What's new
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.

1600F + Tessar 80mm lens - first impressions

Thanks Ulrik and Paul.

Typically I mostly add UV filters to my lenses simply for the protection and especially when I am taking coastal or outback pictures - to avoid salt air and dust.

But I don't normally have a filter on wide angle lenses because my experience is that they are more likely to induce flare just as very wide angle lenses are generally more likely to experience flare without filters.

Interestingly, NONE of my Hasselblad 6x6 or XPan (Zeiss or Fujinon) lenses are prone to flare - they resist it very well. Even my CF 50mm FLE has to be very deliberately angled at the sun to produce any flare at all.

BUT, while I find my Leica 135, 90 and 50mm lenses resist flare very well (especially given the relatively small hoods they all have so as to avoid obscuring the view-finder too much), the current Summicron-M 35mm ASPH lens is more prone to flare and must be used with care.

When I first got it I added a B&W UV filter because these Leica-M lenses are so expensive and have small hood protection; my first images had some bad veiling flare. In part this is due to the optical design; but mostly caused by the filter glass and air extend further into the small hood. So I rarely fit the filter any more and now do not see flare in any images.

So, Ulrik I would be interested to experiment with the UV filter, because if it does not add flare in normal use, I am keen to protect this WONDERFUL "like new" Tessar from any mishaps. Are they hard to find? Of course I'll arrange to pay for it and the postage beforehand.
 
The larger the front element and the angle a lens has, the more risk there will be that flair will occur.
I do not use UV filters with WA lenses, rather use a good professional type shade.

I have some red and yellow filters for the Tessar and Sonnar, no UV filters.
The Kifitt 90/2.8 is nice to use with these early cameras.
Its front element is quite recessed, about 1 1/2 inch I would say.
 
Paul, I see this reference to the "Kifitt" lens, which I've never heard of. What is it?

Were there "after-market" lenses for the 1600F/1000F cameras?

The other thing you and Jurgen may know that puzzles me is how the "filter" ring on the Tessar works? I am quite intrigued by it.

It seems to me that there is a whole chapter of history associated with these "first generation" Hasselblads. :)
 
Simon

Original (UV) filters for the TESSAR are very very hard to find . In fact , I have never seen one .
The M54 thread is equivalent to the serieVII thread .
M54 filters are not common any more and not all are produced any more .
So my "stepup ring" solution M54>M55 comes into the game again .
M55 UV filters are available in slim versions . I have none as well .
If you want me to send the parts , just let me know .

Best regards Jürgen
 
Many thanks Jurgen. Yes I am beginning to learn and like you said I will keep watching the threads.

I do see exactly what you mean about the 55mm step-up ring. I use one on my XPan so that I can use my bigger Leica filters on it to save the cost of duplicating the filters.

My friend you will be pleased to hear that friends have commented with much admiration about the image quality from the 1600F and its Tessar. So, I am planning to do the slide film experiment in 2 weekends' time as we have a national holiday coming up then. Stay tuned! :)

PS: my bet is that few people could ever tell the image quality difference between the Tessar and the Planar. :) :)
 
Hello Simon,

I did not know filters for the Tessar are rare.
Of course I take Jürgens word for it. I have been offered these filters on several occasions.
Should have bought them I think.

There were several after market lenses for early Hasselblads, Kilfitt being just one of them.
The 90/2.8 is rather well known in Germany I believe.
It was laid out for Macro but can de used as a normal lens as well provided it is stopped down.
The helicoid has an extra Macro facility that allows about 3 inches extra extension.

I will get some pics of it as well as a scan from the sales brochure.
Kilfitt was not a less expensive option for CZ lenses in those days as these Kilfitts cost at least as much.
Besides the 90 mm Makro I also have the 300/4 tele.
The tele is a masterpiece of mechanical engineering as well as an optical wonder.

I understand it is sometimes necessary to use adapters to fit filters.
I try to avoid that because it makes me feel like a plumber.
It also increases the existing chaos in my camera bag.

Paul

To avoid misunderstandings: besides a good butcher and baker
a good plumber can save your live in an emergency.
It is an honorable profession that deserves our respect.
 
Interesting information Paul. I have never heard of Kilfitt before - was that the name of the manufacturer?

Regarding the lens mount and helicoid, I am very impressed by the 1600F lens mount design. It feels so secure and is an excellent piece of engineering. To my mind it actually feels more secure than the 500 series lens mount.

Many people are unaware of how important a lens's mechanical engineering is and that optics are not the exclusive item of importance in lens performance. Leica's rangefinder cameras and lens mounts are famous for their engineering excellence.

So, I do wonder why Hasselblad changed the lens mount design?? This must be due to some aspect of the 500 series camera/lens requirements, but I wonder what they might have been?


Jurgen, with regard to the Tessar filters and use of step-up rings, I have in mind one caution about using step-up rings to add filters - this is the fact that the extra mil or so of extension from the lens' front element adds air and possible image degradation (especially flare under certain circumstances). Does anyone have experience with this?
 
Simon

I do not like the step up ring solutions either , but not of flare or possible image degradation , but because of the extra rings you have to carry with you and which might get lost very easy .
But sometimes , there is no other way , to use filters and hoods and also to save money for extra filters .

Paul

I know , there are many seriesVII filters from different brands availabe on Xbay , but only very seldom original ones . I would very much like to have at least an original skylight/UV filter .
I also found , that there were seriesVII hoods , with different diameters .

Regards Jürgen
 
Hello Simon, Jürgen,

The lens hood thing seems to get started.
I hope the price for the material needed will not spoil the project.
I will be able to check the sizes of hoods for CZ lenses against those for the Kodak lenses
thanks to Rick Nordin who offered to send me a Kodak hood.
As Jürgen said they are all series VII with the same thread I just checked.
It seems 2 repro hoods will do nicely one for the 60/80 lenses the other for 135/250 mm.
The exceptional 250F4 has its own hood with 77 mm thread.

Original filters with Hasselblad name on it for older lenses are pretty difficult to find.
Some years ago I was offered a complete set of series VII filters, six or eight different ones,
in a Hasselblad box and never used before.
It seems one of the less bright decisisons not to buy those then.
I would not mind using series VII filters supplied by Leica though.

As far as I know all manufacturers of cameras and lenses ordered their filters from specialist filter manufacturers.
Most later "Hasselblad" filters were made by B+W now owned by Schneider.
The new UV filter for 60 mm bay. is not of German origin anymore but comes from a Japanese supplier.
It is flimsy thing and not as nicely finished as the earlier German ones. Not a very good development.

I have a pola filter that says Carl Zeiss it is a 77 mm fit made for the 250 F4 lens.
Brand new with a beautiful leather case and original box stating "Bernotar".
Only problem is the foil that acts as filter. It seems to be disturbed.
It would be a nice companion for Jürgens rare 250F4 lens though.

Paul
 
Interesting stuff Paul.

Is the CZ 77mm polarising filter for the 250mm lens of a Kaesmann type? Funnily when I bought polarising filters for my Leica kit, I selected the Kaesmann type. That was a few years back and now I am not sure why I chose that type from B&W except that I think I was told that the Kaesmann type is more durable. Does anyone agree with that?

Because my Leica M7 has no mirror and is not an AF lens, I wonder if a linear polariser would have been a better choice - less light lost; less glass to add aberrations and less chance of vignetting. I could also do the same with my Hasselblad gear as it doesn't have AF. Anyone have a view on this.

Finally, when I got my wonderful Canon f1.2 50mm LTM lens for my M7 I added a B&W UV filter for protection of the LIKE NEW glass. I also felt the 1960s lens would benefit from the UV suppression.

Does anyone fell that old lenses (such as those for the 1600F benefit optically from a top quality modern UV filter??
 
Simon,

Of course a UV filter acts not only as lens protection but also prevents haze under certain weather conditions.
I know modern filters benefit from new materials like thinner glass and multi coating.

In a way modern filters can improve the performance of older lenses.
On the other hand some older CZ designs seem to last a lifetime.
The 135 mm Sonnar is basically the same design as the later well known 150 Sonnar for the V series.

Paul
 
Here you can see my current TESSAR 2,8/80 hood solution .

The first black ring is the "stepup" from seriesVII (M54) to M55 .
The second ring is the "stepup from M55 to M72 .
The hood has an outer diameter of 74mm and an inner diameter of 71mm .
The total length fom TESSAR to the end of the hood is 32mm .

It does not look very "vintage" at all , but it works .:uhoh:
The vintage hoods in Rick Nordins compendium look much nicer .
 
That certainly is a handsome camera, Jürgen!
Nobody would say the hood is built up of later components. It looks very well.

I have been tempted to adapt a special hood for the 250 lens.
This lens suffers from a common problem that it uses a hood that is in fact too short because it also serves for the 135 mm lens.

First lets see what sort of price the hoods will cost.

Paul
 
Jurgen that is an excellent solution!! -)

Remembering that the solution's purpose is for a hood to reduce flare when using the Tessar in the field to make photos - for me "vintage" is not an issue.

Yes, I agree that it does not look "vintage", BUT who cares - the hood is a photographic image quality tool with its purpose to reduce flare (and even for protection of the lens front element form damage)! This solution obviously does the job well.

When I want any camera of mine to look vintage (specifically during its idle time sitting on a nice piece of furniture for others to enjoy), then I do not fit the hood.

When I want my vintage camera to work making photos, then I fit the hood.

So in absence of any "better" solution, I'll go with what you have done - step up rings and a modern hood! :)

Thanks for the picture.
 
Simon,

You spoke as a true user of fine classic photogear.
Once again you proved to be very well qualified for our select FUC.
I agree from the users point with you.

It is save to say there are more good Tessar and Ektar lenses left than there are hoods.
With a little help from my friends who can make wonderfull things a close to original repro
of these hoods will solve that problem I hope.

Paul
 
Paul,
I'm sure many will be keen to see the new "old" hood. Don't forget if you need expertise in hood making, I can vouch for the fact that Jurgen is a master of that trade!!

My Distagon CF 60mm has a bespoke hand made special hood manufactured by Jurgen - and it works a treat!! :)

So good luck.

BY THE WAY, I wondered if anyone knows if the Zeiss Tessar f2.8 was considered a great optic and something very special in its day?
 
Simon,
I have not yet heard that the Tessar for Hasselblad was famous. I even heard that the Kodak Ektar was better but have not had time yet to make a comparison. A comparison that I will for sure also make in the future is to use side by side a Hasselblad with 2,8/80 Tessar from Zeiss Oberkochen and an early 1950s Praktisix with 2,8/80 Tessar from Zeiss Jena (not famous either).

Ulrik
 
Ulrik

The TESSAR lens is "famous" and was well known as the ADLER-AUGE , which means EAGLE-EYE . That is a hint for the sharpness of that lens .:rolleyes:

Regards Jürgen
 
Hello guys,

Jürgen has cut the lawn just before I could get to it.
He is right of course. CZ advertised the Tessar design in those days with an
Eagle eye to express the quality of the lens.
I remember some of those ads quite well.

It seems fair to say the Tessar is a good design but it was overtaken by the Planar.
The Planar is much older than the first lenses we know from the 500 series.
The story goes the Kodak Ektar lens was better. I have not compared the two lenses.
My Ektar is still in the workshop it is ready to go but waits for the 1600F to be completed.
The lens barrel is a wonderful piece of engineering.
Possibly the fact that the Ektar is much rarer in Europe than in the US,
gave rise to the story that the Ektar is a better lens.

The FUC is proud to announce welcome kits for new members are available again.
All members who joined recently will receive theirs in the next week or so.

Paul
 
Gentlemen,
I guess we should organize a comprehensive shootout to solve these matters once and for all.

Ulrik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top