CFi 3.5/100 and CFi3.5/60 with extension tubes

[audun_sjoeseth1]

These lenser are outstanding for landscape, but how do they perform

together with tubes for closeup and macro work? Are they also used in

this way better than the CFE/CFi 2.8/80?

[frank_bunnik]

Non of the lenses you mention has been optimized for macro. The 100 is regarded as a better lens compared with the 80mm. If the 80 performs well for occasional macro photo's, so will the 100 but probably a little bit better. The 60 will have to go very close to the subject to give any magnification, thereby maybe blocking a lot of light that might reach the subject when using a longer lens.

 

For occasional close ups I use a 120mm t* lens with a 32mm tube. This lens is corrected for close up shots. Got my first b & w negatives the other day of an orchid, just for testing, and these looked excellent.

[cameron_ertman]

I use the 100CFi as well as the 180CF with up to 88mm of extension. IMHO both lenses are exceptional for this application. I also noticed a noteable improvement when I used the tubes with the 100mm compared to the 80mm (could be due to a flatter field of view because of the slightly longer focal length). It is easy to become obsessed with using ONLY macro lenses for macro work; however, as stated elsewhere in this forum, most high quality non-macro lenses will have similar image quality compared to a macro lens, when looking at the center of the image. Macros have the advantage at the edges. I find that unless I am photographing something completely flat (e.g. a 2D piece of art work), the macro lens would be wasted on me. Most of my close-ups are details in nature that are rarely flat, and I can always use a small aperature for greater depth of field to create the illusion of sharpness. That said, the 120mmCfi or Cfe version is reputed to be excellent for close-up details. I just wish it would have a greater reproduction ratio on its own, and without the use of tubes. It would also be great if it was better at infinity (Hasselblad doesn't even recommend using that lens with the 2X converter at infinity...I assume it has to do with the quality of the image that can be obtained).

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Thank you for the answers. If the 120 was exellent at long distant, I would choose it when I buy a Hasselblad (503CW?). But I guess the CFi is the best choice for one all purpose lens, maybe together with a 1.4XE or 2XE (which is best for this lens?). I think the best choice of tubes may be the 32E and 56E. Am I right about this?

 

After a year or more it would be easier to decide what to buy next, a 60, 50 or a 903/905SWC.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Sorry, I forgot to type CFi 3.5/100. Is the 16E and the 32E (tubes) more suitable than 32E and 56E for 3.5/100? And what about stocking a converter (1.4XE?) and tube (32E?) and then the 3.5/100 with the converter closest to the body?

[cameron_ertman]

Audun, length choice for tubes really depends on what you intend to photograph. Personally, I like the 32 and 56 tubes since together (with the 100mm), you are getting fairly close to a 1:1 reproduction ratio. I have also used the converters along with tubes on my 180mm. My vote would be for the 1.4X converter since you only lose one stop of light (hardly noticeable with the 100mm/3.5 lens. It is nice to use the converter next to the lens, and then the tubes behind that (next to the camera), so that you can get a bit more distance between the front of the lens, and the subject (the 1.4 converter, in effect, makes the lens a 140mm optic).

[q.g._de_bakker]

Audun,

 

What combination of tubes is best to use with your 100 mm, 16 + 32 or 32 + 56, depends largely on what you hope to achieve.

 

 

The maximum extension built into the lens is about 15 mm.

Adding the 16 mm and 32 mm tubes will allow you to work your way from infinity up to about 0.6x magnification, seemlessly.

 

 

The 32 and 56 combination will let you work from infinity to about 0.15x. Then, adding 32 mm, from about 0.3x up to almost 0.5; next, substituting the 32 mm tube for the 56 mm tube, from about 0.56x up to 0.71x; and finally, using both tubes, from about 0.9x up to just over 1x magnification.

More, but with gaps.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Thank you both!

 

I think I will prefer the 32E and 56E tube (+ the 16E would be best).

 

Does the CFi 3.5/100 have higher extention than CF 3.5/100? In the close-up chart in Wildis manual (fift ed.) it looks that the CF 3.5/100 only has the same extention as the CF 2.8/80, aproximatly 9mm. Is the extention improved from CF 3.5/100 to CFi 3.5/100, or is something wrong in the chart (fig. 16-8, page 308)?

 

I think the CFi 3.5/100 with tubes will be excellent for my use (nature details). From the manual:..."The symmetrical Planar design privides excellent quality at least up to 2x magnification. Reversing these lenses therefore is not necessary and not possible

[cameron_ertman]

The 100mm does focus closer (without tubes) than the 80mm. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the repro. ratio for the 100 is definately greater. One thing that I really like about the 100mm lens is its ability to accurately represent the relative dimensions in a scene (i.e. when I look out on scene, what I see with regards to perspective is very close to what I see in the viewfinder).

[q.g._de_bakker]

Cameron,

 

Since perspective does not depend on focal length (or image magnification), the perspective as you see it in the viewfinder always (!!!) is very close to what you see with the naked eye. ;-)

[cameron_ertman]

I guess "perspective" may be the wrong word; however, what I mean is that, given the same distance from a subject, a wide angle lens will make distant objects (e.g. distant mountains) appear much farther away than forground objects. With a telephoto lens, the distant background objects will appear larger(compressed effect). Hasselblad's 100mm lens has close to zero distortion, and when I use that lens and look out on a landscape with definite forground and background objects, the relationship between the forground and background in the viewfinder seems to be exactly how I see the scene without the use of a lens. If I want the background to be less prominent, I will use the wide angle, if I want the background to "come forward" I'll go for a longer telephoto. It is kind of hard to explain, but the 100mm seems to render a scene in a very "natural" way.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Cameron,

 

I guess that it simply is the angle of view that you find pleasing and natural. ;-)