Hassel wide -angle poor image quality?

[rodrigo_malta2]

My main subject in photo is travel. As I usually don't have as much

time as I want, I end up shooting handheld most of the time. I did

that in the last few years, on Europe and USA, using Rollei TLR's and

Pentax 67.

To avoid the shutter shake I set the Pentax to speeds over 1/125, and

this gave my very good results with my 55mm lens most of the time.

As I am mad with image quality, I decided to by a Hassel combo, what

gave me the extra feature of different magazines with different

films. I ended up with a 500c/m, 50, 80, 100 and 150 C T* lenses.

Everything was checked by Hasselblad.

The 80 and 100mm are really amazing and the 150mm is a good

performer, but not with the same contrast. I can not say the same

about the 50mm.

As the images produced with the 50mm are not up to my expectations (

the images are OK in the center but out of focus in the corners) I

searched this forum for information and found that many people,

including Mr. Cornelius Fleitcher, said that the newer lenses are

much better.

As I have a friend that have 40, 50 e 60mm lenses, before buying a

brand new 50mm, I decided to run a test.

We shoot a bookshelf full of books, cds and magazines in the same

plane of focus, with the new 40, 50 e 60mm lenses, my old 50mm, a

Rollei 3,5 with the wide-angle mutar, and my Pentax 67 with the 55mm.

The cameras were on a heavy tripod and the distance was changed, so

we could have the same image size in each negative. Every lens was

shoot at f 5,6 , 8 and 16.

The results shocked us! The worse was the 40mm, and my 50mm and the

newer one, with the floating element, were tied. All were out of

focus in the corners and we could not read the labels of the cds at

5,6. They are better only at f 16, when we could read everything, but

not perfect.

The mutar and the 60mm were better. At f 5,6 we could read almost

everything with the 60mm and at f16 they gave the same quality,

better than the 40mm and the 50mm, old and new.

The Pentax was the best of all, giving good images at f5,6 and more

detail and sharpness at f16. Please note that the images have the

same size in the different negatives, so the different format is not

a concern.

How can this be? So it's not true that the newer lens are better? If

that's a problem of the retrofocus design why the cheaper Pentax

lens, also a retofocus design, performs better?

So, I will not be able to use my Hassel 50mm lens hand held? What a

shame...

[duane_kucheran]

I must agree with you and your findings. I have a Rollei SL66 with 40 & 50 mm Zeiss Distagons which are the same optics as the earlier Hasselblad 40 & 50 mm units and they are indeed softer in the corners than I would like. Especially at closer distances. I understood that the FLE version of the 50 had improved on this but I don't have a Hasselblad to try it out with. :o) One could explain this by considering that the above lenses were designed in the 60's whereas the Pentax is from the 70's or even 80's. I also suppose that Hasselblad understood this and produced the Superwide that used a truly superb lens, the 38 mm Zeiss Biogon.

 

Anyway, this probably doesn't help but perhaps others may have comments on some of the newer optics.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

[mike_daly]

Rodrigo,

I too am keen on high quality. I would have your lenses checked again by Hasselblad. I have all the lenses you mention and find nothing wrong with them. I don't ever buy any used equipment though - everything I have ever bought has been new.

 

Regards,

[simon_park2]

I tried a similar test with a 40/50mm Cf and a 38mm Biogon -

yes the image quality of the biogon is far better in the corners,

but in practice - out in the field - the others still give the

impression of great sharpness overall... especially in the centres

- sharper/crisper than the Pentax 55 (which I have owned).

[Rob F.]

Rodrigo, as you must have noticed in my thread from about a year ago, I have the same complaint with the 50 distagon CF. It will clean up in the corners at f/16, but this does limit your ability to hand-hold, unless shooting with ISO 400 film. I've observed the problem on two 50 CF's, one used/excellent, the other brand new. And you're right, the 60 Distagon is much better, a great hand-holding lens. The 38mm Biogon is the best of the Hassie wides. I think it's fair to say that the Hasselblad reflex body comes into its own mostly with the normal and longer lenses, but the 60 is an exception.

[Robin Smith]

Rodrigo

 

I have a 50mm CT* and I have to admit I have not really noticed anything wrong with this lens. But on a handling level, I don't really like it - it is heavy and unbalanced and I loath the hood and series filter arrangment. I do, however, virtually never handhold it, so most of my shots are at longer distances and at apertures of f8-f16, and at this I find it works very well. I am not altogether surprised that it is not so good in the corners close up - this is a known failing of the lens - the new FLE version corrects for this. Wide angles are pretty hard to make - this is always the case whatever the format. It is a fact that resolution on wide angles is always below that of normal and short tele lenses and is to be expected. Still, I would not really hesitate to use my 50mm wide open if I had to taking portrait or similar, but for a crisp edge to edge rendition it would have to be on the tripod and stopped down.

[victor_randin]

My both the 50mm and the 40mm take a rest on a shelf since I�ve gotten the 30mm Distagon CT*. The great lens with a great DOF though peculiar one, not for architectural work, of course. Meanwhile I agree with the above postings that the 50mm CT* allows handheld shooting at f8 with acceptable performance and at f11/16 with a good/very good performance.

[joel_sackett]

My first ever post, I must defend the 40 FLE lens. I am currently shooting a series of interiors with people, sometimes with strobes, natural light when I'm fortunate enough to have it. Making 16x20 prints from Neopan 400. Apertures from 5.6-8 to f16. It is sharp, very sharp. I've owned the SWCM and it was great, but I'd rather have the reflex viewing than some imperceptible loss of sharpness.

[andreas_meyer]

Hello Rodrigo, please keep in mind that the use of a stable tripot is essential for top results in medium format. I understand that this is a serious restriction when travelling but at speeds of 1/125 and below dont expect beeing able to evaluate the performance of any lens. You can get good results by chance but thats it. My CF50 has no Problems at al and I'm obtaining best results, also in the corners, so you should maybe have double checked yours. Regards