kornelius_j._fleischer

Nadine described the 60 CB perfectly.

 

Let me just add the two things you cannot easily see from looking at a Distagon 60 CB or using it:

 

The optical formula is identical to that of the Distagon 60 CFi, and so is the main spring: NIVAROX on both lens versions. (This, as an official Zeiss statement, should clarify those two aspects.)

Armando, you think "gee this is affordable buying small image circle lenses...."

I'like to rephrase it like this " ...buying lenses which are manufactured in large numbers" (politely avoiding the term "mass-produced").

 

But here is the main reason for me to contribute to this discussion:

 

Just back from a trade show in the machine vision industry, I have seen there a square CCD sensor with an image area of 45 mm x 45 mm. And there was not one chip maker showing this device. There were those large square chips from three different companies: Atmel, Dalsa, and Kodak.

 

One of them hinted at having a 55 x 55 in the thinking...

Newer Hasselblad bodies (made after 1995)produce visibly better, crisper images due to better straylight absorption (body interiors coated with Palpas, a highly absorbing material).

Yes, Frederic is right.

 

In addition to his comments, there is information on those 3 superwide alternatives in the Hasselblad system on the zeiss website www.zeiss.de/photo in the Hasselblad series 500 section and in the Camera Lens News (CLN)archives.

 

In addition to this, I am preparing a web representation of my test photos from the Zeiss prototype testing a few years ago, which compare distortion, close-up sharpness wide open and stopped down, as well as vignetting.

 

Within Zeiss, I was the driving head behind coming up with an improved 40 mm lens for the SLR viewfinder (even though I like the Biogon 38 very much). Compared to the previous 40 FLE, I wanted significantly more sharpness at infinity for landscape and "citiyscape" shooters, sharpness on the level of the 50 FLE - at least. I wanted to get rid of the FLE mechanics with its confusing two focus rings. I wanted a single one. And I wanted it to operate smoothly, similar to the great focusing mechanism in the Tele-Superachromat 350, which I consinder the best focusing mechanism anywhere in the photo industry. On top of that I wanted a good offering for professionals who use digital backs and enjoy the Makro-Planar 120 for their commercial photography, but needed something significantly shorter in focal length. All of this has materialised in the new Distagon 4/40 IF - the first super wide angle lens for the SLR which can sucessfully challenge the Biogon 38.

 

If you have the opportunity to use it with your best tripod on landscapes with very fine detail at a far horizon, the result will stunn you.

Here is some info from inside Zeiss:

 

Yes, the elements are cemented together with UV hardened optical cement - after they have been precision-aligned on proprietary optical instruments. This job is clearly far beyond the possibilities of a photographer.

 

Why don't you check the Zeiss factory service? You can easily contact Helmut Bajerke via the Zeiss website: www.zeiss.de/photo

So, Simon, what did they say?

I can offer this information from inside Zeiss:

Of all the new Zeiss lenses in the Hasselblad system (generation CFi, CFE, CB), the Tessar 160 CB is the very best in terms of straylight handling.

And it balances very well with a camera body in handheld work.

If you are after colors with utmost purity, or shadows with unparalleled tonal range in b & w, your best choice is the Tessar 160 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 160 CB.

 

Get it, enjoy it!

Thank you, Tommy Baker, for guiding us at Zeiss to this thread.

 

It is interesting to learn about people's opinions from PhotoPlus, since I was unable to attend personally.

 

Let me comment on just a few, not all topics raised in this thread:

 

The Zeiss Ikon cameras will show a better quality feel than the prototypes which some of you handled during Photokina and PhotoPlus Expo. And so will the lenses.

 

Thank you for mentioning that real world experience about: "prototypes manhandled by numerous indifferent trade show attendees jostling about in crowds over a period of weeks, where products may have been dropped, kicked, or otherwise abused."

 

Although some criticized the feel of the prototypes, Hasselblad reportedly had no problems to sell out those 1200 limited edition cameras.

 

By the way: Cosina did actually have a booth at Photokina, and not even a small one.

 

The Zeiss lenses for the Zeiss Ikon camera are based on latest optics designs, exclusive for this lens range. We shot comparisons with those and with other lenses on the market to prove the superiority of the new Zeiss lenses on real film, and also on high resolution "Gigabitfilm". We are confident that users will also come to the conclusion, that the Zeiss ZM lenses will raise the bar for sharpness and flare control.

 

Those who are keen on using a really quiet camera: Check out the twin-eyed Rolleiflex, the old ones with the Compur shutter. Compared to such a camera the Leica M is a hooligan. (Please, don't get me wrong: I am not saying that the Leica M is anything less than a very good camera. At Zeiss, we have just discovered some aspects that we can improve on, like viewfinder brightness, viewfinder flare control, rangefinder base length, rangefinder accuracy, film loading, quantities manufactured, and hence price per camera.)

In terms of optical performance, the new 40 IF beats all its predecessors by a wide margin. Photo magazines found the new 40 IF to be the shapest medium format superwideangle lens they ever tested.

 

You will clearly see the improvements if you take photos of landscapes and cities with plenty detail near infinity, use a sturdy tripod and film with good resolving power, and if you enlarge your photos to poster size.

Another vote for Agfa Portrait XPS 160, the best that I found for pleasing skin tones.

 

On the lens side, I use a Sonnar 4/150 with a 17 mm extension ring. If I want softening, I prefer to use a Zeiss Softar I with my Sonnar 4/150. You can find more info about these products here: www.zeiss.de/photo

This is a post from the very Zeiss guy who did that test which causes so much discussion, and who is the editor of Zeiss Camera Lens News.

 

1. Yes, I claim fourhundred, not just forty. And, yes, it is linepairs - couples of white and black. If it were just "lines" with nothing inbetween, how could you visualize any structure?

 

2. I have been doing tests like this for decades, so I consider myself rather experienced in this field. My results so far very well matched those that the film manufacturers achieved in their labs whith their methods. Which means: although my method differs from their s, the results are pretty much the same.

 

My test target is an Eastman (Kodak) test table showing white lines on black background (object contrast around 50:1, not greater). I attach several of them to one wall of my house and shoot in ordinary sunlight or even with overcast sky, like a normal photographer would when shooting a landscape, cityscape or similar motivs. In short: I apply no sterile lab methods, but real world photographic conditions.

Of course I do use good tripods and painstakingly avoid everything that could cause vibrations, thus eating away the top of the achievable resolution.

 

3. I started all that testing when Kodak film people turned at me for help, when they were unable to prove the resolving power of their Ektar 25 film in real world photos. The figure that they claimed was 200 linepairs per millimeter. And they suspected that normal photographic lenses were unable to deliver this performance.

 

In my previous career as scientific photographer I had developed photographic methods to achieve high resolution on film for photoelasticity analysis, where resolution on film is critical for measurement accuracy. From there I knew that lenses existed which could possibly deliver a performance of 200 and beyond, on film. I had tested most of the available macro lenses on the market from 35 mm to large format, and achieved the best result with Zeiss Makro-Planar 2,8/60 and 5,6/120 on Agfaortho 25, back then in the 1980s.

One of my targets back then was to find ways to use 35 mm equipment where only 4 x 5 inch was deemed good enough before.

 

I proved to Kodak, that 200 lp/mm can be recorded on Ektar 25 with several Carl Zeiss lenses from the Contax RTS and the Hasselblad system and Rollei 6000. With very good enlargement lenses one can retrieve 160+ from the negative onto photographic paper (which, in itself can "play back" some 20 lp/mm) with a very good enlarger, which is precisely adjusted optically and avoids vibration from its cooling fan.

 

Ever since, I have continued my search for the limits of resolution in photographic technique. My assessment of the new ZM lenses is just a new link in that chain.

 

4. I am fully aware that the normal snapshooter will never find it important to achieve anything more than 30 lp/mm. And those who shy away from tripods wí¬¬ not go much further, either. I clearly see that a resolving power of 400 lp/mm is hardly useable for demanding photographers, as long as even the very best commonly available enlarging lenses cannot retrieve much more than 200 lp/mm. Same with Maserati cars on speed limited roads.

 

5. Contrary to what Erwin Puts claims, I have so far not been contacted by him to show him the negatives I shot on Gigabit film. If he had actually done so, I would have invited him to Zeiss Oberkochen for an informative session at my microscope.

Keep guessing! Until now, you are miles away...

Here is how I did it:

 

I got myself a 150 mm Sonnar lens barrel with built-in shutter from the Zeiss spare part service, and had a mechanic adapt my Luminar 40 mm lens to that barrel. With this setup I can easily fill the frame with a coin - at stunning image quality.

The original application for the S-Biogon 5,6/40 was the archiving of quality newspapers for institutions like the National Archives and the like. In the pre-computer era this was done with specialized copy-stands. They would capture a double spread, 2 pages side by side, in one shot on high resolution microfilm. The performance requirement in this application was, that the finest detail contained in a newspaper should be still detectable/legible in a large print from the microfilm negative. The S-Biogon served this purpose excellently. The correction and manufacture of this lens is so flawless that its perfomance is limited only by diffraction.

 

At Zeiss today, we have our lab use our last remaining S-Biogon 5,6/40 whenever we order performance demo prints from 35 mm negs or parts of medium format negs at magnifications in the range of 20x to 50x. The results we get are visibly superior to anything generated with even the best enlarging lenses.

Yes, Zeiss has the answer:

 

All lenses you see in the Zeiss range for Hasselblad today were redesigned with new glass types recently. No exception!

 

At Zeiss, we prefer to perform such improvements and updates rather quietly.

The fact that you do not hear the loud noise from Zeiss that often accompanies Asian and American business activities does not indicate that we are sleeping or otherwise inactive...

Surprising that no one mentioned the Leitz Focomat IIc, by far the best medium format enlarger ever made, at least in terms of mechanical built-quality! Then there was the Agfa Varioskop, another very good one.

One detail really surprises me: Jeff, you say that your Distagon 4/50 is a CFi type and received a new main spring?

 

With the CFi generation of Carl Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad, we, Zeiss, introduced that new NIVAROX main-spring. This new spring has survived half a million (!) cycles in our testing. It should never require replacement as long as you live, and your grandchildren.

 

Routinely replacing the main spring on any lens service job was a repair technician?s habit in the days of the Compur shutter in the old days of the C generation of lenses (discontinued by mid 1980s). The CF generation of lenses with their Prontor CF shutter was much more durable than the Compur. And the Prontor CFi is even further improved.

 

We advertised this explicitely when we introduced the CFi/CFE generation in 1998...

Adapters for mounting Hasselblad lenses onto Canon EOS cameras can be had from companies like Novoflex and Zoerkendoerfer.

May I offer a hint from inside Zeiss:

If you want to assess lens performance in a meaningful way, you need to put the lens to test under conditions it was designed for. Standard lenses are designed to deliver optimal performance at "infinity". For lens testing purposes "infinity" is sufficiantly well approximated if you shoot from a distance of 100x focal length of the lens. This means for the Planar 80 mm: Shoot your house wall from a distance of 8 meters, and you can expect to obtain valid results.

 

When I shot test targets with a Planar 2,8/80 for Hasselblad from 8 m distance on Agfa APX 25 film, the lens resolved 160 linepairs per millimeter at f/8. I would expect nothing less from the Contax Planar 80 at f/8.

 

Wide open, film flatness errors will likely reduce the resolving power, and so will lens aberrations. However, I would expect to find some 60 lp/mm resolved in the center of the image at f/2.

 

Last week I tested one of our 50 mm lenses, which resolved 250 lp/mm (on Agfaortho 25) in the center at f/5.6, and 160 wide open at f/2, just to give you an example of what can be achieved even at f/2.

 

From what I found out so far, the "comparison" at the Mamiya website is based on two different PopPhoto tests which were performed half a year apart and under quite different conditions. PopPhoto once stated this, however, I never found that disclaimer on the Mamiya website. Wonder why...

The biggest I have ever done handheld successfully was Linhof Super Technika 4 x 5. The lenses were coupled with the rangefinder, so focusing was quick and accurate. The resulting image quality was stunning.

 

If you consider this too big and heavy, you may want to check out a twin eye Rolleiflex.

Luca, the fact that you ask tells me that you did not have the opportunity to compare the lenses you mention, yet. Being the Zeiss camera lens marketing manager, I had.

From that experience, which also includes the Tele-Tessar 4/350 for the 200 series Hasselblad, and of course the Tele-Apotessar 8/500, I can say this:

 

The Tele-Tessar 5,6/350 has the traditional focusing helicoid design, which can appear very stiff with long tele lenses.

The Tele-Superachromat with its internal focusing design, on the other hand, has clearly the best focusing mechanism in the industry. Try it once and you will be convinced.

The focusing mechanism of the 4/350 and Tele-Apotessar 500 are also very good, since these lenses also are internal focusing designs.

 

In terms of image quality, the Tele-Superachromat is way ahead of the other 3 lenses mentioned here. Sharpness and image brilliance are stunning. Once you have experienced for yourself the enormous overall quality of this lens, you will not want to settle for anything less. I use mine with a Novoflex adapter even on my 35 mm SLR cameras, since I have not found a tele lens of similar performance anywhere in 35 mm.

Lakhinder, you are right! When doing macro photography with Hasselblad, one can encounter some or all of the problems you mentioned.

I found a very good solution:

1. I got myself a spare part lens barrel of a Zeiss/Hasselblad Makro-Planar lens with its long focusing helicoid. 2. I also got myself some Zeiss Luminar lenses from the used market. 3. I had a mechanic make me a threaded ring to adapt the Luminar lenses to the lens barrel.

 

The combination is rather small, lightweight and has only one single mechanical interface with the camera.

 

The best thing is: the Luminar lenses are tiny, so they do not obstruct the lighting of my macro subjects. This works very well for me.

 

In the Rollei 6000 system, the solution is similar: get a normal extension ring plus the Rollei shutter adapter plus a Zeiss Luminar lens. Then have a mechanic do an adapter ring and start shooting.

May I add some information from inside Zeiss to this thread:

 

The Zeiss Planar 100 mm is superior to the Planar 80 in 3 aspects:

1. Higher performance wide open,

2. Higher performance in the corners,

3. Higher correction level for distortion.

 

If you do aerial photography, you need all three of these.

If you do architecture or serious documentation, no. 2 and 3 are very desirable.

 

What then are the drawbacks of the 100?

Slightly lower in speed,

higher in price,

bigger in size and weight.

 

When building or planning a set of lenses and spacing the focal lengths optimally consider this:

1. Be aware that at the wide angle end of your set a 10 mm step in focal lenght can make much more of a difference to the image than 100 mm at the tele end. To my eyes, the difference between images from the Distagon 40 vs. the Distagon 50 is more impressive than the Tele-Tessar 350 vs. Tele-Apotessar 500.

2. Rather than spacing the lenses according to focal length steps, you may want to space them according to object fields covered. For this purpose there is an interactive display on the Zeiss website, which enables just this.

 

Also, www.zeiss.de/photo has the information that takes most of the guesswork out of lens choice debates for the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex and Contax medium format systems. And then some...

These actors and models of course want to look perfectly good in their photos. This can be best achieved by using these special portrait films like Kodak Portra 160, Agfa Portrait XPS 160 and the like. Nothing renders skin tones better than these films. And skin tones are one of the obvious weak points in digital.

 

Your client may want to use some of ýour work in poster size. This is where medium format really shines.

And don´t overlook the Rollei 6008i. Some of its lenses can synch up to 1/1000s, the fastest in the industry. If you do your portraits not only with your camera on tripod, you will also appreciate the Rollei´s built-in motorized film winder. And the camera can do 6 x 6 and 645 rotatable as well. And then some...