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.
40mm CFE or 903SWC
- Thread starter rcyoung
- Start date
keith_laban
Member
"Which would be better, to get a 903SWC (w/ 38mm) or a 40mm CFE lens?"
...or perhaps an ArcBody with a 35mm or 45mm lens?
...or perhaps an ArcBody with a 35mm or 45mm lens?
polypal
Active Member
Gilbert,
All in all the Biogon is the best.
Resolution of the Biogon is better than that of the 40 CF/CFE.
Resolution of the IF has improved when compared with the older CF/CFE design.
The IF shows about double distortion against the older CF/CFE.
It depends on which parameters are more important to the user.
The Biogon is virtually free of distortion.
What is there is not possible to detect whith the naked eye.
All in all the Biogon is the best.
Resolution of the Biogon is better than that of the 40 CF/CFE.
Resolution of the IF has improved when compared with the older CF/CFE design.
The IF shows about double distortion against the older CF/CFE.
It depends on which parameters are more important to the user.
The Biogon is virtually free of distortion.
What is there is not possible to detect whith the naked eye.
Paul:
I know all about the specifications, thank you. I never stated one was better than the other.
I wrote the following. "I think both would be the best option, however, the 40 CFE IF was my choice to use with my 203FE..."
I considered buying a new 905SWC, but I still feel my new 40 CFE IF will fit nicely in my kit.
Regards:
Gilbert
The only negative side with this lens is the weight.>
Joesph:
Now, that I have actually spent a little time with the 4/40 IF CFE with my 203FE and PM45 it handles extremely well. It is only 55 grams heavier than a 4/180 CFE and to me handles better because of internal focus.
Regards:
Gilbert
Joesph:
Now, that I have actually spent a little time with the 4/40 IF CFE with my 203FE and PM45 it handles extremely well. It is only 55 grams heavier than a 4/180 CFE and to me handles better because of internal focus.
Regards:
Gilbert
Weight has always been the price to pay for decent performance. Although I don't have the IF version, it is certainly a lens I pay much respect.
Good lenses are heavy, this rule applies to Zeiss lenses very well. One way to determine whether a lens is good is by looking at the number of lens elements. The more is the number, the better is the performance.These lens elements are there for the correction of chromatic aberration. The higher is the number of lens elements, the better is the correction.
I have a lens with weight similar to the IF version, the oldest version of Hasselblad 50 f2.8. Despite its heavy weight,I like this lens. But I certainly wouldn't like to carry it up the mountain.
Cheers Gilbert
Good lenses are heavy, this rule applies to Zeiss lenses very well. One way to determine whether a lens is good is by looking at the number of lens elements. The more is the number, the better is the performance.These lens elements are there for the correction of chromatic aberration. The higher is the number of lens elements, the better is the correction.
I have a lens with weight similar to the IF version, the oldest version of Hasselblad 50 f2.8. Despite its heavy weight,I like this lens. But I certainly wouldn't like to carry it up the mountain.
Cheers Gilbert
"One way to determine whether a lens is good is by looking at the number of lens elements. The more is the number, the better is the performance.These lens elements are there for the correction of chromatic aberration. The higher is the number of lens elements, the better is the correction."
I'm afraid that this is not true.
Some/many lenses with fewer elements may and do perform better than other lenses with more elements. And some lenses with more elements perform better than yet other lenses with fewer elements.
A 250 mm Superachromat - a lens with perfect (!) colour correction - has 6 elements, while an 40 mm IF Distagon - a lens that is nothing special as far as colour correction is concerned - has double that number.
And lens elements are used to do other things than correct colour faults too, of course.
The number of lens elements is not a performance marker. The number depends on what choices were made by the designer: where to start, and how to create solutions.
Even as a less general statement - limiting it to, say, wide angle lenses - it is not true.
I'm afraid that this is not true.
Some/many lenses with fewer elements may and do perform better than other lenses with more elements. And some lenses with more elements perform better than yet other lenses with fewer elements.
A 250 mm Superachromat - a lens with perfect (!) colour correction - has 6 elements, while an 40 mm IF Distagon - a lens that is nothing special as far as colour correction is concerned - has double that number.
And lens elements are used to do other things than correct colour faults too, of course.
The number of lens elements is not a performance marker. The number depends on what choices were made by the designer: where to start, and how to create solutions.
Even as a less general statement - limiting it to, say, wide angle lenses - it is not true.
A 250 mm Superachromat - a lens with perfect (!) colour correction - has 6 elements, while an 40 mm IF Distagon>
Q
Apples and oranges, Sonnar vs Distagon
Joseph's statement in general is well accepted. Of course it was not meant as a definitive statement on total lens design. His statement was predicated on the new 4/40 design 12 elements in 9 groups verses the old 4/40mm which had 11 elements in 10 groups.
Regards:
Gilbert
Q
Apples and oranges, Sonnar vs Distagon
Joseph's statement in general is well accepted. Of course it was not meant as a definitive statement on total lens design. His statement was predicated on the new 4/40 design 12 elements in 9 groups verses the old 4/40mm which had 11 elements in 10 groups.
Regards:
Gilbert
Yes, apples and oranges.
But as far as the count-lens-elements-to-find-out-how-good-a-lens-is thingy goes, a good illustration of the fact that it is not true.
And it isn't.
The number of elements, even within a "design family", does not say anything about performance. You quite simply can't say that a lens with more elements is better than one with fewer, or vice versa.
The 100 mm Planar, for instance, has five elements. Two less than the 80 mm Planar.
So would that make the 80 mm Planar the better of the two? I think not many people will think so.
The same with the 40 mm Distagons: numbers of lens elements tell us nothing about quality.
The IF lens, being just that, even is a different concept, compared to the older one. That the numbers of elements in the two lenses are even this close is coincidental. It could have been different, either way.
That "more elements = better lens" statement may be well accepted. I don't know.
But if it is, it is yet one more photo myth that has to be debunked and eradicated.
But as far as the count-lens-elements-to-find-out-how-good-a-lens-is thingy goes, a good illustration of the fact that it is not true.
And it isn't.
The number of elements, even within a "design family", does not say anything about performance. You quite simply can't say that a lens with more elements is better than one with fewer, or vice versa.
The 100 mm Planar, for instance, has five elements. Two less than the 80 mm Planar.
So would that make the 80 mm Planar the better of the two? I think not many people will think so.
The same with the 40 mm Distagons: numbers of lens elements tell us nothing about quality.
The IF lens, being just that, even is a different concept, compared to the older one. That the numbers of elements in the two lenses are even this close is coincidental. It could have been different, either way.
That "more elements = better lens" statement may be well accepted. I don't know.
But if it is, it is yet one more photo myth that has to be debunked and eradicated.
apples and oranges>
again 80mm is not 100mm.
is thingy goes>
Just what does "thingy" mean.
close is coincidental> Opinion or supported fact?
That "more elements = better lens" statement may be well accepted. I don't know. But if it is, it is yet one more photo myth that has to be debunked and eradicated>
By and your credentials, or another established source, such as a manufacture?
One way to determine whether a lens is good is by looking at the number of lens elements. The more is the number, the better is the performance. These lens elements are there for the correction of chromatic aberration. The higher is the number of lens elements, the better is the correction.>
Was his actual statement. Not your misquote!
Regards:
Gilbert
BTW-I know Joseph to be a knowledgeable, talented and congenial contributor.
again 80mm is not 100mm.
is thingy goes>
Just what does "thingy" mean.
close is coincidental> Opinion or supported fact?
That "more elements = better lens" statement may be well accepted. I don't know. But if it is, it is yet one more photo myth that has to be debunked and eradicated>
By and your credentials, or another established source, such as a manufacture?
One way to determine whether a lens is good is by looking at the number of lens elements. The more is the number, the better is the performance. These lens elements are there for the correction of chromatic aberration. The higher is the number of lens elements, the better is the correction.>
Was his actual statement. Not your misquote!
Regards:
Gilbert
BTW-I know Joseph to be a knowledgeable, talented and congenial contributor.
OK, let me explain further.
All lenses in photography either diverge or converge light beams, it applies to both wide angles and telephoto lenses. When you look at the lens element diagram, there are at least two different kinds of lens elements,both diverging and converging.Although I am no expert in lens design, one can certainly see light being diverge and converge in sequence.In a wide angle lens, there are multiple sequences of diverging and converging to create a net effect of divergence.
When light is being diverged once, you will get chromatic aberration. This refractive error can be corrected by increasing the convergence and divergence sequence.
When you look at the IF version of the 40mm, it contains one more element than the non-IF version, this element was added to reduce the chromatic aberration.
It is easier to compare lenses with the same focal length.
I got this idea of lens elements number/performance relationship from my friend who spent years in the movie industry dealing with cameras and lighting.
My other inspiration comes from Contax Zeiss C-Y 21mm 2.8.This lens is again much heavier and has many more lens elements than the Nikon/Canon/Minolta counterparts(same focal lengths and primes of course). You know about the difference in performances of these and I wouldn't need to say much.
Indeed, there are many more ex&les.
Zeiss Superchromat 250mm f5.6 Vs the non-superchromat version.This time it is 6 Vs 4 elements.No comments on the performances.You know the difference.
Zeiss F mount 25mm f2.8 Vs C-Y 25mm f 2.8 This time it is 10 elements Vs 8 elements. Chromatic ab.in the C-Y 25 particularly at the corners, F mount 25 is much better.
C-Y 50mm f1.2 Vs C-Y 50mm f 1.4 8 elements Vs 7 elements
C-Y 85mm f1.2 Vs C-Y 85mm f1.4 8 Vs 6 elements
In all these ex&les, the better lenses have more elements.
Gilbert, thank you for the comments. I tend to think and write in a technical way. It is hard work.
All lenses in photography either diverge or converge light beams, it applies to both wide angles and telephoto lenses. When you look at the lens element diagram, there are at least two different kinds of lens elements,both diverging and converging.Although I am no expert in lens design, one can certainly see light being diverge and converge in sequence.In a wide angle lens, there are multiple sequences of diverging and converging to create a net effect of divergence.
When light is being diverged once, you will get chromatic aberration. This refractive error can be corrected by increasing the convergence and divergence sequence.
When you look at the IF version of the 40mm, it contains one more element than the non-IF version, this element was added to reduce the chromatic aberration.
It is easier to compare lenses with the same focal length.
I got this idea of lens elements number/performance relationship from my friend who spent years in the movie industry dealing with cameras and lighting.
My other inspiration comes from Contax Zeiss C-Y 21mm 2.8.This lens is again much heavier and has many more lens elements than the Nikon/Canon/Minolta counterparts(same focal lengths and primes of course). You know about the difference in performances of these and I wouldn't need to say much.
Indeed, there are many more ex&les.
Zeiss Superchromat 250mm f5.6 Vs the non-superchromat version.This time it is 6 Vs 4 elements.No comments on the performances.You know the difference.
Zeiss F mount 25mm f2.8 Vs C-Y 25mm f 2.8 This time it is 10 elements Vs 8 elements. Chromatic ab.in the C-Y 25 particularly at the corners, F mount 25 is much better.
C-Y 50mm f1.2 Vs C-Y 50mm f 1.4 8 elements Vs 7 elements
C-Y 85mm f1.2 Vs C-Y 85mm f1.4 8 Vs 6 elements
In all these ex&les, the better lenses have more elements.
Gilbert, thank you for the comments. I tend to think and write in a technical way. It is hard work.
I used to believe more elements give extra problems. This way of thinking applies more to other manufacturers like Minolta. The more lens elements you put in, the more aberration you create.
On the other hand, Zeiss is one of the best in making wide angle lenses. These lenses require lots of divergence and hence potentially you could get lots of chromatic aberrations. There are great ex&les in the case of Zeiss that she correct the aberration by increasing the number of elements.Zeiss used 15 elements for the C-Y 21mm f2.8 Distagon compared to the 10 elements Minolta 20mm f2.8. I am sure you know how famous the Zeiss wide angle is and I tend to believe Zeiss made the extra elements for the correction of aberrations.If more elements cause trouble, the Zeiss 21 wouldn't be better than the Minolta 20.
On the other hand, Zeiss is one of the best in making wide angle lenses. These lenses require lots of divergence and hence potentially you could get lots of chromatic aberrations. There are great ex&les in the case of Zeiss that she correct the aberration by increasing the number of elements.Zeiss used 15 elements for the C-Y 21mm f2.8 Distagon compared to the 10 elements Minolta 20mm f2.8. I am sure you know how famous the Zeiss wide angle is and I tend to believe Zeiss made the extra elements for the correction of aberrations.If more elements cause trouble, the Zeiss 21 wouldn't be better than the Minolta 20.
I see the myth persists.
Ah well...
Just one point that needs pointing out: one opposite of your assertion that more elements make better lenses may be that more elements make worse lenses ("cause trouble" as you phrase it).
But that's still a way of looking at, and persisting in the same - false - assertion that the number of elements matter.
Ah well...
Just one point that needs pointing out: one opposite of your assertion that more elements make better lenses may be that more elements make worse lenses ("cause trouble" as you phrase it).
But that's still a way of looking at, and persisting in the same - false - assertion that the number of elements matter.
Yes, you can counteract the chromatic aberrations of one element using another element, with inverted and unequal power, made of different glass, having different dispersion charateristics.
But to think that this is all there is too the number of lens elements is, to put it very mildly, rather simplistic.
Lens elements are used to provide different solutions to many different tasks and problems.
And problems can be solved by adding lens elements; by using the same number of elements, but of different make up; and (!) by using less elements.
You can add elements to correct chromatic aberrations.
You can add elements to correct any other type of aberration too.
You can add elements to perform tricks, like internal focussing, or making a zoom lens.
Etc.
And adding elements to do either of these things may (and most probably will) unbalance what had been achieved so far without the extra element(s).
This is not (!) an adding-one-more-will-make-it-one-step-better type of game!
You can remove elements to correct different sorts of lens faults too.
This statement that the number of lens elements provides a failsafe way to tell a better lens from a less better lens really is nonsense.
It is a myth.
Apropos the number of elements in the Superachromat:
Bertele's trick, making the Superachromat possible, was not to add elements untill the lens had a perfect chromatic correction. He probably never would have gotten anywhere.
It was to make sure that each of the groups of elements by themselves were perfectly corrected.
The final number of elements in a Superachromat says something about how many elements were needed to do other things - the complete packet that makes a usuable lens - as well.
But to think that this is all there is too the number of lens elements is, to put it very mildly, rather simplistic.
Lens elements are used to provide different solutions to many different tasks and problems.
And problems can be solved by adding lens elements; by using the same number of elements, but of different make up; and (!) by using less elements.
You can add elements to correct chromatic aberrations.
You can add elements to correct any other type of aberration too.
You can add elements to perform tricks, like internal focussing, or making a zoom lens.
Etc.
And adding elements to do either of these things may (and most probably will) unbalance what had been achieved so far without the extra element(s).
This is not (!) an adding-one-more-will-make-it-one-step-better type of game!
You can remove elements to correct different sorts of lens faults too.
This statement that the number of lens elements provides a failsafe way to tell a better lens from a less better lens really is nonsense.
It is a myth.
Apropos the number of elements in the Superachromat:
Bertele's trick, making the Superachromat possible, was not to add elements untill the lens had a perfect chromatic correction. He probably never would have gotten anywhere.
It was to make sure that each of the groups of elements by themselves were perfectly corrected.
The final number of elements in a Superachromat says something about how many elements were needed to do other things - the complete packet that makes a usuable lens - as well.