Hassie CF 80 versus CF 100

<p>I have the opportunity of picking up a CF 100mm Planar in excellent condition, which is reputed to be a very sharp lens in the Blad arsenal. I can sell off my mintish CF 80mm. The difference is approximately $300.</p>

<p>When shooting, the camera is mounted on a sturdy tripod, shutter pre-release is engaged, aperture used is normally in the f16-22 range, and cable release is the trigger mechanism.</p>

<p>Film used is Across Neopan 100 (or similarly fine-grain film) and lab processed.</p>

<p>Maximum enlargement size is 16x16 B&W. It can go as large as 24x24 on the rare occasion. Fiber-based prints are the norm.</p>

<p>Question: Under these conditions, would there be a significant and notably distinct difference in the output results between the two lenses? Would you go with the 100 anyway or keep the 80... and why?</p>

<p>[Let's leave the angle of view difference out of the equation for the purposes of this posting... :)]</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any comments.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"[Let's leave the angle of view difference out of the equation for the purposes of this posting... :)]"</p>

<p>Can't. Under those conditions AOV is likely to be the only noticable difference.. other than your wallet being $300 lighter.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a sharper lens, try shooting at f/11, before diffraction comes into play. But I agree with Brian -- the biggest difference will be the angle of view. 24x24 or not a demanding print size for the 80mm planar given your use of a tripod and cable release. You might see a difference at f/4, but not f/16 or f/22. If you are not doing it already, you would probably notice more of a difference in sharpness by using a glass negative carrier, perfectly aligned enlarger and a top notch enlarging lens (like a 90mm APO Componon HM).</p>

<p>The most visible difference would be that the 100mm has absolutely no distorsion</p>

<p>The CF100/3.5 is significantly sharper at the edges and at any aperture than the CF80/2.8, but especially superior at f/5.6 or wider. I bought this lens specifically for shooting large groups in available light, typically at f/4 or f/5.6. Faces were noticeably blurry at the edges with the 80mm, but sharp and clear throughout with the 100mm. I doubt you would notice a difference in landscapes, where the expectation of uniformity is much lower.</p>

<p>Hi again... thank you all for the quick replies!</p>

<p>Brian, yes, you're quite right in regards to the AOV as being a major difference between the two lenses. I was more interested in the output end of things. So, all things being equal, looking at two 16x16/24x24 (adjusted for AOV) B&W images side-by-side, one taken with the 80 and the other with the 100, will there be a huge difference with respects to sharpness or contrast? [i would assume that shooting in colour may yield more variance (wrt to contrast) than in B&W?]</p>

<p>Stuart, great comment with respects to diffraction. Would f11 be the optimal shooting aperture for the 80 and 100 only? Or, is this applicable to most other Blad lenses as well? My understanding is that larger sized enlargements are impacted more so by diffraction issues than smaller sized enlargements. And, of course, the size of the negative.</p>

<p>[i also shoot large format and optimal shooting apertures vary from lens to lens. Also, when shooting 8x10, diffraction issues are not as prevalent when contact printing as it is when enlarging. I thought this would also apply to MF. Or, is it a totally different can of worms? :)]<br>

Yes, a glass negative carrier also makes good sense in achieving print sharpness...</p>

<p>Roland, I should have stated that I shoot mostly landscapes/cityscapes so distortion usually isn't a huge issue for me. I can certainly understand how distortion would come into play when doing architecture, or portraiture for that matter. The fellow offering the 100 says that this is also a great portraiture lens. [i already have a 150 Sonar in my kit. Just need to add a 10 - 16mm extension tube to it for tighter head and shoulder kinds of shots.]</p>

<p>Again, thank you for your replies.</p>

 

<p>Hi Edward,<br>

Great... thank you for your comments. I can certainly understand where the 100 would be far sharper at wider apertures. So, it's sharper than the 80 even at smaller apertures as well... I'll have to give this more thought before I decide.<br>

Cheers</p>

 

<p>Check Carl Zeiss lens data for an independent valuation of both lenses.</p>

<p>Distortion, light loss and MTF data all show the 100 mm is the better lens.<br>

What these data mean in a practical sense for landscape is for the user to decide.</p>

<p>Stopping down any further than F8 does not improve IQ.<br>

This goes for both the CF 80 and the CF 100.</p>

<p>Carl Zeiss developed two lenses for the MK 70 fotogrammetrie system both with ultra low non linear distortion.<br>

These are a 60mm Biogon and a 100 mm Planar.<br>

This 100 mm MK 70 Planar lens is nothing other than a blue printed 100 mm C/CF Planar lens.<br>

The 60 mm Biogon is of different design than the 38 mm Biogon but built along the same lines of a symmetrical design.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have both and aside from the angle of view, overall the 100 to me is "the queen bee". When you're shooting with this, I really think you've got the best there is. Along side this would be the 180, "the king", another steamer. Is there a bad HB lens, I don't think so, but I think the two I mentioned get the thrones. Also just the way that lens breathes is so fantastic, the images are kind of alive.</p>

<p>p.s. I was responding with specific consideration for the "significant and notably distinct difference" part of the original question. I agree that the MTF curves, etc, scientific usage, etc, but have never seen noticable distortion from my 80 CFE, even on the edges, when a tripod, pre-release, and cable release has been used. Maybe I need to borrow somebodys microscope?</p>

<p>(I don't quite know what to think of Edward's experience -- I'd never doubt him but have never seen anything quite as bad as he describes. Bad sample, maybe, Edward? Or an out-of-level enlarger?)</p>

<p>In the end, though, if you want the better specs, the 100 is the way to go... and maybe you'll think that there is a ""significant and notably distinct difference".</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>Paul... that's high praise indeed.<br>

Dave... I understand where you're coming from.<br>

Thanks Brian...</p>

<p>All your comments are greatly appreciated... I'll pick up the 100 and experience it first hand.<br>

Cheers</p>

 

<p>H.C.</p>

<p>Well done!<br>

Another user that will be pleased to see results from the 100 mm Planar in a while.</p>

<p>Audio and photography have much in common.<br>

Not only the weakest link part but also the strongest link:<br>

Quite often one part of the chain improved leads to considerably better results.<br>

I experienced that with the 100 mm Planar.</p>

<p>The 100 mm MK 70 lens came many years after I first used a 100 mm Planar lens for the first time.<br>

A lucky find that happens once in a life time.</p>

<p>H.C.</p>

<p>Compare the two, and report your findings here.</p>

<p>Hi Paul,<br>

I'm looking forward to giving the 100 a go...<br>

With regards to your audio comparison... that's why I enjoy listening to vinyl recirds and shooting film! :)<br>

Yes, sometimes luck comes along when you're not looking for it. :)</p>

<p>Hi Q.G.,<br>

I may or may not be able to do a comparison as I'm probably going to dispose of the 80 right away (prior to receiving the 100.) However, I will do so if I have the opportunity. :)</p>

<p>Thanks again for all the input...<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>You could take a photo with your 80 mm now of something you could take a photo of later with the 100 mm.<br>

;-)</p>

<p>[Double post deleted]</p>