Hasselblad Zeiss vs Contax /Yashica Zeiss

[brad_trostad]

<p>I was wondering (in general) if the Hasselblad versions and the C/Y versions are basically the same designs, same micro contrast, same saturation, same bokeh characteristics, etc. If having a specific lens to compare helps, I guess I would be interested in the 100mm and 180mm lenses as the Hasselblad versions are said to be incredibly sharp.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>I cannot offer any personal observations of the various characteristics you mention, but you may want to see the Luminous Landscapes review of the Contax 645 (versus H1).<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/contax645.shtml<br>

Scroll down for the brief impressions of the lenses. The Apo-Makro Planar 120mm lens is considered exceptional and other lenses available in the series (reviewed briefly in 2003 and including the 210mm f4)) are placed on the same very high level as the Schneider optics (less in number) for the Rollei 6008, and presumably the Hasselblad lenses are in the same class.</p>

<p>I think I would be more concerned about sample to sample variations of the same lens of any of these manufacturers than comparisons of similar focal length optics between manufacturers.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>C/Y fact sheets at http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html<br>

Hasselblad at http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system/lenses.aspx (though some links seem to be broken)<br>

Am I missing something? Why compare lenses that cover a 24x36mm format with larger format lenses?</p>

<p> </p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>Thanks for the feedback so far.</p>

<p>Re: Why compare 35mm vs MF. Yeah, in a way its silly. However after having just started with MF and using the Zeiss 80mm 2.8, I find that I really, really like it. As I read more about the Zeiss lineup for Hasselblad I read how the 100mm and 180mm are such good lenses. So it I was wondering if the C/Y lineup was made with the same optical formulas, coatings, same micro contrast and punchy look. Or did Zeiss do something unique for Hasselblad.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I think probably they will be similar if you actually believe one can really tell the difference in a blind test. The only thing I will say is that the quality of Zeiss lenses is not completely consistent across the lens range - some are really good, others less so, so generalizations have to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, the current 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 Z lenses are nothing really special whereas the 21mm, and 50mm and 100mm Makros are pretty special. And so it goes. The 100mm and 180mm Hasselblads do indeed have a particularly good reputation, the 80mm and regular 250mm, perhaps less so.</p>

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>Consider that an average medium format lens (of the well-known brands) on 6x6 or 6x7 format will give much greater quality (resolution, sharpness, tonality) than a fantastic 35mm lens on 35mm format. Now, regarding bokeh, saturation and contrast... yes there are some MF lenses that use a design that also exists on 35mm, and not necesarily on the same brand. For example a Zeiss 80/2.8 Planar uses the Planar design that exists on 35mm, on many brands. Another example: The 127mm f3.8C for the RB67 has the same design than the 90/2.8 Leitz Elmarit of the fifties.</p>

<p>Most common telephoto lenses, in all formats, fall into one of a handful of common designs. <br>

Not to mention the Tessar designs which are ubiquitous at all formats!</p>

[chris_ogilvie]

<p>Brad,<br /> No, they are not the same. Where they will be similar, if you compare strictly the multi coated versions (T*), is in the "Zeiss look" produced by their coating system and glass choices. And indeed, the <em>tendency</em> is for high micro contrast, saturated colors (I love the deep blacks!) and at least in all my lenses excellent sharpness. But design formula's, the combination of glass types used, bokeh etc varies from lens to lens. Some are indeed better than others.<br /> I do have a range of C/Y Zeiss lenses from my film days which I still use on my Canon. The 21 Distagon and 100 Makro Planar in particular are simply outstanding. But all my C/Y lenses give me a <em>compatible,</em> if not entirely<em> identical</em> look.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Few medium format and 35mm format lenses are truly identical designs. For this to be the case, the lens cannot in general be optimised for the 35mm format camera, as a longer flange distance and larger image circle are imposed on it by the requirements of the medium format camera. So it is really restricted to lenses in the telephoto range (but with a modest telephoto ratio).</p>

<p>The CZ Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar, and the Meyer/Pentacon 500/5.6, which were sold in mounts for both 6x6 and 35mm Pentacon cameras, are a couple of examples that come to mind.</p>