, so I still can not comment on image quality yet, but preliminary

results with the 350mm are encouraging. I've also used the 350mm handheld at 1/500

sec. The Apotessar is more difficult to handhold, but it is pretty light for its size. These

lenses benifit from a stable mount, though. I like my Tele-Apotessar a lot, and have

enjoyed using it for lunar and skyline shots. I can't wait to get it mounted on my telescope

and put it through its paces.

 

Taras

Do a search in the Hasselblad archive's this question was

answered in detail by K. Fleischer (a Zeiss employee)

I use the 500 apo tessar and it is very sharp I do wildlife adn people and use a tripod for critical work. Thai lense is fantastic. I have not used the 350 superachromat but I did look at the curves and then I found a used 500 apo at a new york store in mint condition so I got it for about one quarter of the 350 superachromat and the convertor. I have not been disappointed. to fill in the gap I had a 180 and I got a zeiss mutar and I see no degradation with the 180 and the 2x mutar.

 

I did use the 500 tessar and there was fringing my friends used a 350 tessar adn got fringing.

 

The apo is a whole different lense than the tessar. Don't hesitate to get one.

 

And all those ridiculous comments like get closer are just taking up space.

I wish I could afford such glass...I have the 150 and am considering purchasing a 250 for wildlife.

 

With the combo I wonder if handholding would be impossible. I do a lot of street "propping" by laying my camera on anything from benches to mailboxes. You would be suprised at how many newspaper machines allow for good vantage points, but that's another post.

 

Good luck! Let us see some examples if you think of it.

 

Patrick

I've tested the old 250mm zeiss versus the 180 zeiss and the 1.4x when I

used hasselblad. The 180/1.4x combo was clearly superior, then again the

old 250mm zeiss was not very good. I don't think you'd lose much image

quality with the 1.4x. I've done a few shots with it on my Rolleiflex and it is

virtually lossless. The 2x does come at a price in that there is a clear loss of

resolution. The most important factor that you will have when dealing with

very long lenses is going to be supporting them well. If the 350mm does not

have a tripod collar I would call that a considerable flaw, and it would also

make the use of a 1.4x a bad idea as it would further overextend the lens from

the body/mount point, greatly exacerbating the problem. Even if you use

mirror lock up, which I suggest you do with any MF SLR, even with shorter

lenses at nromal speeds, the shutter itself creates enough vibration to cause

the loss of resolution. The idea of adding a small sandbag on the lens would

lessen the vibration. I would also test carbon fiber versus metal tripods as I

have found that metal tripods "ring" with vibration whereas carbon fiber ones

seem to dissipate the vibration.

 

If you look on the Luminous landscape site, there is an article about a long

lens tripod mount that lowers the center of gravity with long lenses, it might be

helpful. But no matter which lens you get, you will not get your moneys worth

unless you deal with the vibration problems.

 

www.kosoff.com

Thanks for all the responses so far. B Kosoff....your photos in your website are great!

 

The 350mm Superachromat actually has a tripod mount on the barrel, which the C/CF versions didn't. This does solve a lot of vibration problems. I have a Tiltall which seems to work fine as long as I beanbag (or similar) the camera/lens unit. My other tripod is a Linhof Heavy Duty with a fluid head...great...except it weighs 29lbs!

 

Patrick: You should have no problem hand holding a 250mm as long as you utilize a higher shutter speed. The 250mm (non Superachromat) gets negative comments on photo.net but it still produces fine images and it performs well wide open. This will allow you to utilize higher speeds as long as you focus carefully and don't require much depth of field. The 250mm is only 4 elements and few internal air surfaces to worry about. Hence, an earlier non T* should perform quite well and can probably be purchased for a very reasonable price. Good luck!

One advantage of using the 500mm over the 350mm is that with the 350, you are pretty well limited to 700mm if you ever decide to get a 2x converter along with the 1.4. The 500mm will get you up to 1000mm. Also, for some really interesting compression effects, I've used the 2x and 1.4x together to make a 1400mm lens out of my 500 APO (sharpness of image was not my main concern in that case). That said, the 350 Superachromat is an outstanding optic that is both sharp and bright. If you don't intend to go over 500mm, then my vote is for the 350 with converter.

I take the liberty of mentioning the FE 350/4. Not only due to the full stop faster speed, which itself would have been reason enough, with brighter view and possibilty to really decrease the depth of field. But the FE 350/4 focus directly down to 1,9 meters with smooth inner focus. Compare that minimum distance with 3,75 m for the SA. Generally my heart also belongs to the CFi/CFE lenses with central shutter. But the exeption is the FE 350/4.

 

It also has tripod mount on its barrel.

Don't have a 2000/200-body? Get one ;-)

 

Also consider what Kornelius J. Fleischer writes:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006XPl