CF vs. CFI/CFE lenses

Fred

I am sure that a lot of people look at the charts that Hasselblad puts out and then state that one lens is better than another. And I am sure that in certain situations one could use two lenses at the same time to make two different negatives and that those two negatives would show a difference to some degree.

I have been using Hasselblad equipment since 1970. I have used the c lenses, the cf lenses, and now the CFI/CFE lenses. Mostly for portraits and weddings and some black and white landscape photography. Mostly enlarging to print sizes 16 x 20 and smaller. And given those parameters, and given my 52 years old eyesight, I cannot see any differences between the cf lenses and the CFI lenses I use now. NONE!

Certainly, others may differ.

Kevin

I have a CFE80/2.8, CF150/4 and CF50/4-FLE, and I can't see that the 80 is better than the other two in this respect. I was a little "supprised" over the quality (both image and buildquality) of the CF lenses I bought. I like the aperture ring, the interlock button, the F-button and the rubber on the distance ring far better on the CF than on the CFE. The stop down button and the flash contact is a little better on CFE/i, but the last is no problem if you keep the synkcable in trim.

If you plan to buy a 202/203/205-body, go for a CFE(not the CFi), if not go for a CF180/4.

Comparing my CF 4/150 with the newest CFi 4/150 it came to my attention that Zeiss removed the rear baffle which was close to the rear lens tube. The baffle apeared to be dull dark grey, now you can look deeper into the lens, it looks more glossy black, For me, this looks more than a cost saving item then an improvement. I can't see why this should improve flare control. I would not buy CFi-lens because of better flare control, but other improvements (on piece rear mount, Nivaflex spring) may well worth it.

Kevin Can you see any differenc betweeen the c and the cf lenses ?

Bjharke

It has been some time since I used any C lenses. The first C lenses I used were the chrome ones, and if my memory is correct, those lenses were single coated, as opposed to later c lenses that were T star coated. To tell you the truth, for what I used them for, I did not see any difference between the T star C lenses and the CF lenses. But then I always use a lens hood to control stray light and flare.

People who use Chrome film may see a difference, but in general, with negative films, you are not going to see much of a naked eye difference, if any, until you start to enlarge prints beyond the 16 x 20 size. You may of course have differences that can be measured with a densitometer, but with the naked eye I doubt that you would see differences until you got into enlargements of 20 x 24 and larger, although I have seen some absolutely gorgeous 30 x 40 and even 40 x 60 prints made from color negs shot with cf lenses.

ok thanks

I have a CF 50/4 FLE and, in some backlight pictures, there is a lot of flare (with the professional lens shade too). So I tested the new CFi 50. But I didn't see any difference: the new one is flare prone as my old CF.

Hasselblad or Zeiss will tell you that the CFI lenses will have more colour saturation and contrast but it's bollocks! Ive got the 50 FLE, 60 CF, 100CF,and 180CF and they are superb. How else can Hasselblad sell the (cheaper to manufacture) CFE/CFI lenses without saying they are better. Save your money and buy film instead.

hello, luciano... your comparison was helpful.... i guess the difference is pretty minute between the CF and CFI...

so i guess i'll be purchasing a 180mm CF with a nice lens hood...

thanks everyone, fred

Gary, I agree with you: In the Hasselblad "information" "Boost your system" there are 2 pictures: 1 taken with "old lenses" (translated from swedish) and 1 taken with "CFi/CFE/CB", the last picture is much more saturated in colors and black than the first. There is also 1 picture showing two chrome lenses (non T*) and the CF150/4T* together in a frame called "old lenses" and 1 picture showing the CFi 180/4T* in a frame called "CFi/CFE/CB". With these pictures Hasselblad is not telling the truth. The CF-lenses are much better than this "information" want us to belive. I'd rate the CF-lenses together with the CFi/CFE.

If one need the electircal contacs for the light meter in a 202/203/205-camera, go for the CFE-style. If not, go for the CF-style and save money.

alrighty, so the general agreement is that CF lenses are just as saturated as CFI lenses...

well, i don't need the electrical contacts, so my question was based purely on image differences. (differences that are noticeable to the naked eye, and differences noticeable with just one look, not a back and forth back and forth look, and finally concluding 'yeah, the CFI is more saturated...but im not sure... maybe its because hasselblad told me so and i paid more for it")

i think i'll buy a 180mm CF lens....

thanks for the answers...

Bravo, Kevin!!!

I've also used 'Blad from the 60's (a bit older than you, Kevin) and the CF lenses that I use today are perfect for professional use. My CF 80 recently went down on a wedding assignment and I had to switch to my backup "C" lens. Outstanding contrast and sharpness.

Any CF lens should be fine. My 180CF is beautiful. Others may tell you different and that is their subjective oppinion. But from an old pro, the CF lenses are fine (and most C lenses, though the original 40 and 50 WERE upgraded).

Vanity perhaps, but don't you all admit that the CFi/CFE lenses at least look better than the CF... ;-)

When you see trough the front of them, it is darker inwards compared with the CF's. And even if they in most cases generally give the same results, there are special situations, like the examples Audun S. refers to, where the new CFi/CFE have the better of it. A similar comparison is the straylight-damping "Palpas" inside newer bodies. I use 2000FCW's without the new special dead cote inside, but I can not resist the new CFi/CFE's...

However, I have found one cosmetic error from Zeiss on their CFi/CFE's: The markings for the shutter and aperture do not always align. Just check for yourself. For example: Shutter marking 8 (for 1/8 sec) aligns perfectly with aperture 8. But try combination 1/15 with 11, 16, 22 and 32. See? Not aligned. I asked a representative of Hasselblad/Sweden about this fact, but he admitted that he had no good answer.

Christian:

The picture sample taken with the "old lenses" in the "Boost your system" must have been taken with a C-lens without T* and not a CF T* (or C T*).

<When you see trough the front of them, it is darker inwards compared with the CF's.> I can't see this when i look trough my CFE-lens and CF-lenses from the front or back. In the rear end my CF50/4-FLE has a black paint that looks semigloss compared to the very matte paint in the rear end of my CFE80/2.8. This paint on my 50 is visible from the filmplane, and may cause some reflection from the film and back to the film again. I wonder if I shall find some black matte paint, and paint over it. However my pictures from both the CF50 and CF150 looks great. Whatever lens you use, I think the best you can do is to use a proshade or a lens hood.

I think Hasselblad would sell much CFE-lenses, if the had released a new 204 (with the best from 203 and 205) that could take winder CW (or a new one) and digital back. Some also want a light meter in the 500-series (then CFE would be prefered).

I think the CF- lenses looks great, and I prefer most of their controls over the controls og my CFE. ;-)

It's all just marketing hype for business purposes, upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. No one will see a difference, as too many variables are involved. Shooting test charts with the camera on a tripod in a lab with the mirror locked up, and a cherry picked sample, maybe. But, handheld in the real world, no way. Get what is comfortable for you. I like the "old" T* self timer (no, not for self portraits), and interlocking speed/aperture. Newer is not necessarily better. The Biogon is an early 50's design, if not older, and the newer 905 did not improve the performance. It's your money, I can't tell you what to do with it.

Audun:

I have not seen the paper "Boost your system", but I still find it very hard to believe that Hasselblad would choose an old non-T* lens to point out the improvements of their CFi/CFE lenses in high backlight situations. For what could that prove? It is their new improvement that is interesting, implying the difference with their CF and CFi/CFE.

I have here the 2000 Pro-Photo catalogue from Interfoto (Hasselblad Service in Norway) which shows pictures, probably similar to the ones you refer to, taken with CF 150mm (specified) compared with a CFi 150 mm. A huge difference, and my first thought was probably the same as many others, that this could not be true. My point: 1) The difference is of course not huge like this generally. In many (most?) cases maybe not visible at all. 2) But here, in this special case, the difference was possible to force visible. Hasselbald/Zeiss have found a special (rare) situation where the difference is at its maximum.

i've been using a 180sonnar f/4 CF for a few months now (note it's a CF version) and i've not used the CFi version. I use it for both location architecture work as well as for high key studio lighting and i've had no problems with flaring/contrast or ghosting. Dead sharp everytime. I also use it with a bellows for 1:2 and 1:1 reproduction and i get equally stunning results with high key lighting.

Christian:

I'll send the "Boost your system" to you if you'll send it back to me. The difference is so big that there is no way that the worst photo can be taken with a CFT*-lens. The picture of the old lenses show the CF150/4, a chrome 120 and I think a chrome 150 (the two last without T*, I think). The picture of the new style shows the CFi 180/4. Until Hasselblad tell me exactly what lenses they used to take the two photograps showing the upgrade, I'll continue to say that the worst picture must have been taken with a lens without T* . If they were honest in the "Boost your system", they should show 4 pictures taken with these lensestyles; C, C-T*, CF-T* and CFi/CFE/CB-T*. I'm pretty sure that Hasselblad shows the total improvement from C without T* to CFi-T*, not from CF-T* to CFi-T*. They wanted the owners of C-lenses to upgrade, and they also tried to make the owners of CF-lenses to opgrade without saying all the truth. The only upgrade to reduse straylight I can se from my CF-lenses to my CFE-lens is that in the CFE Zeiss used a very matte paint around the rear element in CFE/i-style.

hello,

christian, do you know what 'special' situation that hasselblad managed to make comparisons between the CF and CFI...

i'm figuring that if it makes a difference in the 150mm... then it might also correlate to 180mm...

hmm.... well this complicates matters again... (ugh! christian... well maybe i can find the article you read online, but i doubt it... )

thanks, fred

Christian: I haven't seen this "2000 Pro-Photo catalogue". Did Hasselblad tell if both lenses ("CF 150mm (specified) compared with a CFi 150 mm")were new and 100% clean, or if the CF was a used lens?

I saw that you have bought the Zeiss lens cleaning set, and that you's satisfied with it. I think I'll do this myself, and I'll also use my Proshade as often as possible with my CFE and CF-lenses. :-)

Christian: Thank you for a very interesting phonecall! I think we agre in the most of what we have discussed, and it is very interesting to talk with you about the HB-gear. :-)

Christian,

I have not seen the paper "Boost your system", but I still find it very hard to believe that Hasselblad would choose an old non-T* lens to point out the improvements of their CFi/CFE lenses in high backlight situations. For what could that prove?

Bronica once published a "paper" extolling the virtues of their cameras and lenses. In it, they used pictures to demonstrate that quality. One of these was clearly taken not with a Bronica, but with a Hasselblad (the give-away were the well-know Hasselblad V-marks that were clearly showing). Now "what could that prove?" indeed... ;-)

There will be something to Hasselblad/Zeiss's claims that image contrast is improved. There will also be a good deal of exageration too (we know this phenomenon also under the name of "marketing" ). So don't put all your trust in advertising material.

Two things to consider further: neither Hasselblad nor Zeiss forgot to mention that the improvement in contrast will not always be apparent, but only show under certain circumstances.
And how about all those Hasselblad users who were quite satisfied with the contrast before this latest "improvement". Why did they not complain?
So the truths will be somewhere in the middle: some improvement, yes. But not so great as we are hoped to believe (i.e. so much that we all run to spend lots of money buying all new lenses).

And thank you, Audun! It is a pleasure to discuss with someone like you, both skilled concerning details and with enthusiastic care for exquisite equipment. I have a feeling we will meet again :-)

Fred: There is no doubt that CF-lenses are already fantastic optics. So even the smallest improvements could be looked upon as a considerable achievement. Still it might be somewhat difficult to take pictures that clearly show the difference. This is the reason I think that Hasselblad must have found a 'special' situation to illustrate this, seeking a situation to maximise the weakest property of CF compared to CFi/CFE