Hasselblad Lens Performance - Which is best?

What you will find in this article:
- Medium format photography equipment review,
- Hasselblad photos,
- Hasselblad V series 6x6 camera equipment,
- Hasselblad / Carl Zeiss Distagon 50mm FLE and 60mm lenses and Sonnar 150mm, 180mm and 250mm lenses,
- Hasselblad lens reviews.

One often hears questions such as: “Is the Hasselblad 50mm FLE sharper than the 60mm lens?” and “Should I buy the 180mm instead of the 150mm lens for portraits since some say it is sharper; but, I’m concerned that the 180mm is bigger and heavier?”

These questions are raised when selecting a lens - either from 2 or more close focal length choices (eg 80mm vs 100mm) for a specific task; or, from 2 or more versions of the same focal length (eg 250mm or 250mm SA) - which is best?

And, again like most things in photography equipment choices, the saying: "different horses for different courses" sensibly applies.

Firstly, I should point out that my evaluation of any lens is always a qualitative one - do I like the "look" it produces; how well do the various aberrations appear to be corrected; where is its Achilles Heel? In the end, this is all that matters.

Yes, I do examine various quantitative performance charts and statistics about the optical measurement results a lens produces - these allow me to understand the lens better. But, all that is meaningless until you see the images produced. Not all so-called excellent lenses appeal to excellent photographers. Not all lenses with promising resolution charts produce the image I may prefer.

There is a great deal of nit-picking and anal-retentive behaviour by photographers who over-analyse lens performance charts to death. My experience has been that the most "specification" obsessive users are often the worst image makers.

However, when one is about to invest considerable cash (although expensive is a relative term) in a new or used lens, it is only natural and sensible to look into what you are about to buy and understand exactly what you are about to get for your money. Also making comparisons with others is helpful - others in the same system or even competing systems. Like optics, it is all about perspective and relativity.

These types of questions are understandable, but are also missing some key points in camera lens selection criteria for a system (such as in this case of Hasselblad’s V series 6x6 equipment). Of course in more “open” systems like 35mm SLR equipment, there are choices of many makes of the same focal length. While this essay specifically addresses the question for “closed” system users (as is the case in medium format photography), many of the points discussed can be still be applied to “open systems”.

In a closed system such as the Hasselblad V series equipment, the question about lenses’ optical performance involves a selection choice among 2 or more lenses, such as: “Should I buy the 50mm, 50mm FLE or 60mm for landscapes; which is best or sharpest?” While the answer is often not simple, there is great value in taking the time to look into a lens' characteristics - to understand the lens' performance attributes and use it to get optimal results.

There is often no single or "right" answer because the issue involves many rather subjective and relative selection criteria:
• Focal length – angle of view; relative depth of field and its overall "look"
• Design attributes - relative optical performance such as resolution of fine detail, optical distortion etc. and how these impact on the user’s purpose and visual preferences
• Lens design – optimisation of the various aberrations and how these performance attributes are “traded off” within the design constraints
• The user’s main purpose for the focal length and where the lens fits within the user’s overall lens kit
• Physical characteristics such as weight, size, ergonomics, etc.
• Other specific performance characteristics that matter - such as fastest f stop

In a “closed” system it is fair to assume that the user has made an objective evaluation of the general optical performance of the systems lenses – has satisfied himself that the system offers an overall standard of optical performance that is acceptable or even outstanding. He has accepted that all lenses in the system are of that general imaging quality standard or else he would not have so unwisely chosen that system and made a commitment to its optics. Those who have not, are doomed to sell out of that system and buy into another, often at a high cost that could have been avoided.

Equally, and fortunately, it may be fair to say that none of the medium format systems offer “bad optics”; that their performance under close examination ranges from good to superlative. Why? Because MF systems were developed by their makers to appeal primarily to professional users and secondarily to very dedicated amateurs (I am, of course not referring to the “copy” market of cheap Russian and Chinese equipment really developed for very budget conscious amateurs looking to “play” in the MF arena).

We all need to take care when discussing the comparative lens performance characteristics among the Hasselblad/Zeiss optics - to not be overly precious about the finer points of their performance. But it is fair to say that these lenses are generally of an outstanding standard where their designers have successfully achieved a desirable balance among the many optical challenges.

The reality is that every Hasselblad/Zeiss lens is an excellent performer in a general sense. But, in the normal optical design world of trading off the many optical aberrations affecting performance and designing and building lenses within some constraints (such as size and cost of production) some lens characteristics differ. There may be attributes in one or more lens that do not appeal to particular buyers - that is a matter of preference to the buyer and not a matter of "bad" design.

So while all in the range IMHO are "excellent" lenses there are a few that are indeed very "special" such as the 100mm, which seem to have become so because of some design criteria and purpose Zeiss used at the time.

How then should one go about selecting lenses for a kit?

Typically, one is best advised to start by considering the focal length appeal when selecting between lenses like the 50mm and 60mm lenses - what appeals for the task at hand. There is no point owning the best performer if it is a focal length you never use!

It may be that in making such a choice, you are still considering between 2 lenses. The question may be: "I need a wide angle lens for landscapes". The choices are: 38mm, 40mm, 50mm, 50mm FLE, and 60mm. Then the preferred focal length comes down to the 50mm, 50mm FLE and 60mm lenses.

It is from here that one should then use more detailed criteria to eventually narrow the field to the one lens choice.



I have a 50mm FLE and love using it. It is (as one would expect) superbly sharp and benefits from the FLE focusing enhancement for short distance sharpness. That's logical enough since like many lenses it is optimised for sharpness at infinity. So with the FLE enhancement one can achieve "higher than normal" sharpness at close range. So, logically and at a higher buy price the FLE version has "enhanced" performance at short distances over the standard 50mm non-FLE lens. Which is best? Theoretically of course the FLE is; but, to another user and his shooting style, that may not be so. Then value for money must be considered - explaining why Zeiss makes both versions!

That does not mean the 50mm non-FLE lens is a "poor performer"; simply the FLE is an "enhanced performer" and comes at a higher cost! If one can afford the FLE version it is (as, IMHO was intended) the optimal choice.

The 60mm is simply a different lens (in my kit, along side the 50mm, its slightly smaller size and weight, half stop extra speed, angle of view / look and lack of distortion make it quite a different lens for different shooting) in that it has some different characteristics as well as being a longer focal length etc..

As I progressively built my lens kit, I have come to learn the value of the expression of "different horses for different courses". My purpose with the 60mm is so very different to my purpose with the 50mm FLE.

Some users have each of the 40mm, 50mm and 60mm lenses - again for very specific reasons. Others would understandably never dream of owning 3 focal length lenses within a 20mm range.

Having decided upon your purpose and therefore, preferred focal length to meet that purpose, it is worth examining MTF charts to then get a good understanding of how this lens performs - resolving power, light fall off, performance changes among apertures, distortion etc.. Hasselblad and Zeiss' MTF charts help determine if there would be any unexpected surprises.

My selection of the 50mm FLE over the 40mm FLE lens came down to one thing - distortion and how that normal aspect of optical physics impacts on how / what I shoot. I was keen to have the wider focal length especially for landscape / cityscape work. But, a careful read of the specifications revealed a significant amount of distortion which was very much confirmed when I looked through an example of that lens.

This visible edge (curvature) distortion that was significantly increased as the camera tilted slightly (IMHO of course, but a natural feature of very wide angle optics unless very cleverly and quite expensively designed out - such as in the case of the Hasselblad / Zeiss Biogon 38mm) was too unappealing to my eyes. A 50mm lens was what I preferred.

5 years later I remain convinced I chose the right lens for me.

Years later my wide angle lens purpose increased to more hand-held work and different subjects - so, my focal length needs changed. Along came the Distagon 60mm f3.5. Why? The main reasons were that I needed: a slightly more "natural" look; less sensitivity to camera angle at the edges of the frame; less weight and size.

The 60mm has (just like Zeiss says in its marketing materials) become my people / group / architecture / city scape lens - I can rely on the edges being very free of distortion that may adversely affect the images.

One could likewise compare the 180mm and 150mm for portrait use - and certainly do regularly. The former has a reputation for superb resolution of fine detail and razor-like sharpness; the latter has a "normal" Hasselblad/Zeiss lens reputation for excellent performance. I have both and use each differently so am not fussed by that difference.

These 2 lenses have a very different "look" IMHO; one is more forgiving towards its human subjects than the other; the other produces tighter landscape compression that I find more attractive; the shorter is much more fun in hand-held shooting; the other has remarkable sharpness without excessive contrast. So, when I reach into my bag I know exactly why I'm grabbing the lens I grab.



Finally one of the silliest discussions I have contributed to was a person's dilemma: should I "lash out and spend 50% more on the Hasselblad's Superachromat Sonnar 250mm or just buy the standard Sonnar?" Worse still was one reply: "Definitely the SA lens, I found the standard lens to be quite soft at anything less than infinity".

That reply was just nonsense - or if true, he should have had the focus function repaired! These products do not enjoy 50+ years of great reputation that Zeiss has by making any lens that fits such a description. The reality is that the standard version is an excellent lens by any measure - i.e. an excellent performer among the absolute premium end of the market! Simple as that.

The standard 250mm lens may however, have attributes arising from the balance among corrected aberrations that this user is seeking to avoid. He may find that his needs are better met by the SA lens. But, all such things are relative - other lenses might have specifications in that respect that deliver the performance he wants.

So, yes the Superachromat version is "the creme de la creme"; but it should be - Zeiss made it from especially rare glass that is said to have a cost per ounce similar to pure gold (whatever the facts really are, it is enormously expensive glass!). So these equally expensive lenses are made more for reasons of "showcasing" the lens makers' great skills and are used in very limited applications. Sure instruments will show the better optical performance - BUT CAN YOU SEE IT IN A PRINT? Do the difference actually matter to you? In most cases, maybe not.

The correct reply to the enquirer should have been: "If you want the very best of the very best and money is now object, you will have one of the most superb long MF lenses ever made. If your budget is tighter and your needs are not that exacting, save your money and you will have an excellent lens anyway". I know, my 20 year old standard 250mm lens gives me enormous joy!

And yes, as I mentioned earlier, there are some very special MF lenses available (some not so much available) and some of these go back to very old optical designs, while others are much more modern. IMHO they are not "better" or "best", just simply special due to some specific characteristics they have. So, if you're interested to find out more, in the Hasselblad line they are the: Biogon 38mm; Distagon 60mm; Planar 100mm; Sonnar 180mm; SA Sonnar 250mm; Tele-Apochromat 350mm.

Likewise in the non-Hasselblad MF systems there are also some very special lenses such as Mamiya's 43mm and some offerings from Fujinon.

In closing, I suggest that the principles arising from the comparisons and examples I have outlined above are similarly applicable in any category of camera or lens purchase - essentially you get what you pay for - simply just decide what you need to pay for rather than what you are attracted to. All lens choices involve trade-offs!



As a guide, the optimal way to select a lens is to follow these steps and considerations:
1. what are you going to use it for - what angle of view do you need; what appeals to you?
2. what focal length fits without too much overlap among the other lenses you own or plan to own?
3. Is there a minimum maximum aperture speed you require?
4. what are each lens' attributes and how do those attributes affect (positive or negative) how you plan to use the lens?
5. what budget limits do you have and how do they affect the preferred choice - delay the purchase or change your choice (generally the former always works out to be the sensible decision not later regretted)?

Essentially we should use prioritised selection criteria giving greatest weight to those of most importance to YOU and not other shooters! Of course, if budget is not an issue to you then it's a simple decision - buy all options!

But, the risk is that if you are overly influenced by other shooters and give more importance to brand or purely technical attributes rather than the "look" the lens provides your images and how that meets your needs, you may well end up buying the technically perfect lens that just sits at home unused!

UPDATE - APRIL 2007
The issue of Hasselblad / Zeiss lens build quality (the barrels etc. rather than the optics) was surprisingly raised with me recently by a Hasselblad system user. He commented that he felt that the current series of CFE/CFi lenses included the use of plastics which were below his quality expectations.

In particular he commented on the flash sync terminal's locking device being made of "cheap" plastic that breaks easily. A point worth making here is that this locking terminal was an new initiative and not a feature of the lens series before the CFE/CFi series. This initiative has always been considered an enhancement.

So, having one of these series lenses, I made a close inspection of the sync terminal. It seems to be a metal terminal just like that fitted to the CF series lens barrels. But, yes it has a spring loaded plastic locking device covering the terminal. However when I played with it, it just did not seem as fragile as suggested. On further discussion, the user commented that the spring loaded locking device will break if you try to pull a sync cord out of it without undoing the locking device - I bet it does!

So, my personal view is that if one misuses or mistreats any product something will break! Of course a professional environment will test any equipment's strength and maybe constant demanding use will cause the locking device to self-destruct. In that case I'd not bother replacing it and just leave the terminal exposed as it is on the series' predecessors.

Certainly the visual appearance of the CFE/CFi lenses creates the perception of more plastics used to build them; but, on close inspection there is really no more plastic used than on the CF series and what is there is tough and purposeful - a minimum standard we should reasonably expect from "professional" equipment.

Sometimes plastics cover a metal structure and are kinder on users' hands - as is the case with the depth of field preview lever. Indeed the CF and CFE/CFi lenses' use of plastics make them much friendlier to use than the all metal C / C T* series lenses.

Photos and text copyright f8Vision and SimonPG