Hasselblad Sonnar 250 vs Superachromat

[jeff.grant]

As a new Hasselblad owner,I am looking to buy a 250mm lens for my

503cw. I appreciate that this may be a dumb question, but I can't

find an answer anywhere. The question is what the differences are

that make the superachromat worth twice the price of the equivalent

sonnar lens. I will be using the lens for landscapes mainly and

always tripod mounted.

[robert_fisher]

Jeff, as the owner of a 50CFi & 503cw and a 905SWC with the 38mm, I am extremely curious as why anyone would want a 250 for landscapes. Am I missing something?

[jeff.grant]

I am making the change from Canon to MF, and often used a 70-200 for landscape to isolate or to reach something I couldn't get close enough to. My plan is to buy a 40mm, 80mm, 150mm and a 250mm, which will give me 24mm, 48mm, 90mm and 150mm in 35mm terms. I would love to hear any comments you have on that plan.

[tapas_maiti4]

Hi Jeff

 

Can't answer about the 250sa but I had the plain one but did not think it was anything special.

 

I like you spread of lenses, I have 38, 60, 100 & 180. Probably better lenses technically but maybe not as easy to use (especially the 180) but I built my system arounf the 60 which I love.

 

One note of caution - the square may make you see differently and thus your 35mm focal lengths are not always as transferable into 6x6.

 

Tapas

[jeff.grant]

Hi Tapas,

 

I bought a Mamiya TLR to determine whether I liked squares, and found that I was quite comfortable with it. I also have a GW690 to keep me going on the 2 to 3 ratio.

 

I guess I have been under the misapprehension that any Hasselblad lense was good so I made my choice on what seemed like a good spread. If I was still in the Canon world, I could buy L lenses and know that I was getting the best. There doesn't seem to be the same clear distinction in the Hasselblad world.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jeff,

 

You wrote:

"I guess I have been under the misapprehension that any Hasselblad lense was good"

 

That isn't a misapprehension. The 250 mm Sonnar too is a very good lens. Of course, in any range of lenses, there are bound to be some that are a bit better than others. But the overall standard is high enough not to have to worry about any of the lenses on offer.

[anthony_lee4]

The Sonnar 250mm Superachromat lens is in fact a special lens which correct for all color specturm.Initially this lens was make for scientific purpose when you need to do a full specturm analysis including those cannot see by eyes ,i.e. Infrared and UV. The reason that it was expensive was that they use Floride glass in the manufacturing and the lens was corrected for all color. If you use it in normal landscape, the color for 250mm Superachromat is of course more vivid as the old 250mm is normally corrected for two color in stead of three color as the superachromat. However, I think it is hard to justify the improvement as the 250mm sonnar is already a very good lenses.

[cpj]

Jeff, I mainly shoot landscapes and since I bought a used 250sa I find I use the lens about 50% of the time and it is excellent. I do not own a regular 250 so I can't comment on a comparison. However, to reply to those comments questioning the appropriateness of a 250 for landscapes, I must say that the longer lens helps to isolate the main subject matter. The compression effect of the long lens is often very useful in capturing your own perspective on the subject area.

[desmond_kidman]

At least 3 or 4 threads have run on this subject in the last 6 months, do a search. I have owned both lenses and have commented on the comparison.

 

As to the point that differentiations are not easy in the Hass line, you are right. It takes experience with all of them, or meeting someone who has had all of them and is candid.

 

For all those who think the standard 250 is a very good lens, compare it to the best lenses and you will see that it is indeed a mediocre performer in some regards.

 

You wanted to know the best lenses in the line: if you dig, you'll keep seeing the following list: 38, 100, 120, 250SA, 350SA, 180. To me the 180 is not as special as the others on the list, but is clearly sharper than the 150 and 250. When folks ask the question "Are the Zeiss lenses better than the Bronica or Pentax", I say, "No, except for the really special Zeiss lenses, and be prepared for the price."

[danny burk www.dannyburk.]

I'm amazed that anyone would question the use of long focal lengths for landscape. I use them at least as often as wide angles, if not more so. With my Contax 645, I regularly use the 350mm for landscape, often with the 1.4x Mutar for 490mm effective f.l. and I often wish for more! See my website's "Fall Color in Michigan's Upper Peninsula" gallery for lots of examples.

 

Regards,

Danny www.dannyburk.com

[gary voth]

The 250 SA is superb. If you want to know why, the Carl Zeiss web site has a technical discussion. It's expensive but so is the "normal" 250 Sonnar. Last I checked, it's not really "twice the price," more like a 50% premium.

 

In modern terms, there's nothing mysterious about it: the 250 SA is an apochromatic lens; the "normal" 250 is not. Because the 250 SA can focus more of the spectrum in the same plane, it produces sharper, more highly corrected images. (All of the Canon 'L' glass of 135mm or longer is also apochromatic: using UD, LD, or Flourite).

 

The Zeiss 250 "SA" Sonnar is a little unique in that it is made to image outside the normal visible light spectrum, particularly in the near UV region. For this reason it is not multicoated, as the T* coating would block some of the UV light. However, because its optical design only involves a relatively few number of air-glass surfaces, "regular" coating is quite sufficient to produce high contrast and control flare.

 

If you buy it I do not think you will be disappointed.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Yes Danny... Robert is "missing something".

 

Photographers usually seem to reach for their wide angles when they see a wide landscape, but I seldom see a 40mm (67 degrees square) landscape without taking a better picture with the 250. Even In Austria, where you might have thought that the mountains were high enough to fill 60 degrees square, I was using the 250 most of the time - 120 for some scenes in Innsbruch.

 

I have Hasselblad 40, 80, 120, and 250 lenses, and for the Sinar (6x6, 6x9 + 6x12) I have 47, 90, 150, 300 and 600

 

For serious landscapes with foregrounds or buildings you need a view camera, a shift lens or a shift convertor.

 

Jeff - if you want a 250 to take good landscapes, use it with a polerizing filter.

[steve_rasmussen]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Superachromatic color correction. This level of longitudinal chromatic aberration correction was developed by Herzberger in 1959 and involves the correction of 4 colors at the film plane. Combining this with low dispersion glass, as in the 250SA, yields a tertiary spectrum that is so small as to be not worth mentioning.

[q.g._de_bakker]

In addition to what Steve Rasmussen mentioned, it should perhaps be stressed again that a Superachromat, contrary what has been suggested, is not (!) a mere apochromatically corrected lens. It's correction goes beyond that onto a different level all together.

 

Steve mentioned 4 colours, but in fact correction for all (!) colours is so good that the residual aberration is below the Rayleigh limit, i.e. nonexistent.

[andreas_carl]

Of course the 250SA is "better" than the plain 250, the question is by how much and is it worht the price. The only person to make this decision is you. I had a 250 and I rented a 250SA a while back. On outdoors pictures taken side by side with these two lenses (both handheld and tripod mounted) I could detect very little difference. I am sure there would be more difference when shooting "test targets".

 

My current setup is 38-60-100-180 and I LOVE it! The pivotal point to me is the 60mm lens, if I had to choose a single lens setup, this is the one I would want!

 

IMPORTANT: I advise you NOT to simply translate the lenses you like on your 35mm camera into the medium format world. Because of the square format, the visual impression is quite different. Buy one lens (and why not the CF60???), see how you like it, see whether you will keep your images square or whether you will end up cropping mos, and build your system from there.

[gary voth]

I'm not sure there is anything "mere" about a apochromatically corrected lens.... However, lest my post be misinterpreted, I do acknowledge the uniqueness of the SA lens design.

 

However, I sincerely doubt that you would see a qualitative difference in optical performance between a SA design and an apochromatic lens (of equal quality) with standard film emulsions. I submit that it is the ability of the SA lens to image *beyond* the visible spectrum that makes it unique....

[jeff.grant]

Thank you one and all for your answers. I have certainly learnt a lot more from it than I expected. I think that it is time me to go and contemplate my options yet again.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Gary,

 

You wrote:

"I sincerely doubt that you would see a qualitative difference in optical performance between a SA design and an apochromatic lens (of equal quality)"

 

Well, given that premisse, no. I guess you're right. ;-)

 

But the point of course is that Superachromatic lenses aren't of equal quality. They are better than apochromatic lenses. And yes, i do believe the difference will be enough to be clearly visible.

[cpj]

I was searching the archives for something else and ran across these comments last year by Dr. Korneilus Fleisher of Zeiss reagarding the difference between the regular 250 and the 250SA:

 

"Ok, the normal Sonnar 5,6/250 is a very good lens, already. But in the comparisons that I do I can see a stunning clarity in the images taken with the Superachromat. This difference is so significant, that it is even obvious in the prints. And these need not to be very large, 8 inches square is usually sufficient."

 

Most people on this board do have a lot of respect for Dr. Fleisher's opinions and his technical evaluations. I think the above is an excellent "on point" comment.

[victor_randin]

Give me the beautiful landscape to shoot it with either lens. I doubt that the regular Sonnar 250 will spoil the picture. Likely nobody can differ both shots. The almost invisible difference between the two shots doesn�t worth the price of the S.A. IMHO, of course. I shoot with the regular Sonnar 250 and am happy. Two years ago I refused purchasing the SA for $1500 after testing in living conditions and don't regret it.

[alex_weiner]

This is a response by Dr. Fleisher to a similar post in the archives.

 

"Contrary to popular belief not all lenses with the same focal length produce the same depth of field at the same aperture! A typical example is the Superachromat 5,6/250: It produces extreme sharpness

(250 linepairs per millimeter)at the plane of best focus. But slightly off (which may be caused by photographer's focusing error, film position error, curvature of film, humidity, registration error of mirror or focusing screen, magazine wear, to name just a few), the sharpness drops dramatically. It can drop even below the levels the

sharpness of a Sonnar 5,6/250, or the one of a Tele-Tessar 4/250. In other words: The performance of the Superachromat is extreme, but nervous. It requires advanced technique on the part of the photographer and also well aligned and maintained equipment, to actually utilize the full potential of this lens. Once all this comes

together, the Superachromat shines. No other lens in the world ever gave me fine details with this clarity! This lens is perfection for perfectionists.

 

Photographers who prefer to engage less with these aspects may even achieve "better" results with the normal Sonnar 5,6/250."

Alex

[gary voth]

Q.G., I won't try to dissuade you from your opinion of the superiority of the Zeiss SA design: I own one and clearly think it to be excellent.

 

However, with all due respect I also own/have owned various Canon apochromatic telephoto lenses that I can state quite comfortably are at least the equal of my 250 SA in every meaningful respect (format differences notwithstanding), at least for the kind of real-world shooting that I do. Some of the Canon long lenses have been tested to exceed current film resolution (and probably some Nikon, Leitz, Minolta and Zeiss 35mm apo lenses do too). So no, I don't accept the premise that the Zeiss SA lenses are by definition superior to all "apo" lenses for normal photography, though I'm not sure there is a definitive way to prove this one way or the other.

 

But does it really matter? To the point of Jeff's post, I think we both agree that the SA 250 is indeed better than the 250 Sonnar...

[q.g._de_bakker]

Gary,

 

Apochromats may be very good too, yes of course.

The point however is perhaps more academic: apochromatic correction generally means that a lens is corrected such that it has the same focal length for three colours. Other colours may or may not be very close, there is no guarantee, the lens is still called an apochromat.

 

The idea behind a Superachromat is that lateral and longitudenal colour aberration is fully corrected for all colours, not just three. Zeiss claim that colour correction for their SA lenses is so good colour aberration is non-existent (i.e. below the Rayleigh limit).

 

Think of the SA designation as that, a quarantee. An apochromat may be very good, or it may not. You can't tell just by the "apo"-badge. A superachromat always is perfect (that is, regarding colour aberration), or else it isn't a superachromat.

[gary voth]

Okay, I can agree with this! (Though most transparency emulsions and digital sensors are still based on a <I>3-color model...</I>) :-)

[richard_freedman1]

Are there any DISadvantages to the 250SA lens (other than price); are there any subjects which would produce undesireable results with this lens, whereby the special spectral range of the lens would be a disadvantage?