Turning now to the 40mm Distagons for Hasselblad

[philip_dygeus2]

Hello all - I recently received great help in this thread regarding the various 50mm offerings for Hasselblad.

 

The 50 FE was recommended because I have a 203FE and want to be able to use the lens for walk-about street photography.

 

However, having thought further I am wondering if I shouldn't also consider 40mm, for a few reasons:

• I have begun photographing architecture and have invested in a PC Mutar 1.4x which would make a 50mm lens a 70mm; a 40mm would be rather wider at 56mm.
  

• I am going to shoot a project depicting an institution/building with a lot of indoor photography in cramped areas.
  

• While I am remain interested street photography I will use the new lens daytime and dusk/nighttime, both times with flash.
  

In light of these uses the 50 FE will be too limited for me (esp for daytime flash).

 

Among the 50mm options, I've narrowed down my choice to the 50 CF FLE, which seems to strike a good balance size - performance - price-wise (I understand its optics differ from the 50 CF).

 

But regarding 40mm I am however bewildered.

 

Hasselblad's datasheets describe the optical quality of the 40mm lenses as great to very great, depending on the version.

 

But I've read opinions in the archives here that the corner performance of 40mm Distagons is worse than the 50mm Distagons and that they suffer from "moustache" or other distortion. This make me wonder if I would be happy with the performance of a 40mm Distagon.

 

Then there is the price. I am not considering the old 40mm Distagon C, but the more modern versions, from the 40 CF FLE and onwards are generally more costly than the 50 CF FLE, even twice as expensive.

 

I must say, though, that if the 40mm Distagon, in particular the 40 CF FLE, is at least as good as the 50 equivalent, I would probably accept paying more, but is that the case?

 

Thank you kindly in advance.

Philip

[Ed_Ingold]

The CF40/4 FLE is a very good lens. If lenses sold by the pound, you would understand why they cost so much more than the CF50 FLE (think 95 mm filter ring). The distortion is very low, and the sharpness is superb. I bought one mainly to bring a semi-wide angle effect to a cropping digital back.

 

One version of the 40, the CFI IF I think, is optimized for digital. The center resolution is enhances, but falls off toward the corners, which doesn't affect a cropping sensor. It is the right choice for use with a Mutar. With film, the 40 is roughly equivalent to a 24 mm lens on a 35 mm camera. It isn't much, but it's the best Hasselblad has to offer for a V body.

[Gary Naka]

I had planned on getting the 40 as part of my kit . . . until

Until I saw how bulky and heavy it was, and how much more expensive than the 50.

So with 3 things going against the 40, I was backed into getting the 50.

[philip_dygeus2]

Thank you very much for the quick and helpful replies.

 

Ed, I wasn't aware that the 40 CFI IF is optimised for crop sensors. On that basis it may make sense to get that version for use with the PC Mutar. At the same time when the lens shifts wouldn't the lower resolution at the edges be exaggerated by the converter? Also, I plan on using the lens without the converter so would probably notice the fall off. I'm not able to buy two lenses at the moment.

 

Gary, about the size of the 40. The Zeiss data sheets say the 50 CF FLE weighs around 800g and is 9,5cm x 8,2cm. I appreciate there's a difference but it seems this lens is not to much smaller than the 40 CF FLE, at 915g and 10,1cm x 9cm. Were you considering that 40mm Distagon or one of the more modern ones?

[Gary Naka]

I do not remember the details of my comparison between the 50 and 40. I think it was between the CF lenses, and maybe the CF FLE.

Your numbers don't look like there is a LOT of difference between the 2 lenses.

It would have been nice if I could have seen and compared the 50 and 40, side by side. But I did not get to see and hold a 50 until I bought mine. Never got to see/hold a 40.

 

The other option for a 40, is a SWC with a 38mm lens. More expensive, but seems to be a more compact lighter package.

[m_allegretta]

The 4/40CF FLE is the best value for the money. My copy cranks out good pictures at par with the 4/50CF FLE. There is so little distortion, it's invisible. The SWC is difficult to use. I am not familiar with the old 40C, but the matching filters are difficult to find. You get more options with the 40 CF FLE.

[Ed_Ingold]

The SWC uses standard Hasselblad backs, including digital backs. However the 38 mm Biogon is so close to the film plane you get severe vignetting and color shifts in the corners. I've never used my CF40 FLE with film - I bought it after going digital - but I have been very pleased with the results.

 

I shot this picture using the CF40 on a CFV16 digital back. The big mangrove tree was about 25' away.

[Ed_Ingold]

Clarification: The SWC is not compatible with digital backs, even though they fit.

[DB_Gallery]

I had planned on getting the 40 as part of my kit . . . until

Until I saw how bulky and heavy it was, and how much more expensive than the 50.

So with 3 things going against the 40, I was backed into getting the 50.

 

I own both and disagree, I paid $800 for my 50CF/FLE in 2008 and $1,100 for my 40CF/FLE in 2015. As you can see here, the 40 is not at all that much more bulky than the 50:

 

[Ed_Ingold]

Oh yeah it's bigger. It's pretty obvious when you fit it into a camera bag. In simplest terms, a CF50 is about 70 mm wide at the objective, compared to over 90 mm for the CF40. The older C40 is the size of a small coffee pot. You will notice in the photo above, the entire hood of the CF50 will fit inside the CF40 objective. You don't even get a righteous lens cap, just a push-on. That requires extra care in packing.

[philip_dygeus2]

Thank you all for the further replies and DB in particular for posting this comparison, I find it very helpful indeed to seem them side by side.

 

I think I may need to get both lenses to be honest, provided I can find them for reasonable money. I've seen the 50 CF FLE for between 470-630 Euro which seems a good deal, I guess, depending on condition. The 40 FLEs are rare though so I'll have to wait. That one would be the best one though for use with the PC Mutar.

 

 

I own both and disagree, I paid $800 for my 50CF/FLE in 2008 and $1,100 for my 40CF/FLE in 2015. As you can see here, the 40 is not at all that much more bulky than the 50:

 

[ATTACH=full]1180294[/ATTACH]

[reidar_gustafsson]

Clarification: The SWC is not compatible with digital backs, even though they fit.

I did did not know that, so I am using my 903SWC with a CFV50C..

[reidar_gustafsson]

And it looks like Hasselblad also did not know that, regarding the fact that the SWC is a valid selection in the CFV50C menu, for the body it is mounted to?

[Ed_Ingold]

It won't work well with a CFV16. The CFV50c back must use really good firmware corrections. The angle of incidence in the corners is so extreme in the SWC that one would expect parallax effects with the Bayer filter, smearing in the corners due to refraction in the cover glass/IR filter, and vignetting due to the cosine effect. These corrections come at the expense of other attributes. How is the corner resolution on a pixel basis?

[reidar_gustafsson]

It is a question of personal photographic filosofi, what you do with your equipment.

I print, upp to 1 och 2 meter on the long side, so I check my PP at 50% zoom to get a feeling for how it will look printed.

And I do mostly landscape photography.

If I go to 100% or more, then I see things on screen that I don't see in the print.

 

The beauty of the crop sensor is that I don't use the extreme corners of the lens.

 

SWC 903 <- Link

Here you will find a 100 MB file in the .fff format.

It is a photo of a brick wall at f11 and iso 800.

The photo is unevenly lit, darkest in the left corner.

Use the Phocus software with lens correction for a CFI 40 FL, that will take care of a lot of the vingeting.

 

So you can check for your self, if the result is up to your standard.

But please state the intended output when you give a judgment.

 

Ray

[david_smith35]

The CF40/4 FLE is a very good lens. If lenses sold by the pound, you would understand why they cost so much more than the CF50 FLE (think 95 mm filter ring). The distortion is very low, and the sharpness is superb. I bought one mainly to bring a semi-wide angle effect to a cropping digital back.

 

One version of the 40, the CFI IF I think, is optimized for digital. The center resolution is enhances, but falls off toward the corners, which doesn't affect a cropping sensor. It is the right choice for use with a Mutar. With film, the 40 is roughly equivalent to a 24 mm lens on a 35 mm camera. It isn't much, but it's the best Hasselblad has to offer for a V body.

The 40mm lens is actually closer to a 26mm lens on a 35mm camera.

[iangillett]

Does Phocus 'de-fish' the 30 mm lens? I recently met a Hasselblad user while on holiday in Venice and he was using both 30 mm and 40 mm lenses with a CFV-50c back and claiming he got no distortion with the 30 mm if he kept it straight.

[reidar_gustafsson]

You have a few so select from in Phocus

I use the 40 mm Lens for my 38 lens on the 903 SWC.

Normally I dont use the distortion compensation for this lens, just for vingeting.

Works nicely!

 

I have no experience of the 30 or 40 mm lenses.

I decided to go with the SWC instead.

 

Ray

 

[Ed_Ingold]

The 40mm lens is actually closer to a 26mm lens on a 35mm camera.

 

Who makes a 26 mm lens? In terms of effect, the 40 is closer to 24 mm than 28 mm, in part due to the nature of a square format. "Equivalent" focal lengths are hard to compare between formats. A square format has more area for a given length of diagonal than a 2:3 format, hence seems wider. Perhaps it is sufficient that 80 mm is considered "normal" on an Hasselblad, and 40 mm is half of that, unless you wish to quibble over 24 v 25 ;)

[david_smith35]

Who makes a 26 mm lens? In terms of effect, the 40 is closer to 24 mm than 28 mm, in part due to the nature of a square format. "Equivalent" focal lengths are hard to compare between formats. A square format has more area for a given length of diagonal than a 2:3 format, hence seems wider. Perhaps it is sufficient that 80 mm is considered "normal" on an Hasselblad, and 40 mm is half of that, unless you wish to quibble over 24 v 25 ;)

Who makes a 26mm lens? Well, no one as far as I know - I was merely making an accurate comparison using the only sensible method - that of horizontal angles of view. Very few people compose a picture diagonally.

[Ed_Ingold]

There are three common methods of comparing various aspect ratios - width, height and diagonal. None is more "sensible" than the others. While the arithmetic can be "accurate," the effective comparison is subjective. In my opinion, a theoretical focal length is meaningless unless you can put one on the camera. I take the pragmatic approach of rounding to the nearest common value.

[david_smith35]

The effective comparison for me is what you manage to 'get in' to the viewfinder from left to right (or top to bottom if you're using a 35mm camera in portrait format) at a given viewpoint. That's the 'pragmatic' approach for me. Edited April 21, 2017 by david_smith|35

[Ed_Ingold]

Square format is different. You should try it some time.

[david_smith35]

For your information I've been using square format for 37 years - I think that makes me an experienced user.

[Ed_Ingold]

For your information I've been using square format for 37 years - I think that makes me an experienced user.

 

Then I forgive your wonkiness:) As an experienced user, you should appreciate the extra space afforded by the square, or even "Ideal" format, compared to the skinny 3:2.