Hasselblad 60mm CB vs 60mm CFI - differences?

<p>I believe these lenses are opitically the same. Is this correct or incorrect? I have one of each and trying to decide which to let go, both are mint. Thank you.</p>

<p>I deleted my last message because I was mistaken... thinking of the CB and CFi 80mm, which are different.</p>

<p>From a very reliable source (posted at photo.net once upon a time):</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 20, 2005; 12:59 p.m.</p>

 

<p><em>"The only "inferior" CB lens is the 80mm. All the others are equivalent to the CFE and CFi in terms of quality."</em> and <em>"CB lenses are IDENTICAL to the CFE and CFi in terms of lens formulations"</em><br />Not quite. The only (!) CB lens that is identical to, and on par with, the other series is the 60 mm (and maybe the extremely rare 120 mm). The rest is not.</p>

 

<p>I just pulled out my old lens catalouges, and the zeiss optical charts and element diagrams and all that good stuff, and yes it appears the CF and CB 60s are identical, I did not find a reference to the CFi, but I would venture to guess it too is the same. Originally there was no CFi 60, I think they were going to drop it out of the line. The 80s also were a confusion of their own, a C80 was produce shortly with no F setting, but identical to the glas in the CF, then the six element CB came out and the C was dropped. (Are we confused yet?)</p>

<p>Even the 3.5/60mm C is the same. Excellent lens by the way!</p>

<p>Somehow I don't buy the "inferior" adjective when discussing relatively modern Zeiss lenses or the Hasselblad system in general. I have an older 60C and had it serviced etc and it still delivers terrific images. My 80CB and 160CB deliver excellent images . . . as good as my 80CF etc. Oh, but the 160mm is a bit unique, and I like it. The cost of ownership is quite pleasant too.</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>There is excellent, and a bit better than excellent. ;-)</p>

<p>The CB lenses were part of a marketing scheme, that tried to persuade people who had always wanted to, to buy a Hasselblad, by offering a Budget level entry.<br />The other part of that scheme was to have those people want to upgrade to the other level eventually.<br />For that last bit, some incentive was necessary, and they provided that by making the CB 80 mm and 160 mm lenses a bit less than their counterparts.<br />They could do that without losing face, since it is generally understood that you get what you pay for, so if you pay less, you already expect to get less.<br />And why would anyone still buy the more expensive counterparts if they were not better?</p>

<p>So it was not kept a secret that these two CB lenses were a bit less. We needed to know for the marketing thing to work. (It didn't anyway, because people want to buy a - still expensive, even the Budget line - 'high end' camera system because it is just that. Not because it is a bit less than 'high end').</p>

<p>That doesn't mean, of course, that you can't like these lenses.<br>

The f/2 110 mm Planar too is not very good wide open, and needs to be stopped down quite a bit to equal the other Zeiss lenses in performance. Yet t produces a very distint look that people like a lot.</p>

<p>It has nothing to do with being modern either. A good manufacturer can deliberately make less good products even today. ;-) And Zeiss (though reluctantly) did.<br>

Another Hasselblad related example is the H-series 28 mm lens. It was deliberately left with rather serious lens faults, to keep its price down. Being a lens for digital photography offered the opportunity to correct the faults later in software. And so it is done.</p>

<p>I have never owned the 60CFI, but have owned the 60CB for the last two years. It is sharp, contrasty, and feels and looks the same as all my CFI lenses. It is optically the same lens at the CFI so I feel it was a bargain.</p>

<p>The CB mount is very much like the later CFi mount.<br />So - with the glass being the same - your CB lens is almost a CFi version. ;-)</p>

<p>Great lens, the f/3.5 60 mm, isn't it?</p>

<p>Quote: <br /> <em>The CB mount is very much like the later CFi mount.</em><br /><em>So - with the glass being the same - your CB lens is almost a CFi version. ;-)</em><br /> <em>Great lens, the f/3.5 60 mm, isn't it?</em><br /> :Close Quote</p>

<p>Hi Q.G. deBakker,<br /> Chiming in several years after your last post: I agree that the 60mm Zeiss lens for Hasselblad is great. Are you at liberty to describe the differences between the CFi and CB mounts? If so, would you please do so here?<br /> I've also seen you mention that the CB-Prontor shutter is not the same as the CFi-Prontor shutter. The same curiosity applies to the differences between these.<br /> Many thanks in advance. Sincerely,</p>

<p>-J.</p>