|
a diva in the M.F. court
|
|
Hasselblad enjoys the reputation of being the "Rolls" of the medium format.
The design, the universality of the system, the overall quality of the crafting, the pictures of astronauts walking in space built this image, the fashion magazines propagates it on glazed paper.
This should not make forget that in 6x6 the best current technical offer is undoubtedly Rollei. See on this subject the Rollei 6008 camera by Philip Greenspun, including a Rollei/Hasselblad side by side comparison.
|
|
square, squire ?
|
|
Avoiding to beat dead horses about the quarrel of formats, the logic however directs towards the 6x7, closer to the publication shape. In this format, the attention must be held
by the Pentax 6x7 for its robustness, its optical range and its quality/price
ratio and by the telemetric Mamiya 7 for its handholdability .
Already excellent, the Pentax 6x4,5 had been improved with the autofocus. The new Contax 6x4,5 has joined it like a logical choice for a single equipment (with the Zeiss advantage). A new Mamiya 6x4,5 has been introduced in May 99'. Here is the problem: the 6x4,5 is justified as a single equipment, but not in addition to an yet owned 35 mm system. To really benefit from the medium format, it is better to choose 6x7 than 6x4,5, a little skimped on the size of film.
After having celebrated many other brands, why did I choose Hasselblad ?
For its design and its reputation. And I don't regret it, optics deserving their reputation, with (rare) weak points and true jewels.
|
|
CF lenses
|
|
The CF lenses were introduced in 1983 to replace the C lenses. Two important features were new : the mechanical devices and the leaf shutters. But the optical parts were the same. New lenses were introduced later :the 40 CF and the 50 FLE (both with floating elements), the 500 apo and the 180 CF.
My qualitative opinion on the CF lenses
|
Lens
|
My opinion
|
Comparison with C
|
30 mm f 4 fish-eye |
Not tested |
Identical to C T * |
38 mm f 4,5 SWC |
Excellent |
Identical to C T * |
40 mm f 4 |
Not tested |
Overtake widely 40 C,
which is weak |
50 mm not-FLE f 4 |
Excellent |
Identical to C T * |
50 mm FLE f 4 |
Excellent |
|
60 mm f 3,5 |
Very good |
Identical to C T*
No opinion on 60 C f 4 and 5,6 |
80 mm f 2,8 |
Very good |
the 80 C T* seems identical
an old 80 with 5 lenses was weak |
100 mm f 3,5 |
Excellent, superior to the 80 mm |
Identical to C T * |
120 mm Makro f 4 |
Correct but somewhat common for Hasselblad; tern |
120 C T* was similar but f 5,6
No opinion on it |
135 mm Makro f 5,6 |
Not tested |
Identical to C T * |
150 mm f 4 |
Very good |
Identical to C T * |
180 mm f 4 |
Very good but hardly better
than 150 mm |
|
250 mm f 5,6 |
Not tested |
Identical to C T* |
250 mm f 5,6
Super-achromat |
Not tested |
Identical to C T* |
350 mm f 5,6 |
Not tested |
Identical to C T* |
500 mm f 8 apo |
Not tested
|
Overtake widely 500 C,
which is weak
|
Some comments: The 120 mm Makro disappointed me, no matter what say some with greedy expressions. I expected a top lens and it is only a good lens. It is sharp but the image is dull. Look to my test of
the 120 CF and 110 F
(in French). I do not believe that it is about bad luck, some experts checked this point of view. See also Philip Greenspun and Olle Bjernulf . Thanks to Michael Heal who corrected a previous error on 120 Makro CT*, which is f 5,6. They are optically similar but not identical, therefore may not be twinned concerning results.
The star is the 100 mm. Old design, but it has everything: raised sharpness, brilliant image, no distortion, pleasant angle, no restriction wide opened ...
The 180 mm did not make me forget the 150 mm, of which I liked better the angle of sight and the rendition of skin tones. A quality: the 180 mm works extremely well with the Mutar 2x. A handicap : a
serious cut-off in the viewer of former 500 CM, 503 CX...
The 50 mm FLE has very for him but in staging I prefer the bunch 40/60/100/180 instead of 50/100/180. It's not doubtful that for one having a 80 mm, the group 50/80/150 is perfect.
|