80mm CB Planar LEns which Proxar ?

[jonathan_montague]

<p>Hello everyone<br>

A quick query. I have recently purchased a 501cm and it came with a 80mm 'CB' lens. I want to buy some proxars but am unsure if i should be looking at the '50' or '60' ones ?<br>

I was also slightly alarmed to read on this forum that the CB lens wasnt quite the same quality as CF, CFi etc ? I hope the difference is not that great!<br>

many thanks</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>I am pretty sure the CB lens is a B60, all of my optics are C series, which are B50.<br>

From what I understand the CB series were made to be a little lower cost, but still had stellar optics.<br>

I' m sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong. Some one may even disagree even if I'm right.....for that matter.</p>

 

[simon_baker2]

<p>Jonathan,<br>

It takes B60 filters, the B60 Proxars are also "T*" multi coated ( earlier B50 are not ) . CB lenses were produced so as to be able to offer the entry level kit ( ie: 501CM ) at a lower price point to encourage more photographers to make the switch to a Hasselblad system. Don't worry about what you read, CB lenses are still excellent and use glass of higher quality than "most" of us need.<br>

I have a couple of CB lenses and use them via a CF adaptor on my H3DII 39 and I can tell you now the sharpness of these lenses is "more than" acceptable to me.</p>

<p>Regards Simon </p>

[simon_baker2]

<p>Jonathan,<br>

It takes B60 filters, the B60 Proxars are also "T*" multi coated ( earlier B50 are not ) . CB lenses were produced so as to be able to offer the entry level kit ( ie: 501CM ) at a lower price point to encourage more photographers to make the switch to a Hasselblad system. Don't worry about what you read, CB lenses are still excellent and use glass of higher quality than "most" of us need.<br>

I have a couple of CB lenses and use them via a CF adaptor on my H3DII 39 and I can tell you now the sharpness of these lenses is "more than" acceptable to me.</p>

<p>Regards Simon </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Perhaps not unexpected, but i'll jump in right here.</p>

<p>That "higher quality that most of us need" thing is what made the entire CBudget line a disasterous mistake.<br>

Hasselblad was very expensive. So were Zeiss lenses. Despite the "entry level, "CBudget" marketing idea, the CB lenses (and, by the way, the 501 C, not the 501 CM) were still very expensive. There were no savings worth mentioning, if you would have chosen a CB instead of a CF.<br>

People wouldn't hand over that kind of money only to get less than the best.</p>

<p>Zeiss also partook in the CB-marketing. But only half-heartedly. They made sure to let us know they had advised against it.<br>

And they did not try to hide that the CB lenses were not of the same quality as the other ones. Quite the contray.<br>

They also tried the "better than we need" line of reasoning to justify the CB lenses. But were not even trying to be convincing. Probably because they knew that basic flaw in the CB-strategy. If you don't need the quality Zeiss lenses and Hasselblad offered, you would be foolish to spend the amounts of money needed to buy Zeiss lenses. People are/were prepared to pay those silly amounts for one reason only: to get the best they could. Not to get a second, or third best.</p>

<p>Which brings us to how to value the quality of CB lenses even today.<br>

The CB lenses, in particular the 80 mm Planar and the 160 mm Tessar, may still be good lenses. But compared to what? Compared to the Zeiss/Hasselblad ones that did cost only a bit more, they are still good, but not quite as good.<br>

So it boils down to how much you payed for it. Even though not the same quality as the other ones, a CB 80 mm lens is perfectly respectable. And as long as the difference between the two (CB and the Rest) was reflected in the price you had to pay, no worries.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The CB80/2.8 has a somewhat simplified formula, using 6 elements instead of 7 in the CFx lenses. There was no "F" mode for compatibility with 200 series cameras, and there was no coupling between the shutter and aperture rings. As you can see from the MTF below, the CB performance is significantly below that of the CF versions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_CF_102165_e/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_CF_102165_e.pdf">http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_CF_102165_e/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_CF_102165_e.pdf</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_CB_102212_e/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_CB_102212_e.pdf">http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.8_80mm_CB_102212_e/$File/Planar2.8_80mm_CB_102212_e.pdf</a></p>

[simon_baker2]

<p>Jonathan,<br>

And anyone else who cares to be properly informed about the CB lenses ( well the 160mm Tessar at least ) take a look at the following post that dates from 2005</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00CuIe</p>

<p> Q.G. de Bakker was not a fan of the CB line back then either, and as you will see he quoted "Dr Fleischer/Muller" from Zeiss as also feeling that the CB line was not of similar quality to the CF / Cfi / CFE range. What is very interesting is Dr Fleischer' reply ( the current last post, the one after Q.G's comments ) and also the "silence" after it especially from Q.G ......H'mmmmmm</p>

<p>anyway, if you don't want to look it up here we go :-</p>

<p><strong>Q.G. de Bakker says on Jul 21, 2005</strong><br>

"What was true when this lens came out still is true today. Facts are facts ...;-) and it's not as if Zeiss tried to keep it a secret that "all in all, the Tessar is a fine lens, if you do not want/need the best lens" , is it?<br>

Surely you have come across Dr Fleischer/Muller saying the same ( the 'best lens' , ie other Zeiss lenses, being too good the way he worded his praise for the 160mm CB Tessar ).<br>

Now what's "unfair" about that. ;-) "</p>

<p>Well Q.G. here is what Dr Fleischer "really" thinks, so straight from the horses mouth so to speak ........</p>

<p><strong>Kornelius J. Fleischer Aug 25 2005</strong><br>

" I can offer this information from inside Zeiss: Of all the new Zeiss lenses in the Hasselblad system ( generation CFi, CFE, CB ) , the Tessar 160CB is the very best in terms of straylight handling. And it balances very well with a camera body in hand held work. If you are after colours with the utmost purity, or shadows with unparalled tonal range in B&W, your best choice is the Tessar CB. Readers and talkers have downgraded the reputation of this lens over years. Those who have really used it and have educated eyes to see the subleties in their photos, have a quite different appreciation for this lens. I do use it without hesitation, and I prefer it over its neighboring Sonnar 150 and 180. Hope this makes clear what I really think about the Tessar 160CB.<br>

Get it, enjoy it ! " </p>

<p>If it's good enough for Dr Fleischer it's good enough for me, to me at least his reply to the negative tone of the posts within the thread speak volumes and as already said so does the silence that followed his comments.</p>

<p>Don't fret, use the lens and enjoy the results, no Zeiss lens is "crap" but an awful lot of crap gets posted on forums</p>

<p>Simon</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Simon,</p>

<p>You do know what strategic marketing is? Fleischer was the head of that department at Zeiss.<br />(If you don't, you might begin to understand by asking yourself why Fleischer also used the name Müller. Why a man in his position would need to use two names.)<br />And do not forget that Fleischer was also the man (you must have come across that in your search) who told us that Zeiss had told Hasselblad that CB lenses were not a good idea (which, for the reasons mentioned, it indeed wasn't), and who told us that the CB lenses were not as good as the other lenses, proffering the the-other-lenses-are-too-good nonsensical explanation.</p>

<p>And what silence? Even now i can't keep silent every time CB lenses come up. ;-)<br />And i do remember pointing out at the time that the praise Fleischer had to give to the CB 160 mm lens was all about the stray light reduction measures in the mount. Nothing about the lens' performance itself (as i mentioned, he had told us how that was earlier: not as good as the rest). A thing all CFi and CFE lenses share.<br />(And we have yet to see the reports of people who have noticed that it makes a difference. I certainly haven't.)</p>

<p>So in short: the CB lens line failed in several ways, and deservedly so.<br>

Time may heal many things. And maybe when there are no 80 mm and 160 mm CB lenses left, we can start to revise history. But as long as they are around to remind us, revisionism doesn't really have a chance of success. </p>

[jonathan_montague]

<p>Thank you Simon, Russ and Mr de Bakker.<br>

My apologies for the extreme tardiness of my response. I did of course search and read previous posts before posting my query. regarding this CB vs Cfi discussion... I am quite sure given that my Medium format 'eye' is in its extreme infancy the apparently small difference in quality illustrated by a couple of lines on a graph will not be noticable to me (not knowing a huge deal the comparison of the performance graphs for the 2 lenses appeared almost identical for illuminance and Distortion... i cannot pretend to understand the significance of the other 2 graphs) I bow to the superior knowledge you guys have on Hasselblad historical data and im sure the argument could run and run. I can only hope one day i will be able to notice the difference between a CB image and a CF image but im sure it will make little odds to me in the real world.<br>

many thanks everyone :)<br>

ps. i just went and bought 120mm f/4 CF makro Planar. hope thats not lower quality than the 'i' version as well!</p>

 

[simon_baker2]

<p>Q.G.</p>

<p>As you know, Zeiss have not made the CB line for several years so regardless of Dr Fleischer being head of marketing Zeiss have little to gain by "talking - up" the CB line as I very much doubt they would have any unsold inventory remaining and to my knowledge at least Zeiss do not sell S/Hand optics so have nothing to gain there either.</p>

<p>With regard to you saying that Dr Fleischer' praise was for the lens' stray-light-handling only and nothing to do with its performance, surely his words ( in the above mentioned post ) give a clear indication as to the performance of this lens, as once again I will quote Dr Fleischers' own words ...... <strong>"If you are after colours with the utmost purity, or shadows with unparalled tonal range in B&W, your best bet is the Tessar CB. Readers and talkers have downgraded the reputation of this lens over years. Those who have really used it and have educated eyes to see the subleties in their photos, have a quite different appreciation for this lens. I do use it without hesitation and I prefer it over its neighboring Sonar 150 & 180. "</strong> Too many people these days choose a lens based on MTF charts alone, whilst these give an insight as to the lens' outright performance I myself base my choice on how a lens "draws" , to me at least it is this "drawing" ( what the image actually looks like ) that is most important, this is why I prefer my older Leica M optics to the newer Asph versions, while the latter are ultra sharp that is rarely the look I'm after.</p>

<p>With regard to "Silence" , you misunderstand me, as you say, indeed you often can't keep silent ( in a positive way normally I may add ) however I was referring to the complete lack of any response from anyone ( including yourself ) once Dr Fleischer had added his 2 cents to the post I referred to.</p>

<p>Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, however I would like to add that normally your posts are most helpful and I respect your opinion even if I do not always agree with it. As Jonathan so aptly says ..... " I can only hope one day I will be able to notice the difference between a CB image and a CF one <strong>but i'm sure it will make little odds to me in the real world</strong>".</p>

<p>Regards and best wishes to all, Simon</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Simon,</p>

<p>Zeiss and Fleischer/Müller are anything but stupid. They did not say anything about the CB lenses once they were gone. What they said, what you can find on the web to quote, was said while they (halfheartedly) were still trying to sell the thingies that came out of their production line.</p>

<p>And yes, do read Fleischer's words. See what he says in praise, and how that indeed is all about the stray light reduction. Note also that even here he says that the Tessar wasn't the best Zeiss ever produced. Yes, he uses the "sometime the best are too good" line. Which is, of course, the reason people would spend money on a very expensive Zeiss CB lens.<br>

And which is also utter nonsense. Any good lens can be as bad as you want it to be. No bad lens will ever be better than it is.</p>

<p>And, with respect, i'm afraid the you are the one who misunderstood about the silence thingy. You again say that people, me included, fell silent after Fleische said that. That's not so. I - as i mentioned before - distinctly remember saying what i said earlier in this thread, and again in this post.</p>

<p>And finally, we don't have to agree to disagree. We disagree even if we disagree about agreeing to disagree.<br>

 ;-)</p>