Endearing qualities in older 150 f/4 Sonnars?

[art waldschmidt]

Are there any Hasselblad photographers who actually notice and

prefer the characteristics of the earlier non-multicoated 150 f/4 C

Sonnar more than the later T* versions? Has anyone noted attributes

which may entail optical "flaws" but which

subjectively/artistically/esthetically are endearing?

(hmmmmmmmm....would anyone admit to it???!!!)

Better bokeh? Were there more diaphragm blades in the earlier 150

Sonnars?

[Robin Smith]

I am not sure I understand your point. Do you want to buy a 150mm C and are needing some justification? I have a 150mm C and find it an excellent lens in every way. If I did an A/B test with a T* version maybe I could detect a difference, but I don't have one to compare it to. I like my 150mm C and recommend you consider getting one, but not because it is superior to the current CF/CFi version. Personally, to date, I have not noticed any noticeable difference in the images I get compared to my 50mm and 80mm -- both T*. Apart from the different barrel and the T* the lenses (C to CF) are otherwise identical formulations as far as I know.

[mark_mitchell5]

I think I know what you're asking. I, too, own a 150 C Sonnar (1977?) and I personally like it better compared to a newer/the newest one.

The older model is a bit softer, contrast not quite a strong & to me,

a bit more 'controlable', if you will versue a CF/CFT*. Just my preference, but as such, will probably be selling all of it due to vision issues. It is a fine lens.

[richard_freedman1]

Back in my retail days when I looked after the used equipment department at one of the major pro photo outlets (back in the late '80's), I remember some of the "old-timers" would talk about the "chromies" with plenty of endearment, practically claiming the lenses to have almost mystical qualities. On a related note, I remember having a conversation with a true old-timer when I was trying to duplicate the look of '30's/'40's Hollywood glamour photography, and this retired photogapher claimed that back in the old days, the lenses were soft and the light was hard, and today, the lenses are hard and the light is soft. He seemed to indicate that in his opinion, the arrival of the Chimera softbox in the '70's signalled the end of photography as a "craft", as all the new hotshots were pitching lightbanks for every occasion, instead of really thinking about the qualities of light the way the pre-flash cinematography crowd did. I think of this whenever I hear of a shooter dropping thousands of dollars on a Superachromat lens with "ultimate sharpness". It's funny that we Hasselblad owners desire these uber-sharp lenses that see every pore on a subject's face, and then go out and buy softar filters to reverse the process. With that said, do you think a chrome 150 is actually softer than a new CFi 150? Probably not, but maybe a difference in contrast characteristics could result in the "endearing" qualities you suggest.

[art waldschmidt]

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I'd been thinking about that question for some time. I've used both the early chrome C 150 f/4 Sonnar and the later T* version. After using the later version for the same kinds of images (and all other factors being equal - lighting, films, developers/chemistry, papers, etc.) I seemed to feel that perhaps something had been lost in the upgrade to the newer lens. Admittedly, the qualities in question are impossible for me to technically quantify, and their description would seem undoubtedly drawn more from a wine taster's vocabulary than that of someone properly defining optical phenomona.

 

Art Waldschmidt

[frank_scheitrowsky]

"the qualities in question are impossible for me to technically quantify, and their description would seem undoubtedly drawn more from a wine taster's vocabulary than that of someone properly defining optical phenomona."

 

Not at all! The difference you have noticed is due to higher contrast in the newer lens due to the T* coating. I believe the optical formulas of both lenses are identical. The older lens is more subject to flare and halo effect. Coupled with identical sharpness, this can be very pleasing. There is nothing mumbo-jumbo or indefinable about this.

[art waldschmidt]

Obviously there is nothing esoteric (i.e. "mumbo-jumbo") regarding the variations in contrast attributable to coating differences

between the single and multi-coated 150 Sonnars.

Never-the-less, I feel that extreme sensitivity to the nuances and characteristics of optically generated images may promote an awareness which undue fixation on specific technical quantification may often tend to diminish.

[frank_scheitrowsky]

All right then.