Is upgrading from C T* to CF worth it?

[cmonkey]

<p>I have a number of Hasselblad C T* lenses. Is there any advantage, particularly optically, in upgrading to a CF version? And what is the difference between a CF and CFi lens? Thank you for any recommendations or information.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Cheryl,</p>

<p>I've got a mixed bag of C ad CF lenses and have been very pleased with the sharpness in both. I do prefer the mechanics on the CF lenses as the focus and control grips are easier on the fingers and the fact that the shutter speed ring and the f stop ring stay disengaged until you want them locked is a much more user friendly way to work than the constant lock on the C versions.</p>

<p>As far as image quality, I'm sure that at extreme enlargement, the CF's would have an advantage, but I seldom go above 20x24 and see no difference in quality at that range or smaller. I have no experience with the CFi versions except to compare prices and go back to the C's and CF's for that reason.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>The optical design of most lenses hasn't changed from their earliest incarnation as C lens to the last incarnation as CFi/CFE lens.</p>

<p>Going from C to CF, only the 40 mm and 500 mm lenses changed, while the 120 mm was made 1 stop faster without a change in design (thanks to the different shutter employed in CF lenses).<br>

During the CF period, the 50 mm lens was redesigned, so though the early CF 50 mm is the same as the C version, you could upgrade to the later CF FLE version.</p>

<p>So the biggest/only difference is in the ergonomics: the setting rings are indeed easier to the touch, and the cross-coupling of speed and aperture rings was changed.</p>

<p>Early C lenses had a less sophisticated anti-reflection coating, so depending on what period your C lenses are from, there may be a difference in coating too. Not that that will make a difference you will notice much, if at all.</p>

<p>I have both C and CF lenses, and do prefer to use the CFs. Would i not have that choice, i woud happily use the C lenses.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>If they are working good, hold onto the C T* pieces. I have sold my few black T* about 10 years ago only because I wanted all the same for when I was working every day with them. Hence I switched to all CF, but I sometimes miss them, the one 80 had a nice "breathing" quality to it that I haven't found since. They're all supposed to be the "same", but some still stand out as something special.</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>I use a C series and no problems or complaints. I also love the look and feel, not plastic and rubber. The optic will do anything I ask if I do my part.<br>

While I was shooting with them yesterday I saw a photographer using a 5D canon. I let him hold my 500 CM with the 80mm C lens, he was very excited about the brightness and sharpness in the nc2 finder. I could tell that his life was changed...... he now has seen a camera.<br>

Really he had all kinds of questions about my superwide and other items I was using......he was nearly breathless.<br>

I really guess I go against the grain as I love the EV system, and the locks on the shutter speed and f-stop is a plus for me.</p>

[leighb]

<p>I upgraded to all CF lenses when I got the CFV-39 back.</p>

<p>Although I frequently bracket with film, I ALWAYS bracket with digital, and usually over a significant range. I've found that I can extract shadow and highlight detail from different exposures when needed and combine them. The decoupling of the shutter speed and f/stop rings on the CF lenses makes bracketing much easier.</p>

<p>As G.C. mentioned, most of the CF designs are the same as their C predecessors. The T* coating, used on all CF lenses, is the same as on the C T* lenses. I really like the 50 FLE, which is an entirely new design..</p>

<p>As with most aspects of the (a)vocation, it depends mostly on your personal preferences. I like the CF ergonomics, but I prefer the Compur shutter of the C lenses to the Prontor used in the CFs.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>I really guess I go against the grain as I love the EV system, and the locks on the shutter speed and f-stop is a plus for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Russ,</p>

<p>The CF lenses have EV interlock that works just like the C lenses. The difference is the default or idle state. </p>

<p>On the C lenses the interlock is engaged by default and you must disengage it. On the CFs it's disengaged by default and you have to engage it.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[Rob F.]

<p>I use both CT* and CF lenses. MY CF lenses are the 40 and 50 FLE versions; and the 150mm. I also have 60 and 100mm CT*. And I use the 80mm C lens (pre "*" coating).</p>

<p>The only real potential problem I know of with the C-series lenses is that Hasselblad apparently discontinued some of the shutter parts (or maybe it was Compur that did so), such as the springs. However, that does not not mean that you can't get repairs done. I sent my 80mm C-Planar to David Odess about a year ago for a general CLA, and he replaced the springs from his supplies.</p>

<p>Something I like about the C lenses is the automatic depth of field indicators. And I like the cross-coupled EV system as well. I like that the markings are engraved and not just silk-screened. The silk screened numbers are already wearing off my 50mm Distagon!</p>

<p>Something I don't like about my 60mm CT* Distagon is that the lens cap refuses to stay in place. The CF version has a secure bayonet fitting for filters and caps. But it's a very good lens, and I like the "sexy" shape it has! No point in trading it for a CF. I'll send it to David when needed.</p>

<p>If all my lenses had bay 60 fronts, then I would not have to carry and keep track of three sets of filters (bay 50, bay 60, and 63mm). For a fast-working pro, I could see the benefit of having lenses that all work the same and use the same filters. But for me, I have no problem with mix-and-match.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Oh--Cheryl asked about the difference between Cf and CFi. The "i" in CFi" stands for "improved." Somewhere I have a brochure on what they improved. I'll try to dig that out this evening and see what it says. If there's anything useful, I'll post it.</p>

[leighb]

<p>In re: CFi v. CF lenses</p>

<p>According to Wildi, the CFi differences are:<br /> 1) An acrylic front barrel, i.e. the bayonet mounts.<br /> 2) A rear bayonet made from a single piece of "specially treated" metal, whatever that means.<br /> 3) A new mainspring made from Nivarox that should outlast the earlier design by 3x.</p>

<p>The CFi lenses are optically identical to the CFs.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>Ref: Wildi, Ernst, "The Hasselblad Manual", 6th ed, page 72</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>There are a couple of other differences between CF and CFi/CFE too:<br>

- The CFi/?CFE barrel has improved internal baffling.<br>

- The focussing is lighter and smoother.<br>

- The DoF preview lever is protected against sideways movement, which would disengage the lever on CF lenses.<br>

- The flash terminal is improved: instead of the friction grip on CF lenses (which made people twist the flash plug back and forth to take it out, something that could work the terminal loose) the CFi/CFE lenses have a clamp to hold it.<br>

- The typeface of the lettering has changed. A seemingly insignificant change. But it could make the thingies earier to read. I'm not sure what i think.</p>

<p>The rear bayonet was made up out of several separate parts on the CF lenses. Now it's a one-piece affair. Makes for a more stable and durable fit.<br>

The plastic front bayonet i'm not sure about. I never had any problems with the metal ones on CF lenses, so i'm not really sure what problem the new ones would solve. Perhaps only the paint rub off you get on the metal bayonets?<br>

(And now that i have mentioned solutions to problems that perhas did not exist: i never had any problem with the main spring in my CF lenses. Alost 30 years old, these thingies. So would i really need a main srping that would last at least 90 years? ;-) )</p>

<p>The CFE lenses are CFi lenses, but with additional electronic contacts ("Databus") that convey aperture info to the metering electronics in 200-series Hasselblad cameras.</p>

[cmonkey]

<p>Thanks for all your great responses. I really appreciate it. My concern was not build so much as IQ. Allow me to ask another question: Are there lenses in the Hasselblad V lineup which are considered real gems. Perhaps sharper than others? I use a 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm right now. I want to round out my lens lineup, and could like to know which lenses to focus on. For example, would I be better off with a 60mm/100mm, as opposed to using my 80mm for my normal lens? I want to go wider and longer. Are there any preferred lenses in the 180mm-500mm range?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Yes, some lenses are considered to be the best.<br>

Those are the 38 mm Biogon (on the SWC(...)), the 100 mm Planar, the 105 mm UV-Sonnar, the 120 mm Makro-Planar, the 180 mm Sonnar and the Superachromats, of which the 250 mm was the first.<br>

Then there also are the 60 mm Distagon and the 150 mm Sonnar.<br>

The 110 mm Planar for the focal plane shutter bodies has a bit of a reputation (though not for sharpness) too.</p>

<p>The others are no slouches either.</p>

<p>Mind you, these may be a bit better than the rest, but only a bit. And you have to know the particulars to know whether that little bit extra is worth the bit extra they cost (due to their reputation).<br>

For instance, the 80 mm Planar is rather disregarded, because it is the standard "standard" lens. The thing you got with the kit. The 100 mm Planar in contrast is held in high regard. Yet the difference in performance between the two is extremely small, and depends on conditions too (the 100 mm is a bit better when both lenses are compared used wide open and at infinity Change either or both conditions, and the difference disappears.<br>

Similar considerations hold for some of the other lenses as well.</p>

<p>So unless you are going to do a lot of aerial photogrammetry, the only differences between the 100 mm and the 80 mm Planars are the focal length and the opening aperture.<br>

The difference between the 50 mm and 60 mm Distagons too is mostly in the focal length and angle of view.<br>

The 38 mm Biogon may be an extremely good super wide angle lens. But it doesn't offer TTL viewing, and it is fixed to another camera. A 40 mm Distagon may be a little bit less good, but it can be viewed on a regular reflex viewing Hasselblad.<br>

Though the 180 mm may be a little bit sharper, the difference to the 150 mm isn't big enough to make it the main cosideration when chosing between the two. Again angle of view is more important.<br>

The 250 mm Sonnar-Superachromat is a really good lens. But you will not see the difference to the lowely 250 mm Sonnar unless you take great care when taking a photo (always a sturdy tripod, focussing with great care, not stopping down too far and let diffraction kill the extra performance, and using films that are able to capture the extra good performance of the SA lens.)</p>

<p>In short: base a kit of lenses on the focal lengths and other practicalities. Not on very small differences in performance.</p>

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>Q.G. de Bakker, I agree with this:<br>

"In short: base a kit of lenses on the focal lengths and other practicalities. Not on very small differences in performance."<br>

I´ve been satisfied with all the Hasselblad lenses I´ve used.</p>