Hasselblad 150 F4 CF vs CFi?

<p>I am looking at different lenses for my 503CW as I start to build out my kit and the 150mm focal length should work well for some of my work, but the wide angle lenses will get more use from me. Based on a review of the used market I have found that I can get a CF version in excellent condition (keh.com standards) for about $400 and the CFi in the same condition is twice the cost or even more. Is there any reason to spend the extra money on the CFi for this lens?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your help.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

 

Twice the cost will not buy you better image quality. Just a newer lens, in a bit more ergonomic mount.<br>So provided the CF indeed is in excellent condition, i would be more than happy spending the $400 i'd safe buying the CF lens instead of the CFi on yet another lens.

<p>I have and use an ancient satin finish chrome C model 150mm f4 that I use with 500C (transitional model ca. 1970 with user changeable screen). the optics and shutter operate superbly, the barrel has cosmetic wear marks. the lens was $160USD on the infamous auction site. I'm very happy with it. It was aptly described by the seller. There are Hasselblad bargains out there, especially with older items.</p>

<p>Q.B., thanks again for your fast response. Your advice has been spot on for me and I really appreciate your insights and help.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>I have exactly the same kit as Paul, camera as well as lens. Paid $180 for the C lens.</p>

<p>If I remember correctly, the optical design never changed between the series, but someone may be able to confirm that. Apart from T* coating or not of course. It is a stunning performer and one of my favourite lenses.</p>

<p>The CFi is a much easier lens to work with, the focusing barrell was redisigned ; $$$$$ permitiing, I would make the stretch to get the CFi, I much prefer mine, and they look a whole lot cooler also.</p>

<p>I whole heartedly agree that an old chrome lens will give you superb quality, but I have to say that all my recent purchases have been CFi, when the lens is reasonably priced, or CF. I have completed my acquisition of lenses I wanted, and now, over several years, will upgrade my older lenses to newer versions. I would not pay much more for the I version though.</p>

<p>I <em>have </em>found it interesting that the 150mm's have been going for a song lately.</p>

 

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>I'm curious about your statement that your 500C is the transitional model with interchangeable screens. How does one figure out if one has that version? I'd like to change my screen as well.</p>

<p> </p>

Having bought and used both the 150 CF and CFi, I ended up returning the CF and keeping the CFi, though it cost

me some 40% more. There was no difference in the image quality which I could see (which probably means nothing)

but the "feel" in the hand and the ergonomics of the CFi felt superior. I suppose this is a very personal opinion, so

perhaps you could also try them both to see which one you liked better.

 

I understand that for some other lenses there may be differences in the optics between CF and the newer models.

<p>Dan, I have a similar body. It is from 1971 according to the serial number. It seems that some bodies around that time were marked "500C" but had the user changeable screen mechanism officially introduced with the 500c/m. This is why those 500C are called transitionals.</p>

<p>You can still change the screen on a "classic" 500C, but it is best done by a repair person unless you are comfortable with camera mechanics since it can be a bit fiddly, like stuck screws. It may even need adjustment which requires a very expensive jig.</p>

<p>Sorry for the off-topic.</p>

<i>"[...] It may even need adjustment which requires a very expensive jig."</i><br><br>It will <i>certainly</i> need adjustment.<br>The screws holding down the screen also set the screen position. So remove the screws, to change the screen, and you will need to set the screen in the correct position again.<br><br>The screen in the pre-"/M" cameras consists of a glass bit, a plastic Fresnel lens that goes underneath the glass, one (or more) metal frames that the Fresnel lens and glass rest on, and which act as springs, pushing the Fresnel lens and glass up. A metal frame that goes over the assembly, and four tiny screws that go through little tabs, which in turn hold the top frame (and all that is underneath that) down.<br>A bit longwinded, but it demonstrates (i think) that changing a screen isn't as simple as getting another one and dropping that in. And that to change the screen for another one, you have to find another one, i.e. the available screen assemblies that drop into later cameras need taking apart before they can be used in pre-"/M" cameras.<br><br>Setting up the screen position without expensive tools is possible. But a lot of work. A trial and error thing. But doable.<br><br><br>The optical design of the 150 mm Sonnar hasn't changed since it first appeared in the 1950s. There was no need to. There still isn't.

<p>I personally find the shutter speed / aperture interlock easier to use on the CF versions.</p>

<p>Personally I would go with the CF and pass on the CFi. My 150mm f/4 Sonnar is a C, which is a superb lens from the word go, however the single shutter speed/aperture ring is a little inconvenient. I have two CF lenses, my 40mm and 60mm Distagons, and they too are superb and more convenient with a separate shutter speed and aperture ring.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your help and comments. I went with the 150 CF lens. I've got the 50 CFi, 80 CF and now 150 CF. I am on the hunt for a 120 Makro next and that should round out my glass. I am guessing based on everything I read about the 120, the results optically should be the same on a CF, CFi or CFE. If I remember right I think I would have to go with a CFi or CFE to get FLE. Is that correct? </p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<i>"If I remember right I think I would have to go with a CFi or CFE to get FLE. Is that correct?

"</i><br><br>It is not, no.<br>They are all the same, from C^* to CF to CFi/CFE: none of them have FLE.<br><br>(^* The C 120 mm S-Planar is the same design, but the mount/shutter restricted the speed to f/5.6.)

<p>Q.G., thanks for keeping me on track... I appreciate it!</p>

<p>Tim</p>

 

I had to look to be sure, but it's the Contax 645's f/4 120 mm Apo-Makro-Planar that has FLE. An excellent lens, judging by the MTF-sheet.<br>But you probably do not want to get another camera system to use that lens. ;-)

<blockquote>

<p>The C 120 mm S-Planar is the same design, but the mount/shutter restricted the speed to f/5.6.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Comparing the MTF curves for the C 120 S-Planar and the CF 120 Makro-Planar suggests that they are not identical to the degree that say the C and CF 150 are. The CF 120 is better at infinity focus, and the C is better at 1:5. Doubtful that one could do much better than chance looking at a handful of images shot with one or the other and identifying the lens used, though. The CF is almost certainly easier to focus, with its f/4 maximum aperture vs the f/5.6 of the C, but on the flip side, you get f/45 on the C as the minimum aperture vs. f/32 on the CF. </p>

Better at infinity than the C version? Perhaps.<br>But if you think the CF is better at infinity than at 1:5 you have mixed up the data sheet info. ;-)<br><br>The differences you see in the MTF charts (comparing C to CF) are due to a few things, like different apertures at which lenses are tested (f/4 vs. f/5.6), sample difference, test difference, and such. But yes, also 'micro management' of the design, mainly related to manufacturing.<br>But basically, it really is still the same design in a different barrel.<br><br>On a different note: the f/45 minimum aperture is not that usefull. Especially in close up work, diffraction will hit image quality very hard. And having done so once, you will find that stopping down to f/45 is not something you will do again in a hurry.