Hasselblad T* lenses - Are they better ?

[abintraphoto]

I'm about to purchase my 1st Hasselblad - I've seen some good deals

on ebay but some do not have T* lenses. How much emphasis should I

put on making this a requirement ? My understanding is that these

lenses are multi-coated and I presume reduce glare .... any other

differences ? I plan to shoot outdoors and studio still lifes.

 

Thanks ......... Ken

[bill_dewberry]

Get the T* lenses, better coatings, newer features, the lenses really have improved with each generation, so buy the newest model you can. I never liked focusing the T* lenses, the CF series have smoother focusing barrel, but image quality is the same.

[mark_messerly]

If on a budget, don't be afraid of the older plain C. I regularly use a 40 C that is great. Without coating, they are more prone to flair related artifacts, lower contrast, eg if a streetlight is in/near the image (use a lens shade or your hat). They are still excellent lenses if you need to watch the price. Other issues: Pre - CF series lens parts are starting to go away.... Springs or ? may fail in the 30 + year old beasts. Lens shades, filters can be harder to find (try finding a filter for an old 105mm 40 C!)

[bob_salomon]

"Without coating"

 

What do you mean?

 

All Hasselblad lenses ever made for the 500 series, as well as

all lenses for earlier models, are coated. The original lenses

were not multi coated which is all that T* means. Zeiss MC.

 

Most Zeiss lenses that were coated prior to T* had a T in a circle

as indicating that they were coated.

[mark_messerly]

Sorry, that should have read 'non T*'

[roger_michel]

with all due respect, the difference between a modern multi-coated lens and a single coated lens is often enormous. coatings may sound like an insignificant feature in the overall scheme of lens design but, together with molded aspheric elements and exotic new glass formulas, new multi-coatings are among the most important achievments in modern lens manufacture. flare robs sharpness long before it is visible as a major aberration on a negative. a properly executed MC can help a good lens design achieve truly outstanding results. dr fleischer, where are you???

[mark_messerly]

Absolutely there is a difference! I didn't mean to minimize the importance of the technology. I wanted to address the issue of cost versus what may or may not be obvious deficiencies in choosing one item over another based on the final result. If someone is looking at the price tag, will the result be horrible if the 'non T*' lens is chosen? Probably not. Will a person see the difference in an A/B comparison? Probably, or POSSIBLY, depending on the situation. Is the difference worth the price? Maybe. I've been perfectly happy with both the old dogs and the new lenses in landscape, night and macro exposures. Feel free to browse my web photos and tell me which were exposed with the 'non T*' lenses. (email me for address. I do not sell anything there, it is merely an experiment)

[Aoresteen]

FWIW

 

All Hasselblad Zeiss lenses that left the Zeiss factory from about 1973 on were T* coated. The lenses weren't marked as such until about 1975. There are a lot of chrome lenses out there that are a bargin if you value the T* marking.

 

The only way to determine the date of a chrome lens is to write to Zeiss in Germany and ask. In the early 80's I was stationed in Germany and had a chrome 250 Sonnar from 1974 that the factory verified that it was T* coated but not marked.

 

My current 250 is a chrome; I never bothered to find out what year/coating it is as I like the images it produces so I'll keep it T* or not. A good lens is a good lens!

 

Tony