Sonnar 250 or a 250 Superachromat?

[wayne_haas]

I have the opportunity to acquire either a Sonnar 250 or a 250 Superachromat.

Both are CF versions: the Sonnar is a user lens in good condition; the

Superachromat is in truly mint condition. I can trade-across a lightly used 150

CFi for the Sonnar 250; to similarly trade for the Superachromat will set me

back an additional $2200 U.S.

 

I am well aware that the Sonnar 250 is not a slouch of a lens. Whichever I go

with, I intend to use a 1.4XE teleconverter to extend the lens to 350 mm. on the

odd occasion, and maximizing sharpness is a concern as I intend to eventually

produce poster size prints once I can afford a MF scanner and an Epson 9800.

Correspondingly, would images created using a Superachromat stand-up noticeably

better than those created using a 250 Sonnar (all else being equal)?

 

As to why I am considering trading a relatively new 150 CFi? My principle

subject matter is close-in landscapes, and have found that the 150 is generally

too short for what I wish to accomplish. In those instances, combining the 150

with the teleconverter generally does the trick; but in other instances a 350

mm. focal length would be ideal. Given that I also have a 100 mm., replacing the

150 with a 250 would result in a fairly versatile and economical kit that

provides focal lengths of 100, 140, 250, and 350 mm. As such, trading in the 150

for a 250 isn't all that bad of a deal.

 

In general 75% of my work is shot using a 50 FLE or SWC/M; the 100 covers

roughly 20%, and telephotos cover the remaining 5%. I don't forsee this ratio

changing much once I have a 250: as such, does the potential quality provided by

the Superachromat warrant the additional $2200; or would the 250 Sonnar be quite

sufficient?

[paul_neuthaler]

Wayne, we all have superachromats: they're essential!

[desmond_kidman]

It sounds like you have the available funds. If so, do it. Otherwise, you will never know. Someone said the standard 250 is no slouch of a lens. I disagree: the Mamiya RZ APO just kills it, as does the SA. The standard 250 is way off the standard set by the 50fle, 100cf,120 makro at close range. The 250SA is amazing, you will immediately know what shots you took with it by the color, definition, and consistency of image across the entire frame. Conversely, in my image files I can also tell the images taken by the standard 250, and that's not a compliment. I owned a couple, thinking the first was not a great sample, so it was not just one dud.

 

Like with Leica, most Hassy enthusiasts refuse to even entertain that any Zeiss is not the best in class. But let's put it this way: the standard 250 and 350 are the worst lenses in the lineup. Zeiss apologists will point out that telephotos are at a disadvantage. True. But the 250SA will give you a telephoto that exceeds the image quality of many of your non-telephoto lenses. Don't listen to the guys who can't afford it: they will tell you that you don't need it. Well, nobody needs any of this when you come right down to it if you want to look at it that way. I'll sum it up by saying that the 250SA was the smartest money I ever spend on Hassy gear, even though my telephoto images were only 5% like you. But that was before buying the SA. When I saw the results that went up.

[paul_chan4]

Ouch! Now sales of used 500CM's should be fetching more on the auction site 'cos more would be rushing to add a Blad just to shoot with the 250mmSA. Or is it the other way round?

[gary_ferguson1]

Another vote for the 250sa.

 

I've got a silver 250 C that I use occasionally for portraits wide open (the 250 C doesn't really improve with stopping down), it's fine for this application, giving a very fluid and smooth look. But for applications that require higher resolution and contrast I use my 250sa every time.

 

The only other similar comparison I can think of within the Hasselblad V series lens range is between the older 40mm and the newer 40mm IF. It's the same "chalk and cheese" difference as the 250 and the 250sa.

[Aoresteen]

Wayne,

 

The only true test would be to test BOTH lenses using your V series body. I'd get a roll of Fuji Velvia and shoot 6 frames with the 250 "normal" and then six frames with the SA 250. Take the best shot from each, have high quality scans made and a poster print of each made. If you see a difference and you find that the difference is significant, then buy the lens which gives you the best results.

 

You didn't say if you use colour or B&W film. I am assuming colour. If you shoot Black & white then save the money and get the regular 250. In spite of what people say I have chrome 250 that I make tack sharp 16x20 B&W prints from. I always use a tripod and the pre-release and I shoot it at f/11 mostly. The regular 250 is no slouch if used properly. A hand held lens it isn't.

 

Good luck!

[frank_bunnik]

The SA lens is of course way better compared to the normal 250mm lens. However, as you wrote, it is also 2.200 US dollar more expensive, plus the trade in. If this amount of money is no problem for you, by all means buy it and you will probably never regret it. However, you might take into consideration how often you expect to need the quality the SA offers and if that is worth the extra amount of money.

 

I do not have the money for an SA lens so I bought a silver 250mm C lens without t* coating last year for 200 euro's. I use the lens a lot, often with velvia slidefilm. Here are some examples. I scanned them on an Epson 4490 scanner and had them printed to about 30x30 cm. The quality is very good. If I ever have the money, I might buy an SA lens however.

 

http://www.fotoapparatuur.nl/photos/FotoShow.asp?FTO_ID=10594

 

http://www.fotoapparatuur.nl/photos/FotoShow.asp?FTO_ID=8026

 

http://www.fotoapparatuur.nl/photos/FotoShow.asp?FTO_ID=5448

[q.g._de_bakker]

I think the intention to use the SA with a teleconverter obviates the need for a SA.<br>And there is another consideration: if the extra quality the SA provides (and it certainly does) is really needed, how can you live with the other lenses?<br>;-)<br><br>Despite what others say, you were right that "the Sonnar 250 is not a slouch of a lens".

[d._diehl]

I shoot B&W only, so I went for the regular 250 and it performs great. I would do as Anthony

suggests; rent them, shoot side by side a few shots on transparency film, them evaluate

under magnification and see if YOU can actually see the difference. Many people here quote

MTF charts, etc. about sharpness and color, but the proof is in what you see. Evaluate it

yourself and then you will know.

[gary_ferguson1]

"I think the intention to use the SA with a teleconverter obviates the need for a SA."

 

QG, I don't think that's the way it works. I accept that individual converters can have slightly different results with individual lenses. But the general trend is that a converter, just like straightforward print enlargement, emphasises quality differences rather than obscures them. In other words, the superachromat advantage will be more significant with the x1.4 converter rather than less.

[db1]

On ebay, the 150 CFi has been selling for about $1400. The 250 CF has been selling for about $900 on the high side. The 150 CF has been selling for about $650. So if you can sell your 150 CFI for $1400, you can almost get the 150 CF and the 250 CF.

[wayne_haas]

Wow! So many quality responses in such a short time :-)

 

When anything of high quality is dangled in front of one's face it is hard not to be oh so tempted -- SAs in near mint condition do not show up used that often. I have the resources to acquire the SA -- just -- but it would be real stretch and may well put me into a significant bind if something unexpected occurs. That is the rub; of course, on the other side it would put the dreams of owning a SA to rest.

 

As I need to make a decision today, in all likelihood I will go with the regular Sonnar. Q.G.'s remark that using a teleconverter would negate the SA's edge was the kicker, as I am well aware that it takes fairly stringent technique to get the SA to shine. Of course this will leave me with unsatiated SA lust ;-) but I imagine that will pass if the Sonnar proves its value sufficiently over an extended period of time and a variety of conditions.

 

Again, many thanks to all that responded to my query.

[wayne_haas]

Gary, re. "the superachromat advantage will be more significant with the x1.4 converter rather than less."

 

A while back I tested the results from the 100 with teleconverter to those provided by the 150 alone. I conducted the test under a variety of lighting conditions and in different settings. The 100 is a reknown for its sharpness -- as you are probably aware -- but in combination with the 1.4XE it provided slightly softer results than those provided by the 150.

 

No matter the quality of a teleconverter, if not matched to the optical formula of a lens (as the Apo 1.4X is to the 350 SA) they will degrade the performance of a lens in general -- occasionally moreso with some lenses than others. My interest in the 250 SA over the Sonnar 250 was in part motivated by the assumption that by being the sharper lens, the SA's edge would carry over when using the 1.4XE. Conversely, I am aware that the SA's edge is contingent upon relatively stringent technique, and that this lens may actually produce results inferior to the Sonnar if that envelope is not maintained. Short of doing a battery of tests -- which I cannot do as both lenses are not accessible at the same time -- I am willing to accept Q.G.'s position that the 1.4XE would negate the SA's edge.

 

Given all that, I do appreciate your reply Gary -- and who knows, perhaps in this instance you may well be correct ;-) :-)

[cpj]

I shoot primarily landscapes on transparency film too. I have had the new 250mm SA CFE

for about two years (perhaps three as I got one of the first available) and I couldn't be

more pleased. It is probably my most-used lens, followed by the 180 and the SWC.

 

Q.G.deB. has raised a good point to consider (but he is usually more articulate about

exactly what he means.) He's saying that you'll get so much degradation with the tele-

converter that it's not worth spending the extra money for the SA. But he didn't follow

through and spell out these additional considerations:

 

(1) when NOT using the tele-converter you have a far superior lens than the standard--

$2200 cheaper--250 lens, and this is likely to be the lens used for 50% to 75% of your

shots.

 

(2) using the converter with the older 250mm will produce images of far less quality than

250 SA vs standard 250 WITHOUT a converter, and

 

(3) the converter-plus-plain-250mm is probably the worst of all combinations you are

considering if doing high quality drum scans for 24x24 prints or larger.

 

Bottom line: sell the kids or the car and get the 250 SA.

[johnmarkpainter]

Also...rather than degrade your image with a Tele-Converter, just move a little closer and

shoot with the 250.

 

jmp

[simonpg]

The standard 250mm is a superb lens in every respect and every image I have made with mine fills me with joy.

 

Of course the SA is a "special" lens with its special attributes - get to understand what they are and decide if they suit you well.

 

However, only you can then determine if any amount of additional cost is "worth the difference" - upgrade or first time buy. I really feel that such decisions are as simple as that.

 

Of course many here will be able to tell you about those special attributes, but they can't tell you much about the cost difference and your willingness / ability to meet that difference.

[ladislav_kamarad]

Hi,

I have and tested both lenses (Sonnar CF 250 and SA CFE 250)- sharpness is practically identical (55 lp/mm in the centre and +- 42-45 lp/mm in corners only - practically independent on stop! :-(((

SA has only most significant better clarity (especially in margins) due by elimination of chromatic aberration.

 

http://www.worldphoto.eu

[ilkka]

If you want a very good lens at reasonable price, do consider the 180 as well. It is also a stop faster, which can be useful when using that converter (at least for viewing and focusing). And if you actually need something longer than 250, why not get a 350 or 500 to begin with?

[cpj]

Yes, just pick up a 350mm; It's only $8,000 but you might find a used one for a little less!

[wayne_haas]

Thanks you everyone for the further feedback.

 

Illka: As I already have a teleconverter and decided on a 250 of some sort, it will be easy enough to determine if 350 mm. will actually do the trick for me. To acquire a 350 or, more particularly, a 500 at this point on pure speculation would be 'somewhat' foolhardy. And re. the 180: as I have already determined that the 150's angle of view is rarely of use to me (and the 100 and 1.4XE are a correspondingly sufficient close equivalent) to aquire a lens that is only marginally longer, regardless of how sharp it is, would be nonsensical.

 

CPeter: well your first post certainly 'muddied the water' for me :-) One of the reasons I am vacillating between the 'plain' 250 and the SA is that I strongly suspect that a 350 will likely turn out to be my prime 'tele' focal length. Conversely, I have already determined that a 250 will also be useful to me (the 150 and 1.4XE provided sufficient indication of that, and proved the need for something sharper). In that respect, the 'plain' 250 may well be sufficient -- a position held by many who responded to this thread -- and the funds saved may well then eventually go towards a 350 SA.

 

If the 'plain' 250 that is available were closer in condition to the 150 I am trading, I quite likely would have gone with it 'hands down'. Conversely, the used 250 SA under consideration is in roughly the same condition as my 150 and, despite the extra funds that would have to be paid out, represents the more equitable deal. So in many respects my heart leans toward the SA, but my wallet leans toward the Sonnar CF -- just one of those conundrums that many of us face every so often. So although I do not have any children, and need my Jeep more than a new used lens, I may well soon find myself sitting and sleeping on the floor for some time to come -- no great shake there though, the furniture is a post-divorce remnant probably best put behind me anyway ;-)

[zsa_zsa_dubarry]

Here is an alternative and I have used it with very excellent results. I use a 180mm and the Mutar 2x. THis gives me alot of flexibility and the mutar does not seem to degrade the photos. I typically shoot Ektachrome 100 speed and I projet the images with a PCP 80 to 8 feet square. The results are stupendous. This combination is not to be overlooked.The price would be a little less than the 250sa and the 1.4 convertor.

[wayne_haas]

Zsa Zsa: the option of using a 180 and the Mutar 2X never occurred to me. Quite frankly, it wouldn't have since 2X converters are notorious for providing poor results; the Mutar 2X is actually that good?

 

One of the reasons I am dropping the 150, apart from rarely using it, is that the results when using it with a 1.4XE are noticeably soft. In the context of image quality, having a prime lens in the 250 mm. range makes far better sense. If the sharpness of the 180 is sufficient to offset the degrading aspects of a teleconverter, then it is worth consideration; and even moreso if the Mutar 2X provides results of at least similar quality.

 

What you suggest would provide the means to determine whether, in the long run, a 250 and/or 350 prime is an actual necessity for me. And although I rarely use a short tele at present, the 180 would fit the bill nicely when I have need for a prime in that range. This is not to disparage the 150: it does provide excellent results, and its comparative lightness can be advantageous at times -- it just doesn't fit my current needs.

 

I have done some checking around, and have located a 180 CF and a Mutar 2X in a condition similar to my 150. A corresponding trade-in would require a payout half of what the 250 SA would require, and therefore would not leave me close to financial precipice. Thanks for the suggestion Zsa Zsa, it was a good and quite timely one.

[cpj]

Wayne,

 

I like your attitude--"to hell with it all, get what I want."

 

I was able to pick up a fantastic 350 SA CFE recently, apparently the result of that

unpleasant "divison of property" the guy in the black robes often requires when the

woman in somebody's life decides you're not good enough for her. So that guy's "loss"

was my "gain" (although I only got the 350 CFE and not the woman--one of those is

enough.)

 

I recently put five rolls through it and will let you know the results if you wish. It certainly

is an impressive (and heavy) lens. But I like the perspective you get using long focal length

lenses for landscapes, especially when trying to frame ong distance scenes.

[wayne_haas]

CPeter,

 

Quite some luck there with the 350 SA -- sounds like that lady gained possession, and possibly sold it, purely to spite her ex. And yes, I would definitely be interested in hearing how your shots turned out, and any other perceptions of yours re. the lens. Thank-you.