CF 80 vs. CFE 80, user experienses wanted

My most used lens is the Hasselblad 80 mm normal lens,

so why not get the best there is (instead of getting

some extra lens that I wouldn't use so much)? I would like to hear

of your particular experience concerning differences

in image quality and handling between the previous

CF 80 (which I own) and the new CFE 80. Does the new

lens, CFE 80, provide a noticable difference in image clarity

from the CF 80 in any situations?

 

Thanks, Peter

Peter,

 

If you want better quality and like the 80 then check out the 100 instead. It's a little longer but everything I've read, even from Hasselblad, says it's a better lens. The field of view isn't that much different from the 80.

The 100 is exactly the answer I was going to give, but if you really want another 80 they're too close to call except for that flash connector on all the new lenses. My friend has the CFE 80 and I have the CF and CB. I have printed B&W from all these lenses and the CB is slightly different but the other two are identical to my eyes and loupe.

Thanks. The sharpness and contrast of CF 80 is just fine,

during many conditions. It doesn't behave that well with

back-lit objects however and sometimes I don't notice

the flare until I see the developed film. The perspecive

difference between 80 and 100 seems quite large to me,

I see the difference even between 75 mm and 80 mm. No,

the 80's fine, except for clarity in back lit situations.

I will rent a 100 though, to see what it's like.

Slightly longer than "normal" prime lenses are generally the sharpest, regardless of brand. Look at the various test results on the web and you'll see. The 90 vs 105 on the Pentax 6x7 comes to mind. My own experience testing my Mamiya TLR lenses shows, however flawed my testing method of a single sample, the 105mm is sharper than the 80mm overall. Long focus lenses generally have as many elements as the companion "normal" but have a smaller field of view, so one would expect better edge sharpness. With 50mm lenses on 35mm cameras this is a bonus since the "normal" lens would be 38-43mm, depending on cropping to 4x5 or 4x6 proportion.

Zeiss do make a big thing about the superiority of the 100mm, but the MTF curves seem difficult to tell apart to me to be honest, especially when you consider that the 80mm is half a stop faster which is always useful. The 100mm is meant to have a very flat field which is makes it excellent for certain applications ("critical work" according to Zeiss). I realize that MTF curves do not tell you everything, but in terms of resolution it is hard to tell the difference between the two. Note I do not have a 100mm myself, but have wondered about getting one.

Peter, you wrote: "The sharpness and contrast of CF 80 is just fine, during many conditions. It doesn't behave that well with back-lit objects however and sometimes I don't notice the flare until I see the developed film." Isn't this interesting? Flare, caused by the lens, is really visibly in the viewfinder of an SLR. Flare that is on film but was not visible before, has been caused by something which happened behind the viewfinder mirror. Did you know that around 50% of the flare in an older camera is caused by the inner walls of this camera? The full flare suppression capability that you will find in a new Hasselblad + lens is available only if the camera body is also a relatively new one (made after 1995).

Kornelius, my 503 CXi was manufactured in 1996 according

to the serial number.

There is no difference between these two lenses as regards the definition or contrast. The CFE of course, has no built-in shutter. The optical design is the same - according to Hasselblad, that is. Two very good lenses.

Regards, Mike

The CFE-80 does indeed have a leaf shutter firmly attached.