Hasselblad: Which 250 mm is best for me?

For what it is worth, I have a CF 250sa and am very satisfied with its performance. If Zeiss didn't think it a better lens and it wasn't more expensive to manufacture, then the price would be lower in comparison to the regular 250 CF. I have "heard" that the 250sa is quite a superior lens, but I have not compared them. However I do know that the latest version from Zeiss, just now becoming available, is the 250CFE SA designed to be used on both 500 and 200 series cameras and having the updates of the CFi series. A gray market of version of this new lens costs about $3700 if you can find a shop which has one.

buy yourself a professional lens shade, a good cable release, and use the mirror lockup.

Kevin

Firstly, on the topic of lens flare, I'm suprised to read that you are more concerned with flare from your longest lens as opposed to your other wider lenses; one would expect that the wider the lens the MORE suspectable to flare/the longer the lens the LESS suspectable, as the wider lenses have more opportunity to catch a direct light source. With such an excellent (and expensive) array of equipment, I'm assuming that you've invested in the proper lens hoods for each lens; in the case of the 250 lenses, you may even want to consider replacing the fixed plastic lens shade for the proshade, which comes with a mask specifically for the 250. Also, I would think that the more elements a lens contains, the higher the chances of flare; if this indeed is the case, then the Superachromat version with six elements would be more prone than the Sonnar at only five elements. Nevertheless, we are talking exclusively about post-1982 CF lenses, which all share the same highest quality T-Star coating, and should all be equally protected from lens flare, assuming a proper shade/hood is utilized. On the other hand, when Hasselblad upgraded the CF lenses to CFi/CFE in 1999, they claimed the new lenses were even better internally coated (the barrel black surfaces, not the elements themselves) to protect against flare, but I don't recall CF owners (circa '82-'98) complaining about flare problems (certainly not myself, anyway). I have absolutely no experience with the Superachromat lens, as it's not available for rent at any of the four rental houses here in Toronto, but the catalog describes it as "a special-purpose lens with unique optical design which gives perfect chromatic correction without sacrificing correction for distortion or other aberrations; an ideal lens for scientific applications, especially multi-spectral photography (spectral range of 400-1000 nm)". I don't see how any of this could apply to lens flare in any way. Are you sure you need a "special-purpose scientific-application" lens, would it really make your photography any better? The regular Sonnar CFi sells new for $3265, so if you can score a used SA CFi version for about the same price, grab it, otherwise you're looking at $5200 for new ($5650 for the new SA CFE!!!). Do you only have one camera body? I ask because most Hasselblad shooters have a back-up body. As far as the mirror vignetting problem is concerned, you could save the money you would spend on the SA lens, keep your current CF (trust me, it's sharp!), keep your CX body for back-up, and get a CW body as your new main camera. I've had one for three years now, and love it; look into the Winder CW, it's wonderful. If I could give one last piece of advice, it's obvious that through your equipment choices, you are a perfectionist, yet you state that you are not a professional photographer. Assuming that you are as much a perfectionist about your photography as you are about your equipment, the time has come to investigate ways to make this rather expensive hobby pay for itself. Even if photography is not going to be your main source of income, it's much easier to justify these expenditures when there's some return; not to mention, the extreme self-satisfaction to see your work either published or displayed before the masses. I'd be curious to see some of your work, if you have any displayed on the net.

Daniel

I think the 250SA is definitely a superior lens - it will give greater resolution particularly so around f5.6, but as others have pointed out not necessarily any better flare control. I think you need a better lens hood, and you can even make sure that you are shading the lens yourself by using your hand to block light when necessary. Another thought is that you are noticing atmospheric haze issues. These become more prominent the longer the lens you use. To solve this you just have to be aware of it, and shoot at times to avoid it (clear days, not in high summer, morning or evening light etc.). I think an upgrade to a CFi is probably a waste of money. You could try and buy an SA secondhand - but these are pricey. But remember these lenses are the same optical formula they were in 1975 in the CT* line, so you could save bucks by buying an older version, but if flare is your problem you will need to check with Zeiss/Hasselblad whether the SA has better flare control. If you ask Hasselblad I suspect they will tell you the answer.

The 250mm is not one of the legendary sharp Zeiss lenses, which I suspect why there is an SA version for those who really care. But equally I bet it is sharp enough, particularly stopped down.

“The 503 CX has no gliding mirror, so I have mirror vignetting with the 120 and 250.”

Daniel, I am afraid to be wrong, but The Gliding Mirror System, which provides a full image in the viewfinder with virtually all lenses, is being since the 501CM mod. So, as your 503 CX so the 503CW are fitted with the same GMS.

Hello,

All considering this lens should do themselves a favor and run a search on this forum for discussions pertaining to it. Even considering all of the superlative comments over it, you will probably still be surprised just how good it is.

As far as the normal 250, indeed, it is not one of the stellar performers. Capable of great art, yes, but so isn't a Holga under the right conditions. If you are looking for an edge in technical quality, if you are interested in superior sharpness, incredible color saturation you should look at the SA. In medium format only the APO RZ lens and the APO Schneider for Rollei come close in my experience.

Victor,

I am afraid that you indeed are wrong about the 503 CX. The only two non-motorized 500 series cameras having a non-vignetting mirror (GMS) are the 503 CW and the 501 CM. The earlier 503 CX and CXi models did have the old vignetting mirror.

The 250Sa is a lens without T* coating. It needs a good photographic condition to maxmize its perfromance, i.e. good tripod, good shade, accurate foucus and exposure. Otherwise, the performance drops significantly, even worst than a normal 250. It provides a very high resolution than most lenses if it is in a good condition. But the color rendition may not be as good as a normal 250 with T* coating if you are taking color films.

Unbelievably, Ed is right, I never noticed, but apparently, the Superachromat lens lacks the T-star coating, as revealed in the lens chart (Product Guide 2001, pg 17). Therefore, this would obviously not be the proper lens for outdoor use. I guess the colour shift(s) of the T-star coating would interfere with the "scientific application" qualities of the lens.