Using Hasselblad V lenses on a Sony FF Camera

I was skeptic whether this would be worth while, considering published MTF data. In practice, the Hasselblad CF 100 compares favorably with a Batis 135 APO on a Sony A7Riii.

 

At one time, you needed at least two adapters, stacked, to mount a Hasselblad lens on the Sony. On a whim, I checked B&H again, and found a one-piece Fotodiox for a reasonable price. Since I have 7 or 8 lenses, I thought I would give it a try. The Hasselblad lens with the adapter is very large and heavy, not ideal for a walk-about but may give new life to some great lenses.

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/994964-REG/fotodiox_hassy_v_nex_p_adapter_for_hasselblad_v.html

 

The panels are 100% 500x500 pixel crops from a 7940x5320 image, the extreme upper right corner. Both were hand-held with IBIS engaged. A tripod is better for anything 85 mm and above. I see no CA, and little if any flare.

 

Upper: Batis 135/2.8, f/5.6 Lower: Hasselblad CF100/3.5 at f/5.6

It does seem to compare very favourably to the Batis. The purple fringing could probably be minimized.

 

I wonder why the myth persists that medium format lenses are necessarily less sharp than 35mm lenses. Some are, but then some 35mm lenses are also terrible.

I recently bought an M645 to Nikon adapter, and was amazed at the optical quality of my old Mamiya Sekor lenses on DX and full frame. The 300mm f/5.6 Sekor is especially stunning; better than anything purpose made for Nikon in that focal length and aperture.

 

I suspect the fact that those MF lenses had to meet pro expectations over an 80mm image circle has a lot to do with it.

 

Edit: I might get round to some comparison shots later.

Edited May 2, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Fotodiox has two E to V adapters, straight and tilt-shift. I bought the simpler, cheaper version. However the tilt-shift adapter offers up 11 mm of shift, and the axes can be rotated independently. That offers some real possibilities for landscapes, the limited (40 to 250) focal length range notwithstanding. Sony doesn't have native tilt-shift lenses at the present time, and I'm not sure I could justify the cost if there were.

 

Zeiss MTF curves represent a composite of test curves for real lenses, not theoretical values based on ray-tracing software. High-end Zeiss lenses for Sony tend to flat-line at about 95%, whereas Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses top out at about 90%. This suggests that MF lenses have less resolving power. How the difference works out in practice is a work in progress. There is a touch of purple fringing not found with the Batis lens, but black pine needles against an eggshell sky presents a tough test.

I've been happily using Hasselblad C and CF lenses on my Nikon DSLRs for years, glad to hear there is now a direct one-piece 'blad to Sony adapter: thanks for the heads up, Ed_Ingold!

 

Conventional wisdom does tend to apply: larger format lenses with larger image circles usually have lower resolution on smaller sensors than dedicated small-format lenses (sometimes much lower). And you're gonna see fringing, unless the MF lens is an APO, near-APO, or over-spec'd design. So those who live for pixel-peeping and nit-picking may be disappointed. Of course, this is true even of the "best" vintage 35mm SLR lenses: if fringe gives you hives, best stick with the latest Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus.

 

Used appropriately, vintage MF glass can be beautiful on FX or APS-C sensors. The lenses often have a specific "look" distinct from smaller-format optics (esp the Hassy Zeiss, if you don't already own any FX or APS-C Zeiss). At reasonable display sizes, the vintage defects are minimized and the "look" predominates: if this is what you're after, and you already own an MF system anyway, using the lenses on DSLR or mirrorless can be a blast. Especially mirrorless, because focus is more precise and adapted glass of any format is always full manual operation on mirrorless anyway (so its not like you lose any convenience).

 

For reasons I have yet to nail down, I sometimes get unexpectedly different digital results from the older Hasselblad C lenses than the newer CF or CFi. Both are excellent, but on small format the older C Distagons edge out the CF versions by a hair. This was especially surprising when I compared the the old 50mm C T* to the much newer 50mm CF-FLE: the old lens knocks my socks off, the new one not so much. Similarly, I liked the old 60mm and 150mm C a bit better than the CFs I replaced them with. My 80mm C T*, CF and CFE are indistinguishable, the 100mm matches Ed_Ingold's opinion. Between the 120mm Makros, the difference is stark: my newer f/4.0 CF seems much better suited to small sensors than the older f/5.6 C design (the old lens flares like crazy when adapted, as opposed to on 6x6 film where it often bests the newer f/4.0 version). The CF 250mm Sonnar handily beats my old silver C version on FX digital, but this was true with 6x6 color film also.

 

Occasionally I've jury rigged a way to mount the "unadaptable" lenses from my Mamiya TLR and Mamiya Universal press. The TLR lenses are damn near impossible, but I managed a few comparisons between the old silver face 105mm Tessar formula and newer 105mm Helios derivative: both were nice, but not worth the ridiculous effort to use on FX (both "looks" can be duplicated with more convenient FX glass). Of the Press lenses, my 65mm f/6.3 was dull, the 100mm f/3.5 good, and the 150mm f/5.6 was really quite lovely: focus falloff for backgrounds exceeded even the 'blad 250mm (everything but the focused subject melts completely away). Aside from brief testing, unfortunately, theres no practical way to mount the Press 150mm on other cameras for realistic use. It isn't even practical on film with its native Press body, due to poorly designed rangefinder cam (impossible to nail focus). OTOH, the Press 150mm is easily found for $35 with broken shutter: I may just buy a spare and hack it into irreversible adaptation.

Edited May 2, 2019 by orsetto

The Hasselblad CF100 weighs nearly as much as my Sony 70-200 f/4. Manual focusing is pretty precise, due to the 170 deg (or more) of rotation. The 100 is an exceptional lens. It will be interesting to test my other lenses. I may even pop for the shift-tilt adapter.

Interestingly, more than a few architecture and landscape pros have mentioned using the Hasselblad V lenses and a tilt-shift adapter on their Canons and Nikons for some shots, in preference to the makers own dedicated PC glass. Also a fairly common setup on various MF digital rigs (seems ideal for the Fuji GX50, certainly).

 

The size and weight imbalance of the Hassy lenses does seriously impede handheld use on the smaller cams. On bigger DSLRs like the Nikon D700, D800, D810, D850 they're a bit more manageable, at least the 60-80-100 CF/Cfi/CB. The 40 and 50 are just huge/heavy, the 120/150 tricky, the 250 hopeless without a tripod.

 

Back when I briefly owned a pristine mint 40mm C T*, I tried it on my D700. The size/weight was laughably unviable, yet in some ways easier to handle than on the Hasselblad 500cm (where the waist level, front-heavy orientation makes the old 40 seem even larger and more awkward). The unsupported weight felt as if it would easily rip the bayonet right off the D700- glad I didn't have a tiny A7 at the same time as this monster, or I might have extremely regretted the experiment. The optical design was basically a three pound crystal ball housed in a brass cone:

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by orsetto