Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

150 cfi or 160 cb



This is my first time on here and i had a question about the 150 cfi and the 160 cb. as far as sharpness between the two lens. I will be using the lens for portraits and weddings.
I used a 160CB, which was on loan to me for about 8 months. I hated the bokeh and the OOF areas. The sharpness of the Tessar formation is decent at a smaller stop, but at 4.8, hair isn't displayed as sharp as it could on high key backgrounds.

With my 150, the sharpness is actually higher, and the lens is a bit more compact. Plus, the bokeh is a bunch more smoother than on the 160CB.

The 180 is the sharpest lens in the area, maybe too sharp & requiring a softar. The 180 is heavy as hell (compared to the 150). I shoot a lot of portraits (B&W & Color) and I do a ton of weddings too. The 150 is the best lens to use. Combine it with a tube 16 and you've got it made.

If you want the best for linear sharpness, color sharpness, and color quality, the 250SA is the ultimate lens!

I'd actually rather have a 150CF than the 160CB (that's after having both and shooting extensively with both)
> Hasselblad publishes Zeiss MTF charts in their catalog. Their MTF charts are actually measured off production lenses, not a theoretical calculation. The MTF shows the 180 to be slightly better than the 150, which in turn is slightly better than the 160 CB.
I have the 160mm having previously owned a C 150mm. I really like the 160mm. Excellent quality. Myself, I have no complaints about bokeh. However, since I make portraits outdoors while travelling,I never shoot fully opened, usually stopping down to f/ 8 or f/11. I bought this mint 160mm for a price that was much less than a used CF 150 would have cost me.

Good luck, Frank
If you are in the process of building a diverse system over time, you may want to consider the 180/4. It out performed both my 150 and the 160 I got to replace the 150 (which was a mistake that I corrected by selling the 160).

With a 180 you can then later look to getting the 120, which has a wonderful flatness of field for close work. Just a thought for consideration.
The Tessar 4.8/160 CB is one of the best medium format lenses in the market in terms of stray light absorption. Which means: even if it is used without a compedium, the risk of reduced color saturation or loss of brilliance is rather low.

In the center of the image, the Tessar 160 is capable of resolving 150 linepairs per millimeter at f/8, much more than you usually welcome in a portrait.

The lens is rather lightweight, which is certainly a bonus for handheld wedding work.

So, for portraits and weddings, I see no convincing reason to avoid the Tessar 160 and insist on the Sonnar 150 or the Sonnar 180 instead.
According to Kornelius Fleischer at Zeiss the 160CB is the lens to get if you are considering handheld shooting. I've read the 150cf is not the sharpest lens out there but I 've never used do you think it (150cf) stacks up against the Pentax (645)150 f3.5?? Hey I could really stir it up in hassey land being a user of both.
I have a 160cb (which is actually for sale at the moment) but in the 'other' Hassey list I'm on the consensus among the snooty reviewers is that it is less sharp than other Zeiss lenses. I do not believe the difference is perceptable to the human eye when viewing a normal portrait. I and my clients have been very happy with the results and I've never met anyone who knows which shot from which shoot came from the 80 the 160 or the 250... portrait or landscape.
So why spend all that money on hasselblad lenses? I can't tell the fifference between images from Mamiya RZ, Hassey or Pentax 645 (all of which are hanging in my file cabinet) except for the obvious size of the frame. Is it because you can!! Hey that's OK too.