250mm Lens for Hasselblad: which one is sharper?

In this example, I compare three lenses - CF250/5.6, CF180/4 and CF150/4. They were taken with a Hasselblad ELD555, mirror up, and a Hasselblad CFV16 (v1) back. The samples are 600x600 pixels, taken near the center of the 4080x4080 image, with PhotoKit Output Sharpener applied. I used an RRS #2 carbon tripod and BH-55 ball head. No additional support was needed for the lens. The exposure was ISO50, 1/4" @ f/16 (I don't trust my eyes to focus at f/4 any more.)

 

Judging from details in the yew needles and flower petals, no one lens stands out from the others. As someone said above, a so-so lens by Hasselblad standards is a great lens compared to most others. The 250 has noticeably less contrast than the 180 and 150, but that's an easy fix. Other than mild sharpening, no adjustments were made to these images beyond LightRoom defaults (whatever they are). Oh, and I should have cleaned the sensor ;{

 

The OP didn't say what kind of pictures he is after, of if he is shooting B&W . If distance is involved, I think the right filter would contribute to sharpness.

BTW, I remember seeing a tripod "strut" at one time that would go from the lens to the forward tripod leg. Something like that might help as well as two tripods.

Judge for yourself. Late Afternoon Buttes, Sedona, AZ

 

500CM, 250mm f/5.6 C T* Sonnar with 25A filter. Shot on Kodak T-Max 100 developed in D-76 1:1

 

I have a 30x40 print of this hanging in my den.

 

The OP didn't say what kind of pictures he is after, of if he is shooting B&W . If distance is involved, I think the right filter would contribute to sharpness.

 

The OP has also put "mediocre" and "Hasselblad" in the same sentence

Well this is an "ancient" thread from 2018 so no doubt the OP is long gone. Interesting enough discussion however- and didn't Ansel Adams use a Hasselblad V system camera and a 250mm Sonnar lens to shoot Half Dome with Moon? I could well be mistaken in this...

 

The OP didn't say what kind of pictures he is after, of if he is shooting B&W . If distance is involved, I think the right filter would contribute to sharpness.

 

Hello forum.

 

I've heard that 250mm Lens for Hasselblad V-series is mediocre: never achieves impressive image.

 

I wonder if anyone tested below and if there any 'lesser of all evils' ?

 

Shooting landscapes with it - mid-range and infinity focus is of interest...

 

Which one gives best image quality in terms of sharpness / contrast / and with nice bokeh if viewed with 100% enlargement?

 

Sonnar C 250mm f/5.6 (non-T*)

Sonnar CF 250mm f/5.6 (non-T*)

Sonnar CF 250mm f/4 T*

 

Thanks!

 

I don't shoot many landscapes and so far I've mostly used my 250mm Sonnar CF *T lens to shoot "close-up" or detail shots, and all wide open. It's sharp enough for me and I love the way it renders. I think it has a unique way of compressing the background, and I love my results whether in B&W or color.

 

I was looking and looking at 250mm lenses for my 500CM last year but the decision was made to go with the CF *T version after I was told that any filters and hoods would be compatible with the 80mm Planar and the 180mm Sonnar lenses I already owned.

 

EDIT- most if not all of these photos were shot using a tripod and cable release.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below is one of the rare "landscape" shots I took last fall. not by any means a long distance shot but it sure seems pretty sharp to my eye, from near to far.

 

H 203 + 250 SA handheld no mirror-up (maybe with 16+21 macro ring)

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by jean_philippe_amans

H 203 + 250 SA handheld no mirror-up

 

 

Nice images but I must say I can't see much of a difference between the shots with the Super Achromat and my own CF *T 250mm Sonnar Am I missing something or is there some specific way of shooting to bring out the best of the SA version?

Nice images but I must say I can't see much of a difference between the shots with the Super Achromat and my own CF *T 250mm Sonnar Am I missing something or is there some specific way of shooting to bring out the best of the SA version?

The SA images shown are indeed not sharp. But that is not because of the lens, but (sorry!) because of how it is used.

The SA is indeed the sharpest of them all. You have to be carefull (exact focusing, tripod) to make the better quality compared to the regular Sonnar visible.

And the regular Sonnar is quite good itself (better than the images shown here and the MF images thread made with the SA. Sorry Jean Philippe! I do not know what it is, but your images always lack sharpness. Not just those made with the 250 SA).

The ground glass may be mis-positioned. That's unlikely, so when focusing the camera, be sure to focus your eye on the gridlines or other feature in the focal plane. Acute-Matte screens are lightly ground for brighness, and don't form a solid image plane.