How much better are new Zeiss lenses?

[ernie_gec]

As a "C" series Hasselblad lens user I'm surprised at the feedback on

various threads in this forum suggesting that the improvements in the

newer CF & CFI lenses are incremental, at best. I think of Kevin

Kolosky, a few threads back, who indicated that he's used all of them,

and can't see a difference in sharpness. For those with technical

understanding out there I ask, hasn't the intervening 30+ years of

evolution in manufacturing tolerance with CNC machining & other

methods of error reduction made the actual grinding of lenses & other

assorted lens assembly specifications more substantially capable of

improved final results? Think of 30 year old car engines. They pale

in comparison to the modern version in almost any respect; horsepower

per unit of displacement, fuel efficiency, reliability etc. How come

the same dramatic advances seem to have eluded lens design?

[andrew_schank]

I am no Hasselblad expert, but a few of the 30 and 40 year old Leica lenses I use are pretty darn close to the current ones in terms of color reproduction,and resolution/contrast. I am also still amazed at the results I get with the 40 year old Zeiss Planar on my Rollei TLR. I think the major lens improvements in the last few decades have been in the coatings (flare resistance and wide open contrast improvements)and with the zoom /superwide/ super telephoto designs. The slight wide, normal, and short tele's haven't been improved upon that much in my opinion.

[kevin_kolosky]

Ernie

 

You are correct. I have been using Hasselblad cameras and lenses for almost 30 years. I have use the silver ones, the black t star, the cf, and now cfi. I always upgraded for tax reasons and not for other reasons. I can honestly say that I cannot see a difference in sharpness today from 30 years ago "that is attributable to the lenses". there certainly is a difference in the quality of the films though and that maybe what some people are seeing. One must remember that there are certain physical rules that will always be with us. Diffraction is one of them. flare is another. steadiness is another.

many of those things affect sharpness as much or more than a change in the design of the lens. One thing I would say. In black and white, with the very old Hasselblad lenses that didn't have t coatings, one did not get as high a contrast as with todays lenses. but the difference was negligible with the use of a good lens hood, a tripod, and a cable release.

As far as MTF charts and all of that stuff, I don't photograh charts. I photograph people, and that is what I base my opinion on.

Kevin

[bob_salomon]

Kevin

 

Did you compare the newer lens vs the older lens by shooting

both on the same subject on the same roll of film, under the

same lighting?

 

Or were you looking at different subjects taken at different times,

processed at different times, possibly at different labs, etc.?

 

If you did not do a direct comparison you really have no basis for

a valid comparison between the designs.

 

MTF curves are never photographed, they show you what a lens

will do at various ratios like the one used for portraits.

 

The older style tests based on photographin a flat chart are the

ones that won't tell you much but MTF are not even made by

shooting a chart.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ernie,

 

The evolution in design and production techniques hasn't prevented the new, redesigned 38 mm Biogon to have *worse* MTF performance (all be it only slightly) than the old one hailing from the days of slide rules and production quality being determined by craft, not CNC.

 

Progress is only economic.

[pete_andrews]

This is no answer really, but I recently revisited my (reprinted) copy of Isaac Newton's "Opticks", published in 1730, and written decades before that. In it, Newton describes and gives a diagram of a water filled glass lens, designed to correct both chromatic and spherical abberation. Astonishing!<br>This was an elegant design from over 3 centuries ago. So we can either say that the art of lens design has long reached maturity, or it's very slow in making progress. Take your pick.<br>The real breakthroughs have been in glass technology, and there's been nothing really new there since the 1950's.<br>CNC machining has probably made sample variation smaller, and rejection rates lower, giving us comparatively cheaper lenses, that's all.

[victor_randin]

Ernie, I compared an older Sonnar C 150mm/f4 and a Di 40 C (both non-t*) to a newer Cfi ones (both pair with a shade and on a tripod) shooting as a flat chart, so a landscape and a portrait in equal terms and conditions. There was no any noticeable difference for my friends and me. Maybe some delicious electronic-optical device could find any difference but not a human eye. I can�t pay for invisible things. Since getting these results I stopped all further researches at all.

 

Somebody enjoys a lens design and MTF-curves, somebody enjoys a real photos, and somebody tries to sell a new production.

[tim_brown5]

Bob, you're too quick to get defensive about what Kevin said: in real world shooting there are many other things going on that can hide the difference between a great older lens and a great newer lens. What constitutes a valid test? Usefull information. Kevin's conclusion is at least as usefull to someone considering used Hassy lenses as optical bench results.

[bob_salomon]

I am not suggesting anything other then direct comparison tests

between old and new lenses.

 

Short of that MTF will tell you what a lens can do.

 

I am not being defensive I am pointing out that indirect

comparisons under different conditions at different times does

not tell that much.

[kevin_kolosky]

in reply, I have to say that my comparisons are over time, and are visual rather than through scientific testing. I base it on what I see in either a 24 x 30 or 30 x 40 inch enlargement using the current kodak 16o speed portrait film. I look at prints done a long time ago, and ones done not that long ago, and ones done this year. I can certainly see the difference in the quality of the film (less grain, smoother tones, etc.) but I do not see a difference in sharpness. Of course, I am sure that those who shoot positive film could be more critical because color negative film is very forgiving. But I don't even see this softness on the edges that everyone seems to be complaining about. Bottom line, if I did not have the money for new hasselblad lenses and I wanted a hasselblad system, I would not hesitate to purchase the older lenses and use them for critical color negative portrait work. As I said, those who want to use their cameras to look up MTF curves are certainly welcome to do so. I use mine to make photographs.

 

Kevin

[ernie_gec]

Thank you Kevin & all others for your input. It's comforting to know that the super expensive recent incarnations of the older products aren't something we budget bound enthusiasts need to strive for in order to produce good work.

[Troll]

One major factor in a redesign criteria is the ability to manufacture more consistant lens, and do it more economically. Thus the lenses may not be any better than the best of the old crop, but there are less borderline lenses, and the price may have only gone through the ceiling, and not out the roof.

[Aoresteen]

I don't know much about the new Hasselblad CFi lenses but my chrome 250 with a pro-shade in still damn good. I'm very satified with it that's why I've kept it for 12 years.

 

I had a chrome 50mm Distagon and never was quite satisfied with it. When I compare B&W negs made with it to my "new" 1982 50mm f/2.8 F Distagon, the chrome lens is a dog. The F Distagon is simply much sharper and has better contrast.

 

I guess the moral is when you get a lens you like, keep it.

 

Tony Oresteen

[bob_salomon]

"I guess the moral is when you get a lens you like, keep it. "

 

And when an improved or better one comes along?

[bob_salomon]

"What constitutes a valid test? "

 

Comparing the lenses at the same time under typical and

identical subject with identical film, lighting and development.

 

Not shooting charts. Using the lens as you plan to use it and

haveing your olf favorite there as a control.

[gary voth]

Most of the new lenses have not been optically redesigned in at least 2 decades. I use them because I like the new barrel ergonomics, mounts and improved focusing feel... But judging from the chomes they produce, I can hardly imagine them needing much improvement.

[bob_salomon]

"Most of the new lenses have not been optically redesigned in at

least 2 decades. "

 

Production techniques have changed greatly over that time.

grinding, polishing, coating technology, etc, are all greatly

improved.

 

So even though the formula is the same the results can be quite

different.

[msitaraman]

I see Dr. Kornelius Fischer, the camera lens department head at Zeiss, does not post very often any more. He used to have definitive answers to questions like this one. In fact, I'm pretty sure he answered this very question in MFD. Just search under his name.