Hassy old 250 and 350

[michael_franc]

I know these lenses, and their sooo bad quality has been mentioned

before, but I would like to hear from people who actually own or

owned them. I have the 100 now and love the lens. I would like to buy

the 180 as it has such good reputation. But I would like to also have

something longer for travel and portraits. I could get the old 250 or

350 C or C *T for quite a good price. I could get the 350now and

eventualy the 180, or the 250 now and forget about the 180. Or is the

difference between 180 and 250 enough to justify both? I would

appreciate comments from people who have actual experience with these

old tele lenses. Everyone says how horrible the 250 is, and the 350

even worse; but again, Ansel Adams used the old 250 so what is the

deal? Thank you so much.

[ted_roberts]

Hi Michael:I've not heard of the bad rep you're referring to regarding the 250 C lens..if fact quite the opposite. I'll just speak from my own experience. I recently was considering trading in my 150 mm C for a 180 mm CFE ONLY because of a great price and I figured new is better. Two things charged my mind. I attended a Hasselblad workshop and asked the 2 reps opinion..they both said as long as you're not having a problem with lens flare don't bother..they had no reason to tell me this as they were also selling lenses as the workshop. They I went to a Hasselblad tech who worked with Hasselblad for over 30 years and he also said..."DON'T even get rid of your C lenses...they are a better constructed lens than the new CFE or CFI's". I'm completely satisfied with this lens..the images are sharp and most of my work is enlarged to 16x20. I own 8 Hasselblad lens..50mm to 500mm, C,CF,CFE and CFI..and do mostly landscapes, some wildlife and portraiture. In the focal lengths you mentioned I use the 150mm C,250mm C much more that the 350CFI T*. T*..consider the 180mm and the 250mm. ALso the filters for the 350mm are expensive and difficult to find..B+W has discontinued the 86mm but Heliopan still offers them. So who is "Everybody" that you've heard this from!Ted

[art_haykin]

I agree with Ted. YEARS ago, I "inherited" a 250 along with a buy-out of equipment. I didn't really need the 250, but I tested it thoroughly, including with 2x converted, and ALL tests surpassed my expectationa. I used the lens many times, in both my work, and for personal uses. After over 20 years, I got MANY times what I paid for it, factoring in inflation.

[michael_franc]

Thank you so much for the positive reply. Of course now I can't back up my original statement as to who "they" are but when I first started getting into Hassy I did much on-line research and found quite few comments regarding the "inferiority" of the 250. The 350 and 500 were supposed to be even worse. I think one was at http/people.smu.edu/monagha/mf/ghassy but I am not sure. Maybe www.multimania.com/cesarigd. I am getting this now from my notes, not the internet. Thanks again very much--I'll consider the 250 much more seriosly as I can get that now vs. 180 later.

[terrestrikon]

I think your research may have been correct. At least, speaking from experience, I have the 180 and it is a great lens. My two cents would be go for the most quality you can afford, first.

 

I have the 38 SWC, the 50 FLE, the 80, and the 180. The SWC and 180 are widely thought (viz. Wildi and others) to be among the finest of Zeiss products. That fits my experiences, exactly.

 

You've already got one of the other 'best' Zeiss lenses, the 100, so you might want to keep to that standard. FWIW, my next lens will be the 250 superachromat, a different lens than the 250, and also on the 'best' of Ziess list.

 

Hope this helps.

[andreas_carl]

I used to have the CF180 and also the CF250 - while the 180 is superb, the 250 is not bad at all. At a time I compared the CF250 with the CF250 SA and had a hard time to detect any difference. Unless you ALWAYS mount your camera on a tripod and use most care in your technique, the optical difference between these lenses is hardly going to make it onto your slide or print. Your main purchasing decision should be which focal length works better for you - in my case it was the CF180 and I sold the 250. There is no point in having both, since they are too close to each other, in my opinion.

[Aoresteen]

I've had two 250 C chrome lenses and I still have one. I had it cleaned & timed a year ago. The lens is OUTSTANDING. I don't know who ever said that the 250 was bad but I have lots of photos made with the 250 that I really like.

 

Ansel Adams made quite a few pictues with his 250 C lens and he was satisfied with the lens. He should know.

 

I have an ext tube 21 that I use with the 250 to get a tighter head shot as the close focus isn't as great as 135mm lenses for 35mm cameras. In my early years I sold my first 250 in 1980, regretted it, and bought another in 1988 (a 1970's vintage). I will never sell it as I like it too much.

 

I have a 150 "F" f/2.8 circa 1984 lens and I use both the 150 and the 250. I can't tell any diffrence between the T* 150 and the chrome 250.

[daniel_krastel]

Andreas Carl wrote:"I used to have the CF180 and also the CF250 - while the 180 is superb, the 250 is not bad at all. At a time I compared the CF250 with the CF250 SA and had a hard time to detect any difference."

So the CF250 SA is not bad at all? And the CF180 is better than the CF250 SA?

[dan_lindsay]

I've got the 38mm Biogon (with requisite body of course) and the

250 CF Superachromat and SWEAR by that lens. Incredibly

sharp. I have also heard great things about the 100mm f/3.5

Zeiss CF lens. That's next on my list. I'm not one to follow the

idea that newer is better. Certainly in the case of the 903SWC

and it's 38mm f/4.5 CF lens vice the newer 905SWC CFi they are

saying that the older 903 is optically better!

[michael_franc]

Thank you all for the great input. I have just ordered the 250 since I could afford it now, maybe I'll get the 180 later. I am lusting after the 38 Biogon too. I am going on an extensive photo trip to Prague this coming winter and would love to bring the SWC or Superwide. Again, thanks.

[john_ries]

I realize this is a belated reply to the original question but I wanted to share my view in case someone else is also looking for similar info. I own a Hassey set with a 500C/M and several lenses and the 250 "C" is among them. My experience has shown that the 250 is an overall fine performer. The images created with the lens are fine. I see no evidence of chromatic abberation and the images are plenty sharp. Due to the limited anti flare coating on the "C" lens one must be aware of the coating limitations in high flaring conditions and shade the front of the lens appropriately but with that said I have had no flare problems. The Compur shutters are extremely dependable in the "C" lenses. Frankly I believe most people considering lenses are too influenced by technological hype and way over spend for their needs. In many cases modern lenses are only at a significant advantage on a optical bench. Apo lenses require the use of a tripod and very careful shooting technique to acheive their ultimate performance limits. There are simply too many variables to influence image quality beyond the lens. In my opinion the aim is to purchase quality glass but don't get ridiculous about what is *needed*. If your work is being reproduced in print or is being digitized, or being projected then you start losing image quality the first generation after the exposed film. The basic Zeiss glass is the objective of owning a Hasselblad, I wouldn't have one if they didn't use Zeiss optics, there is no need for the latest optical technology unless you are a specialist scientific technical photographer or engaged in a similar profession shooting in a highly critical niche. If you are shooting cookie cutter landscape, portrait, commercial and wedding stuff then the old "C" lenses will easily do a remarkable job at a reasonable investment.

I agree with Andreas' remarks and a couple of the others.

[john_ries]

Whooops......my mistake I meant that I agreed with Ted, got the names mixed up, sorry folks and Andreas.