Tessar CB 4.8/160 vs. Sonnar CFE 4/180

[oleg_novikov]

I have just posted a <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/cb160vscfe180/

cb160vscfe180.shtml">Tessar CB 4.8/160 vs. Sonnar CFE 4/180 comparison</a>

[oleg_novikov]

... and thought that it would be useful and nice to have as much relevant info in one place as

possible � your opinion on the matter or further comments will be appreciated.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Considering the fact that the CFE/CFi lenses have to be better than their predecessors [...]"</i><br><br>Now why would you think that?

[oleg_novikov]

I did not mean strictly sharpness - I meant handling, overall optical performance, etc. To

quote Hasselblad, �The CFi designation stands for "CF version improved" indicating that these

lenses optically originate from the CF lens program, but have been further refined and

improved to provide even higher image-quality, long-lasting reliability, and ease of use.�

[paul_neuthaler]

Oleg, we poor slobs will just have to get by with our old (& trusty) 150 Sonnars!

[oleg_novikov]

Paul, quite the opposite - one of the points I tried to make is that the difference between the

lenses' performance is less significant than many lead you to believe it to be!

[q.g._de_bakker]

"Less significant", yet your "personally would choose the Tessar over the neighboring CF or earlier lenses", and that based on a false assumption that "CFE/CFi lenses have to be better than their predecessors"... ;-)<br><br>And even if 'newer lenses' were indeed better than older ones, that doesn't mean that any new lens is better than any old lens. And accordingly, an ancient 135 mm Sonnar will still knock the socks off that newer 160 mm Tessar. Not to mention the not even so old CF versions of the CFi/CFE lenses that outperform the 160 mm Tessar... ;-)<br><br>Though i applaud your initiative, i think some serious rethinking is in order. ;-)

[cpj]

Well, for what it is worth, the PhotoDo web site rates the following Hasselblad lenses on a

scale up to 4.0 based on the MTF testing.

 

In fact, they rate 913 lenses of various makes. I am sure that Q.G. will disagree with some

of these ratings as being representative of overall performance (as do I) but it is

interesting that a site devoted to lens tests (and with no apparent axe to grind) finds the

160 CB to be in a "high end" category along with the CF150 and just below the CF180.

 

Unfortunately, the tests date from 2000 and do not include some of the newer CFE (or CFi)

lenses but from what I read only some versions of the newer CFEs may have optical

changes from the older CFs.

 

I also find it interesting that they rate the CFE 250 SA and CFE 350 SA as being quite a bit

lower than I would have expected.

 

Note that the CB 60mm f3.5--which is incredibly inexpensive these days--is rated at the

maximum, 3.9, along with the top performers such as the CF 50mm FLE f4, and FE 50mm

f2.8 ! ! ! ! ! Most people who own CB 60s on this forum concur that it is a super lens, and

based on these comments and my own experience, I have concluded that the "CB"

designation should not carry the connotation of being an "inferior" lens, optically.

Hasselblad has always maintained the differences were only in the mount and shutter

functions and these tests seem to be consistent with that statement.

 

I have a 160 CB and love it and, as I've said before, I sold my 150 CF and kept the 160,

based on performance of the two particular lenses that I owned. [Your experience may be

different.]

 

Here are the MTF comparisons and ratings from the www.photodo.com web site:

 

Grade: 3.9

Medi/MF Hasselblad Distagon CF 50/4 FLE

Medi/MF Hasselblad FE 50/2,8

Medi/MF Hasselblad 60/3,5 discontinued

Medi/MF Hasselblad CB 60/3,5

 

Grade: 3.7

Medi/MF Hasselblad Planar CF 80/2,8

Medi/MF Hasselblad FE 80/2,8

Medi/MF Hasselblad CB 80/2,8

 

Grade: 3.6

Medi/MF Hasselblad Planar CF 100/3,5

Medi/MF Hasselblad FE 110/2

 

Grade: 2.7

Medi/MF Hasselblad Makro-Planar CF 120/4 macro

Medi/MF Hasselblad 135/5,6 macro

Medi/MF Hasselblad 140-280/5,6

 

Grade: 3.6

Medi/MF Hasselblad Sonnar CF 150/4

Medi/MF Hasselblad FE 150/2,8

Medi/MF Hasselblad CB 160

 

Grade: 3.7

Medi/MF Hasselblad Sonnar CF 180/4

 

Grade: 3.1

Medi/MF Hasselblad Sonnar CF 250/5,6

Medi/MF Hasselblad 250/5,6 Superachromat

Medi/MF Hasselblad FE 250/4

Medi/MF Hasselblad 350/5,6 discontinued

Medi/MF Hasselblad FE 350/4

Medi/MF Hasselblad CFE 350/5,6 Superachromat

[q.g._de_bakker]

CPeter,<br><br><i>"Hasselblad has always maintained the differences were only in the mount and shutter functions and these tests seem to be consistent with that statement."</i><br><br>Have they indeed ever said anything like that...?<br><br>Zeiss, in person of Fleischer/Müller made sure here on Photo.net that we knew the 80 mm and 160 mm indeed are not (!) just different in mount and shutter. The published MTF graphs confirm that.<br>I'll not go into the CB-strategy again, but will mention that we knowing about the quality difference was an essential part of that strategy.<br><br>And i'll not even mention the psychology at work in making some people not recognize certain things. ;-)<br><br>And should i even think about mentioning i'm not going to mention anything about these tests?

[cpj]

QG - how about if I send you my 160 CB and let you "test" it yourself so that you can point

out the deficiencies to me ? ? I'm serious; I just don't see them in 20 x24 prints made from

Tango drum scans. Perhaps shoot a comparison with your 150mm ? ? ?

[roland_haid]

The quality issue of the CB 4.8/160 is nonsense. The comments of Müller/Fleischer did not help much. Personally, I do see much value in photodo lens testing, most independent testing is can't give more than a yes/no opinion, there isn't much value in a digit rating of 3.7 against 3.9. (A hint: MTF does change dramatically with change of focus plane, the latter is not absolutely definded, so you can produce several MTF graphs from the same lens, all different).

 

As a company, Zeiss has a philosophy for development and manufacturing of photographic lens. This is detailed in Dr. J Kämmerers small book of Zeiss lens quality approach. As a result, Zeiss philosophy is to design an produce a lens by keeping the intrinsic quality of the lens type. So for a Tessar, they will make simply make it as good as it gets by reasonable standards. This includes final picture quality. Due to SA the Tessar is not as good as a Sonnar generally, but for a F4.8 moderate long focus lens, a very acceptable compromise is possible. The build quality is more or less the same for all generations of Zeiss lens. The manufacturing of a Tessar is cheaper because less elements and testing and assembling is required.

 

The question is not if the CB Tessar is better than a CFi Sonnar. The question is if you want a Tessar because of the general characteristics: light, dry sharpness, no flare.