Hasselblad 50mm f/4 CF FLE vs f/2.8 F

Hi! I have been using a 201F with the 80mm F and 150mm F. I have the

opportunity to get the 50mm CF FLE for a reasonable price, but I was a

little tempted to get the 50mm F instead for the extra stop. I'm just

wondering if anyone's tried both the lens? By looking at both the

lenses, I got a feeling that they have rather different optical

formulas. Is one significantly better than the other, especially in

terms of distortion and sharpness? Am I right believe that since the

50mm F has the same optics as the FE, that it has FLE as well?

 

Thanks for your help!

When I had the 50mm FLE I always forgot to adjust it for the distance, which was a huge

pain in the ass.

Max, the 50mm CF FLE is simply sensational. It is a magnificently sharp lens and a joy to use. Very useable (for me) angle of view and always produces amazing shots.

 

I am told that the FLE design feature adds to the image quality of normal 50mm CF lens, which is also regarded as a fine lens.

 

I have never found f4 to be a disadvantage, possibly because I use a tripod 99% of the time anyway and tend to be shooting at f8 or f11.

 

With regard to Really?'s comment about always forgetting to set the FLE focus ring, if you don't suffer from any form of dimentia, it is no problem. I have never read of anyone else complaining about that.

 

It is simple to use - set the FLE focus to one of the three (I recall) distance range positions shown on it and then focus the lens as normal (always set the FLE position first).

 

If you need a lens with a shutter the 50mm CF FLE is the chioce over the 50mm CF as both are f4, but if you don't need the lens shutter and really would use the 1 extra stop, then the non-FLE 50mm F f2.8 lens will still be a very fine choice. But when I think of it, I have never used a Hasselblad lens wide open (but that's due to how I use it and what I use it for and you will be different) so I don't worry about how fast they are. On the focus screen (501CM) it is still nice and bright.

 

Good luck.

According to "The Hasselblad Compendium" by Nordin, the 50/2.8 F has floating elements which are controlled internally by the focusing mechanism. The FE is identical, but has electrical contacts to convey lens settings to the camera.

 

I have a 50/4 CF FLE and concur that it is an outstanding lens, sharp corner to corner. The MTF diagrams published by Zeiss (www.zeiss.de) show that the CF version modestly outperforms the F version in all respects except light gathering: resolution, flatness of field and distortion. It's difficult to know how a chart relates to real-time photography.

>CF version modestly outperforms the F version in all respects except light gathering: resolution, flatness of field and distortion.

 

Sounds like the F is the better lens according to your description.

Raymond, please observe that a colon preceeds a list of properties which are better in the CF than the F version. The syntax is correct, but there was probably a better way to construct that sentence.

I've never used the F, but I do have a 50 CF FLE. Outstandingly sharp lens, I use it on about

60% of my wedding photos, and about the same amount of my landscapes. The second

ring which adjusts the floating lens element, is really a non-issue, as I leave it at the

infinity setting. It's only used when you are shooting a subject very very close (not

something I do a lot with a wide angle).

 

It has a really nice hefty solid feeling to it also. Probably has three times the glass amount

as the 80mm.

I had the 50 mm F first and bought the and the FLE later. I like the FLE more. For starters the FLE is much lighter. Secondly the FLE takes normal filters. Thirdly you can use a better shade. Fourthly you will need less adapter rings when you use the compendium. Five, I believe the lens shutter produce less vibration and at some shutter speeds 1/2 - 1/15 the gives a greater sharpness to my pictures. Six, you can use the FLE on all Hassy camera's with or with the lens shutter. With the F lenses you are limited to F bodies which are out of production as you probably know.

 

Daniel

I agree with all that Simon writes in his answer. I have A CF-FLE50/4, a great lens. I never forget to adjust the FLE-ring before I use the lens.

I also vote for the FLE. When optical performance is the issue, it is the first lens I reach for.

Max,<br><br>Another vote for the FLE.<br>The F(E) lens is massive. LArge. And while the F lens weighs a ton, the second version of the FE weighs a bit less. But still.... And it needs very large filters, and ditto shades.<br>The CF, having a shutter of its own, is more versatile; easier to fit with filters and/or to the ProShade; weighs a good deal less; and is a lot smaller too.<br><br>The F/FE 50 mm does indeed have floating elements in all versions.

I have owned both and cannot see any performance differences. The 93 filter size is not an issue because they also work on the 40mm (CF forward), 350mm F/FE, 350mm Superachromat and 500mm CF. You may want to expand and get one of these lenses eventually. The filters show up on Ebay from time to time, and if you are patient, you will save a bundle. I simply love the brighter image with the F/FE lenses. The 50mm F/early FE will focus very close (down to 12"). I believe that the redesigned FE is lighter, but will not focus quite as close. I have the "F" and it is a heavy lens, but I got used to it and have carried it all day while in Europe mid summer.

 

In summary, I wouldn't fret over image quality. They are both very good. YOU need to decide whether the one stop and close focus is worth giving up a leaf shutter and less weight. All F/FE are FLE design so this isn't an issue.

 

Maybe you can rent them and compare?

Addition: the FLE version will give you an additional F32. Very handy for a wide angle. The F(E) stops at F22.

Here is an old thread with input from Dr. Zeiss:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001m5b

Max: I have the 50mm F 2.8 and would recommend that you chose it not only because it was designed specifically for your 201F, but because it will focus closer and allow you to shoot handheld with the 100 ASA speed films where the shot might require a tripod with the 50mm CF FLE. Also, remember that Ansel Adams was very high on the 2000FC/FCM cameras (predecessors of your 201F) because he had to have accurate calibration of only one shutter, the focal plane shutter in the camera. The 201F has very precise shutter speed calibration. Ansel didn't have to worry about the calibration of the leaf shutter in each lens as he had to with the previous Hasselblad camera system's he owned. And, the mainspring in the 50 mm CF FLE lens is not made from Nivarox (providing reliable operation three times longer according to 6th edition Hasselblad Manual) as were all subsequent CFI and CFE lenses. Of course, Ansel's interest was outdoor landscape photography and if your use would be more for landscape than indoor or flash photography, I would recommend the 50mm F lens, which, as you probably know, will handle flash up to 1/90th second.

Gary,<br><br>Just to put a few things into perspective.<br><br>The F lenses are not better with any type of camera just because they do not work on other (500-series) cameras. If a CF lens should happen to perform equal to, or even better than, an F lens, it does so no matter the latter "was designed specifically for your 201F".<br><br>St. Ansel may have had concerns, yet managed to do quite nicely with his old C lenses. His Hasselblad kit was donated to the Hasselblad Foundation some time ago, and auctioned. All 500-series (leaf shutter C-lens) equipment... ;-)<br><br>The Nivarox main spring in the new lenses may be quite good, but the CF lenses, which do not have it, are holding up quite well after 20+ years, and should hold up better than the C lenses, many of which still work fine after up to almost 50 years. So "three times longer"... hmm... ;-)<br><br>One stop difference in max. speed may seem impressive, but is it really that usefull? I'm not sure it is.<br>And even if, does it weigh up to the fact that the F(E)-lens is much more of a burden? (I find my f/2.8 Distagon gets left home a lot, my CF f/4 Distagon taking its place when i have to carry my gear for more than 5 minutes. ;-)) The f/2.8 is big, heavy, unbalanced, not a pleasure to handle.<br><br>But yes, the f/2.8 Distagon is not bad. And the F and early FE versions focus closer.

Oh, and...<br><br>St Ansel would have had problems too using filters with his f/2.8 Distagon.<br>The "original" 86 mm filters vignet. The replacement 93 mm filters will not, but the lens "shade" isn't that (a shade) anymore as soon as a filter is inserted.<br>Considering a shade is pretty important to image contrast, and that Adams used filters a lot, he would have really (! as opposed to the shutter calibration thing ;-)) had something to worry about there.

Thanks guys for your opinions and recommendations. I think in summary, the benefit of the CF FLE over F is that it's smaller, lighter and takes smaller filters and hood. The advantage of the F is that it's faster and focuses closer.

 

Personally, I'm a bit of a speed junky, that's why I got hooked up with Leica lenses. Since getting into MF however, my style had to change quite a bit. With the tripod, I think speed is not all that important anymore, especially since I probably won't be taking too many wide angle shots with shallow DOFs (got the 150mm F for that). So all in all, I decided to go for the CF FLE, especially since I'm getting a really sweet deal for it. I might try the 50mm F if the opportunity comes up and I can then decide better which one I prefer.

 

Thanks again for your help!

Gave me a nice, warm feeling of confirmation to know how much Mr. Adams and I have in common. I will not junk my "C" lens series.

Q.G. Is there not a compendium contraption that would have allowed Ansel to install rectangular filters ahead of his lenses, especially the wide Distagon, in order to get around any vignetting?

 

Thanks.

 

Ed

Ed,<br><br>There is and there was (but i'm not sure it was in Adam's days) a compendium you can use with the F-lens, yes.<br><br>First, there was one dedicated to 93 mm mount lenses (long lenses and the f/2.8 Distagon) only. You needed the appropriate mounting ring, and a contraption holding the compendium to keep it from rotating when focussing (the entire front part of the old version of the f/2.8 Distagon rotates during focussing). When first introduced, Hasselblad showed a "holder" that fitted beneath the camera, over the tripod coupling plate. The one i have however slides on to the accessory rail on the camera's side.<br><br>The latest version of the f/2.8 Distagon has a non-rotating front, and the current ProShade 6093 can be used, with the correct mounting ring.<br>Which is a good thing, because that "grappling device" on the side of the camera needed before was not very good. Still, we owners of the old, rotating version have little choice...<br><br>But back to the no-vignetting part: only just!<br><br>Ansel would probably have used his "old style" compendium, and possibly gel filters in a slot in the compendium mounting ring.<br>Did he have an f/2.8 50 mm Distagon?

I agree with all of the above concerning the FLE. However, the issue of deciding where to focus is not trivial. I've had trouble with near / far shots that I want to be in focus using the hyperfocal distance. Which slot should one use in that case? I can never seem to get a sharp image other than when I know the subject camera distance.

Square,<br><br>Look at what distance the index is pointing at. Set the FLE ring for that.

Oh, and...<br><br>Hyperfocal distance is DOF related. DOF is acceptable *unsharpness*.<br>Using hyperfocal distance, the bit that is really sharp (only one distance, the one the lens is set to) may be placed where nothing of any importance is.<br>I think it's better to find the "focal point" of your composition, set focus for that, and use DOF only to control the visual relation between that, and the rest of what's in the frame.<br>For instance: a near subject might gain by letting, say, the impressive mountain range in the background be out of focus. Discernible, recognizable, but out of focus by more than just a bit. The same picture, with everything, from near to far, "in focus" may be very boring in comparison.

I have both lenses. I hate the 50mmf4 as often forgot to adjust the front FLE ring. I use them for photograph group photos, and found the f/2.8 can reproduce shaded objects details where no other lense has so far offer me such satisfaction. The lens is heavy no doubt, I make it handy and grip easy by mounting onto contax 645, metered, with in-focus confirmation light, and 16 exposures with 120 film. What a wonder !

Hi folks,

 

I see this is quite an old thread, I hope you guys are still alive and kicking.

 

I am wanting to use one of these lenses on my digital setup, either or, both are readily available on eBay, does anyone have any real life

experience using these MF lenses on a mirrorless system? (Sony a7r) in my case., I will be using it in conjunction with a mirex tilt shift

adaptor.