180 CFE vs 250 CFE SA

You can download the MTF's of the two lenses and see for yourself. In my view, the two lenses serve different purposes.

Can you provide a link to the MTF data? Thanks.

The MTF's aren't photos. The story is told by the results of the photographs. I have both lenses and generally use the 250 CFE SA 90% of the time and it gives outstanding results. I too shoot primarily landscapes with it. The 180 is a great lens and I don't hesitate going to it if I need a little wider perspective, but generally the 250 SA gets used by far the most.

Try this:

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx

(lots of other good stuff there as well)

I'd suggest you google to find the MTF's...

CPeter Jørgensen:

MTF's aren't photos, I agree, but my experience is that people who worry about whether one lens is sharper than another are more concerned about lpm measurements than actual photos. In any case, MTF graphs are seemingly the most objective data easily available, such as it is, on lens characteristics and are not influenced by individual photographer characteristics or biases.

As I said, I don't think one lens replaces the other, so it's not a question of which lens is sharper.

Good advice, Wai-Leong, after John told everyone where to find them...
;-)

It's never too late to learn about Google.... what if John or you weren't around to help today?

"It's never too late to learn about Google"

Maybe. But the Hasselblad Historical site is one about which every Hasselblad owner or ogler should know. If you've got a question about Hasselblad equipment, Hasselblad Historical should pop into your head before Google.

(Even though I'm otherwise a big fan of Google.)

Peter, how would you rate ease of use and applicability of the 250 for portraits? I read that Kornelius likes this because of the proportions that it gives. I have not had a chance to use it and I agree with Wai-Leong that it's not just about lpm, but I can't afford to have both and seeing that the 2 focal lengths are somewhat close and having read all the rave reviews about the 250, I was thinking of making the switch. I completely understand that they are different lenses but in my case I have to pick just one and accept the pros and cons of each. :(

The Hasselblad Historical site is great -- lots of invaluable information. Thanks very much for letting me know about it. I was amazed at the MTF's for the 250 SA -- it must be an unbelievably sharp lens. I also was very interested to see that the F versions of the 150, 250 and 350 lenses are not only sharper, not only a full stop faster, but they are lighter too!

Also, there isn't one that I can rent or borrow hence am relying on this forum to make as an informed a decision as possible. Thanks again.

I have both lens' as well. The 180 is fantastic for portraits while the 250 is fantastic for landscapes. The 250 tends to look through skin and "see" too much for portraiture. In any case, both lens are wonderful. If you shoot both landscapes and portraits I would keep the 180 that you have.

Chris

"Robert Meier, Nov 01, 2007; 08:12 p.m. ... I also was very interested to see that the F versions of the 150, 250 and 350 lenses are not only sharper, not only a full stop faster, but they are lighter too!

Benjamin Kim"

The F lenses are for the 200/2000 series with the focal plane shutter, not for the V series which has the shutter built in each lens. It is kinda like comparing apples and airplanes.

Steve

It's not apples and oranges if you've got a 2000FCM (or any other 200/2000 body) like I do. I can use any C, CF, F, or FE lens.

I would say that this is mostly a matter of focal length than anything else. If you do IR, then the SA is king. If not, then it's mostly about focal length. Particularly for portraits it's not a very clear choice. The resolution and sharpness of these lenses is so good that you'll be hard pressed to record that on film or digital.

I've owned them both (plus the original 250mm), but after many years have settled on the 180mm plus the 350mm sa for my purposes.

Where as the 250mm sa has the edge over the 180mm at infinity and in the centre of the frame, the 180mm has the advantage that it holds its performance better in the close range and as a balanced image from corner to corner.

In addition one of the most attractive aspects of the 250mm sa was its luminous colour rendition with certain transparency films, but as I now use a digital back this benefit is no longer relevant. The 350mm sa also comes with a dedicated x1.4 extender that compromises quality not one jot, so you have a superlative 490mm as well as a 350mm.

Hi Gary, you wouldn't still have your 250 sa and have it up for sale would you? You mentioned good colour rendition with certain transparency films, can you tell me which ones they are? Lastly, this is digressing a little, but did you switch to digital because of convenience or because it produced better results compared to film?

Thanks everyone for all your comments.

Hi Benjamin,

no question, the 250 CFE SA is an overall outstanding super lens, and cannot be made better! With one exception, for technical reasons, the 250 CFE SA has no, and will not have any MC coating! So, that means, use always the appropriate lens shade.

In this aspect, the 180mm may be a better lens, especially for portraits.

Cheers

Hello Benjamin, no I'm afraid my 250mm sa was sold some time ago, it performed magnificently with Provia, delivering the sparkling clarity you associate with cold, clear days.

Regarding the switch from film to digital, I don't want to re-open what an old debate. I mainly shoot commercial architectural, using a Phase One back on V series Hassies and a Linhof. The reality of exterior architectural work (at least here in crowded Europe) is that most of the job is done in Photoshop removing inconveniently parked cars, street signs, and buider's skips! Whatever you think of film versus digital it's just a fact that this type of heavyweight retouching is best achieved in an all digital environment.

I have also both lenses and generally sharper is the 180 CFE. SA 205 has evidently smaller color fringing than 180, the picture is clear, but somehow "softer" www.worldphoto.eu

..... Sorry ..... not SA 205, but SA 250 :-).

http://www.worldphoto.eu/

Hi Ladislav, wow, I love your pictures. I wish I could visit all the places that you've photographed. Anyway, this is the first time I've read of anyone feeling that the 180 is sharper than the 250. Thanks for sharing your photos.