Hasselblad 50CF / 50CF FLE

[andrew booth]

Well, I thought every Hasselblad question had been asked already on

this forum, but not this one!

<p>

I'm going to buy a Hasselblad 50mm lens, and can't jutify the cost of

a new one. I'm therefore looking at good condition 50mm CFs. Reading

through Wildi, and <a

href="http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/hassylens.html">The

Hasselblad Lens Guide</a> I can see that the CFs came onto the market

in '82 and at this time there was a plain 50CF and a CF FLE (Floating

Lens). The CF FLE is apparently not too different to today's CFi FLE,

but I can't find any comparisons betwen the FLE and non-FLE versions.

<p>

So - my question is - is the plain CF worthwhile? I can live with

worse correction at close distances, but for long distances /

landscape is there a lot of difference? Anyone know of a source for

old MTF diagrams one the web? Any other comments would be appreciated

too..

<p>

Thanks!

[fwstutterheim]

The FLE gives better performance at close range only. For long distances it makes no difference. By the way, the FLE has no "floating" elements, the user himself has to float them manually. The correction scale goes from 0 - 4 meters. /Ferdi.

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Kornelius and others know better, but as far as I remember, the 50FLE is a much better lens. Apparently, the regular 50 was never one of the strong points of the system. Kornelius did some tests demonstrating that has been much improved in the re-calculated FLE version. Of course, the FLE is not the factor that improves the long distance performance, but rather the new calculation. BTW, I have the Rollei equivalent of the non-FLE version, and I must have gotten a good one, since it is normally much lamented that the Rollei non-FLE is even worse than the Zeiss/Hasselblad.

[robert_c_harvey]

Andrew,

I've shot with each, and I can't tell the difference in performance! Maybe if you get a magnifing glass or microscope , but they both work fine, and are capable of delivering outstanding images! When I used the fle, I was constantly having to remind myself to check it's setting. You know, with all the other strictly manual settings on the 503cx I own, I didn't need another focusing ring! Plus, you have to "guestimate" the distance, and set it accordingly. I bought the 50cf, and I , and more importantly, my clients are extemely happy!

Robert C. Harvey

[q.g._de_bakker]

Thomas,

 

Something is at odds here. Either Zeiss isn't capable of performing QA good enough to ensure lenses are all of the same standard, or perhaps Zeiss' Director of Strategic Marketing is exagerating the "leap" in quality made in the transition from non-FLE to FLE.

 

Let's suppose your good "bad" Distagon is not exceptional, but just as good as all the other lenses of this type produced. So let's suppose there to be nothing wrong with Zeiss' QA. Then from your own experience with your lens it is obvious that the old non-FLE wasn't that bad as it is made out to be. The improvement in the FLE version then perhaps can't be that big as Strategic Marketing would have us believe?

 

Or let's suppose that the FLE lens is indeed much better, i.e. that the old one is a dog. Then your judgement based on your own experience with your good, but really bad, old lens isn't quite worth a lot?

 

I think we can find a middle road here too. The new FLE lens is indeed an improvement over the old lens, but perhaps not quite that much so we would all run and dump our old versions to buy the new one (which, i'm sure, Zeiss and Hasselblad would like a lot).

The old one isn't so bad at all. No need to shun one of those, even though it would be better for Zeiss and Hasselblad's coffers if we would. ;-)

[terry_dent1]

Check this thread...

 

www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg-id=001AJD

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Q.G., I am sorry, but you have mis-read my post. I am happy with mine. I also haven't done any comparisons myself since I don't have a newer version. I am just saying that as far as I remember, the FLE is not a non-FLE with FLE built in, but in fact a new design, which is, according to Kornelius as well as to MTFs, markedly better. Look up under Kornelius Fleischer. Anyway, I completely agree that the question is academic, at least for me, since I am happy with mine. Having said that though I might want to add the my 40mm Super-Angulon has an edge on it, but that's again an entirely different matter. But sorry again, Q.G., you have mis-read my contribution. I was just quoting others. And sorry, if my phrasing hasn't been clear.

[cameron_ertman]

As a point of interest, I could never really tell by just looking through the viewfinder if my 50mm FLE's ring was correctly set; however, the other day, I was focusing on some distant trees with the 40mm FLE and the trees seemed slightly out of focus. At that point I realized that I still had the FLE ring set at its closest distance. As soon as I set that ring to infinity, the trees were crisply defined. Probably the 50mm FLE would show similar results...I guess that ring does do something after all. The moral of the story: If you get the FLE version, don't forget to set BOTH rings.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Thomas,

 

I think i understood what you were saying alright. ;-)

 

Have a look at it again. If the old lens was that bad as you too say it was ("the regular 50 was never one of the strong points of the system", and "I have the Rollei equivalent of the non-FLE version [...] is even worse than the Zeiss/Hasselblad"), but the one example that you happen to own of this "bad", no, "even worse" lens is "a good one" (and now again you say you "are happy with" it), either Zeiss QA is errant, or your judgment is incorrect.

Or (let's not rule out a third possibility) they produce bad lenses that are good. ;-)

 

My point however was not to cast doubts about your judgement, but merely to warn people to remember that however high we (myself included) value dr. Fleischer's participation in this forum, he still is the one at Zeiss responsible for trying to sell as many new products as possible. So it might be wise sometimes not to mistake his word or authority for revealed truth.

 

Your contribution is a fine example: the part about the old lens being bad, and the Rollei version being even worse, does not agree with your own experience. So where did that come from?

So don't let people convince you of anything you know not to be (all) true. And though i must assure you that i do like to read dr. Fleischer's contributions and certainly do value his input, the aforementionted warning especially applies to people whose job it is to sell you something else than what you have already.

See?

[Rob F.]

Here's the straight scoop:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001AJD">50mm CF vs FLE<a/>

[richard_schlesinger]

Good for you Q.D. Bakker. You've got it right! The quest for the perfect lens - it's always the one I don't have (also the latest, most expensive. But, when the one I have came out it was absoloutely the greatest "tack sharp" best lens in the universe. What happened?

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Thanks, Rob, that's what I meant to say... in one part of my contribution. In the other one I just want to state that I am quite happy with my 50 Distagon for the Rollei, and I am usually quite picky... If you ask me for an insider explanation, I can't give you any, but it has been my experience that there have been great variables between individual lenses, e.g. I once had a not so good 80 and a not so good 250 for my SLX.

 

On another note I perfectly agree with Q.G.'s second part of his contribution: Kornelius' input is much appreciated, seriously, full stop, no question about it. But it is also clear whom he works for, and that comes through in many of his contributions. I commented on that earlier as well.

 

Just to get the logic straight about the first part - I have just referenced quotes/data and compared them to my experience. I did not place any value judgement on their validity. Rob has helped here. The only interpretation I have to offer at this point is individual lens variability, but seriously, I don't know.

 

There is another reason why I like the 50 non-FLE. It is so small and compact. And with the Rollei you can turn it around and it makes a wonderful macro lens. Definitely one of my favorites. What else can you ask for?

[desmond_kidman]

I've owned the 50cf and 50 cf fle. The old 50 is a good lens if not used up close. Up close it is noticeably softer.

 

The 50 cf fle is a very, very good lens at infinity and still a very good lens up close, but not as good as the Makro Planar.

 

Of course many who own the old lens will talk about not believing the new one is that much better. Until they get a new one, when they too will see it is a much better performer overall.

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

Adding some interesting facts to this discussion: I recently did comparison photos between the old Zeiss Distagon 4/50 C and the current Distagon 4/50 FLE at "infinity". I used test targets to get quantifiable results, after I had done tests using my living room bookshelf as test target and found the 50 FLE clearly superior.

 

Here is the quantified result: In the central area of the image, both lenses perform about equal. While the performance of the old formula drops significatly towards the edges, the new one stays on high performance level: The resolution with the new formula is twice as high!

 

Imagine you are a professional photographer, doing a group shot of all the 200 employees of your client's company. You do one version with the old 50 and one with the current 50 CFi. To me, it is very clear which version will sell better.

 

As I said in an earlier post: After having done that comparison in my living room, I soon got rid of this old 50 for my Rollei and got the 50 FLE. And I don't use it close-up. I could tape the FLE ring at infinity position and just forget about it, only using that vastly superior performance and detail rendition I get at infinity.

 

And yes, you are correct: I am working for the company that makes and sells these lenses. I must have an interest to sell new lenses, no doubt about that. But I can only use true statements about these, only statements that I am confident to prove any time. Since I am a photo enthusiast myself (sadly, few managers in the photo industry happen to be this), I am using our stuff a lot myself. So I have experience of my own to share. I just want to let you know about what a person can experience in real world photography (not just on a test bench or MTF measuring instrument), who has all these interesting and expensive gadgets easily available. Assuming to save you some time and rental money for doing comparison experiments yourself. I hope this helps.

 

Certainly, I do not expect everybody owning an old Distagon 4/50 to exchange it for a new 50 FLE CFi. But you should know that better performance can be had for your camera, in case you need it. And the performance of your old Distagon 50 is not a real benchmark for today's image quality of Zeiss medium format optics any more.

[andrew l. booth]

All - thanks for your comments. I'll research the prices of the regular and the FLE lenses - and see what the cost/compromise is.

 

Kornelius - thanks for your input on this. One thing that I should point out [with my MFD moderator's hat on] is that Kornelius has always explicitly stated his relationship with Zeiss in all his postings. If you choose to take this into account when reading his contributions, then that's OK, but I personally have no doubts about his integrity, and I value his contributions to the digest.

[desmond_kidman]

I've already commented, above, on the older/newer 50 issue, but I'd like to add my comment about Kornelius. I own many Zeiss lenses, including some of the units that represent the highest performance of Zeiss which Kornelius has commented on: 38mm, 100mm,120mm, 180mm, 250 SA.

 

While a reminder that he works for Zeiss, and will point out any advantage and improvement this brand has, would be valid, I believe that it was intimated he might go a little further, exaggerating the newer lenses to get people to buy what Zeiss has now. If I were Kornelius I would feel that my integrity had been questioned. I think this went a little far: his points about the special lenses are pretty much on the mark. For example, it would be hard to overstate the performance of the 250 SA. And indeed, the old 50 does pale compared the the newer. We are lucky he comments on this forum, and he shows more restraint and objectivity about the brand that employs him than many forum members do over their pet brand, or over the brand they love to bash.

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Yes. Yes. Yes. I'd definitely agree with this perspective. Kornelius offers unique contributions and insights that are of tremendous benefit to the Digest. I share Andrew's comment in that his input has a degree of enthusiasm that's way beyond mere company interests. It is rather, if I may say so, something like a company patriotism. One really feels how proud Kornelius is of his company.

 

And justly so. Which other company today has such a history to boast? And photographers benefiting from it. Innovative lens designs not only in the recent decade but rather more than 150 years into the past. It is probably accurate to assume that most lenses we are taking picture with today are probably Zeiss designs or copies thereof. Planar, Biogon, Sonnar, Tessar, Mirotar (both in Jena and in Oberkochen). The coating. The collaboration between Zeiss, Abbe, Schott, the social reform in Germany, the impact of the company as a role model for more than a century. I cannot help but have an enormous respect for the overall achievement of Carl Zeiss as a company. I appears as if Kornelius owns this tradition.

 

From another, practical perspective, I personally love the portfolio of extremely fast and extremely sharp Schneider lenses for my Rolleiflex 6000 system. Pretty much all of them. I admire the effort a much smaller company relatively recently invested into developing these tools for us, medium photographers. Whether I'd buy a Biogon? I'd rather prefer the 43mm Mamiya because of the format for this focal length. And there is definitely a huge price associated with buying into the Zeiss system.

 

But there is nobody from other companies joining in here in a fashion Kornelius does. I still remember encouraging a contribution from the Alpa owners which after that completely went out of hand. This has never been the case with Kornelius, and he is in this respect is a role model for everybody else. And then there are these PR masters from Rollei who promise to contribute and then never do. Yes, Kornelius provides the right balance. There are some however, who forget where he is coming from...

[q.g._de_bakker]

Armando,

 

You wrote:

"If I were Kornelius I would feel that my integrity had been questioned."

 

If i were Kornelius, i would feel that people recognise that i am doing my job, and doing it well. ;-)