Hasselblad 60mm Distagon OK for Architecture?

[dougfromtumwater]

Good Day

When using the Hasselblad, my photographic subjects are varied,

including landscapes and people but also architecture from time to

time. I have been researching the 60 CFi for use as moderate wide-

angle and as a standard lens instead of the 80 CFE. It is a very

impressive optic and everything I read about it is positive, except

for one statistic on the Zeiss web site:

 

The barrel distortion of the 60 goes beyond 1% at 25mm of image

height and reaches 1.8% by the 40mm mark at the edge of the image.

 

In contrast the 80 CFE tops out at 1.2% barrel at the 40mm image

height, the 50 CFi reaches a peak of 1.25% barrel at the 30mm image

height and the 100 CFi stays close to 0% throughout.

 

For those of you who have used the current 60mm Distagon formula in

its different incarnations (CT*, CF, CB or CFi) what do you advise?

Is this barrel distortion noticeable/objectionable to you when

architecture is a main subject? Is the 60 CFi best suited as a superb

wedding lens but leave the buildings behind? Would I be better

advised to move onto the 50 CFi or 80 CFE? The one lens which I use

right now is the 160 CB.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[kevin_kolosky]

What do you see in your work? Can you see this reported distortion?

[dougfromtumwater]

Can I see the reported distortion? Well, yes that is the question I am asking about the 60mm Distagon. I have not taken photos with this lens and Seattle is a long way off for a rental try-see, but I may have to do that........

 

My concern comes from lens performance references I have read from time to time which suggests that either pincushion or barrel distortion can be visible beyond 1%. Now Hasselblad/Zeiss say outright that the 50 CFi is a great architecture lens and it has 1.25% distortion. Given that, would the 1.8% distortion at the far edges of the 60mm be objectionable?

[terrestrikon]

I had the 50 FLE, sold it when I got the SWC 905, and subsequently added the 60 CFI. For my purposes, which include architecture, in all respects the 60 outperforms the 50. It is simply an outstanding lens. I cannot recommend it highly enough, but I will tell you that if you buy one you won't regret it.

 

G.

[dougfromtumwater]

Thanks for your insights George. Can you say more about why you like the 60 CFi better than the 50 CFi?

[adrian_tyler]

i own a 60cf, it is a great lens no doubt contrast, detail, nice field of view, UNLESS you want to shoot architecture. the barrel distortion is unacceptabe for me, visible even on contact strips at arms length. in my experience you need the swc if you want to shoot wide angle architecture with the hasselblad system, but please don't take my word for it, rent and shoot a few lamp-posts out in the corners, then decide.

[terrestrikon]

Doug,

 

For one thing, the 60 is super-sharp. I've read that it's the second sharpest Zeiss lens after the 250 SA (which I also have). Whether that's true or not, using the 60 I can make 15x15 prints of interior Cathedral scenes that have the most amazing detail. A print from the 50 at the same scale of enlargement just doesn't have the same snap. Further, the 60 has a more natural perspective to my eye than the 50 -- indeed, I'd agree with the several observations on threads here that the 60 could be used by many as their 'normal' lens. It's just a wonderfully finished bit of equipment.

 

There is a tiny bit of distortion towards the edges and, on my example of the lens anyway, that distortion is accompanied with a tiny loss of sharpness, but I can live with that. I also, btw, have a 100 CF, but routinely choose the 60 over it for most applications.

 

Which is not to say the 50 FLE is bad; until I got my SWC and sold the 50 the 50 was my favorite lens, but it just can't compare to the SWC -- period -- and since every time I wanted that focal length I reached for the SWC, leaving the 50 not getting used, it didn't make sense to keep it.

 

Btw, since the market is so soft right now it may not be a good time to sell your 80. Keep it, get the 60, get the SWC later (but be sure to get one) and go on from there.

 

Just my two cents,

 

G.

[jay_.]

Doug, I owned a 60CF and found it an in-beween lens which was relegated to backup-duty in case either my 50 or 80 would go kaput. Eventually I sold it. I would strongly urge you to consider the 50, but look for a good second-hand 50CF-FLE (it doesn't require the optical compromise of the non-FLE and usually costs only about $100 more; and it takes the B60 filter whereas the CFi takes B70). Do think about picking up an 80 CF, CFi or CFe, or one of the 80 "New C" lenses (B60) made around '94 for the 501C kits. (Note: do *not* get an 80CB, it's an inferior optical design). You are missing something shooting Hasselblad if you don't experience the 80 Planar...and the f/2.8 comes in very handy.

[Ed_Ingold]

Architectural photography tends to require wide angle lenses, which suggests that a 50mm is more useful than a 60mm, if you have to choose. A 50mm MF lens is equivalent to a 28mm lens for 35mm, which is only medium-wide, so a 40mm MF would a better fit with the application.

 

Linear distortion (perspective) is likely to be a much greater problem than barrel distortion. There's really no substitute for a view camera. You could get a new 4x5 monorail kit with a 75mm or 90mm lens for the cost of a new 50/60mm Distagon. Likewise used vs used.

[gary_yeowell]

Doug, I have a 60 CF which is 15 years old and well used, it,s a fantastic lens, period! The focal length works for me, and I have shot countless cityscapes with it, I use it with a 100 & 180 and it see,s the most use. I previously had the 50CF FLE which is also very good but just preferred the look of the 60.

[martin giacobbe]

Yes you can and any other lens. It depends on what your shooting and the effect you want.

[Rob F.]

Doug: My experiences and conclusions have been similar to George Kenney's, but with somewhat older lenses. I own a 50CF Distagon, a 60CT* (the older model before the CF, with the sexy black barrel), and a SWC. I am very pleased with the 60mm Distagon. It is not only sharp, but it displays good sharpness out to the edges at moderate apertures (very good at f/5.6, excellent at f/8). With the combination of the SWC and the 60, I don't need to bother with the 50.

 

What is especially interesting is that George reached the same conclusion even though he used the much improved 50mm FLE with floating elements.

 

So, that's my $0.02. Wanna buy a 50 CF?

[dougfromtumwater]

Thanks all for your thoughts and experiences. Well, I'm still thinking hard about the 60mm. I notice that in the Zeiss charts the 50 CFi has quite a bit more light fall off at maximum aperture in the outer zones than the 60 CFi. Since I primarily use chromes this could be a bigger sin than the barrel distortion.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Edward:

 

At last someone has mentioned that you need movements for architecture!

 

Of course you can turn your 6x6 into a 645 by throwing away the bottom quarter.

 

The Flexbody helps a bit, with the 120 Macro-Planar, but the 40 Distagon has no spare image circle for shift on 6x6.

 

Sometimes you need wide angles, but it is best to use as long a lens as you can.

 

A high view point can eliminate perspective problems.

[larry_lambert1]

Architecture does like movements!!! Flexbody will give some shift with 60, but a good 4x5 system with tight tolerances will definitely outdo it (I say tight tolerances because a wooden kit camera is NOT a Hasselblad body). However I'll chime in on the 60, thankfully PDN was around to steer me in that direction, because 50 on the surface has everything going for it. But 60 beats it. All you can say. I hope Kornelius sees this post, because looking at the lens block diagrams I can't help but notice how the 40 and 50 look like true dyed in the wool retrofocii, yet the 60 looks like a topogon-biogon variation, sort of like a Biogon with the second principle point dragged back some. Perhaps in this thread my question would be in context, Kornelius?

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Larry:

 

Yes: I like my Sinar p and Schneider Angulon 47XL - very handy for Churches with tall spires and small church-yards!