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.

440 FLE v 440 IF

Eduardo,

They didn't stop selling (Zeiss, of course, is the one making it
wink.gif
) this lens.
It's the older FLE version they no longer offer.


This lens is "an ideal choice for digital applications", because of its wide angle (crop factor!), and because the too small sensors clip away the bits of the image this lens is not good (distortion) in.

They may also have had the possibility of a digital correction of lens faults in mind when they came up with the 'tuned for digital' notion. When they made the 28 mm H lens, for instance, they did not bother to correct its distortion fully, knowing that it would be possible to have software make bent bits straight again.
 
My two biggest concerns with a wide angle lens are resolution and contrast. My understanding from those who have used the IF with the V series and a digital back is that it scores very high in both areas. A major improvement over the FLE.

I have also asked for a comparison with the HC 35. The feeling seems to be that the IF has the clear edge, but I'm not sure how thorough the testing was. This appears to be the case from my review of the Zeiss/Hasselblad MTF charts, although I certainly am no expert on reading them.

What I probably will do is bring my H2/P45 down to the store and try the lens out. Any thought as to what specific tests I can perform under those circumstances?
 
I cannot believe that people are debating the fine points of distinction between variants of the 40mm Distagon as if there might have been only one that might possibly be worthy of mounting on a bl**dy digital camera. I like to think I am broad-minded, but for goodness sake - this is for poseurs! If anyone has taken a lousy picture with one of these lenses they should get their technique right before blaming the Zeiss optics designers and makers, whose boots they are not worthy to lick ... etc ... etc .... (sounds of wrinkly muttering to himself).
 
Bojan, that is what people do on this and other similar forums. I agree with you in part. To some with the V series cameras and using film, there may be little or no difference between the CF, CFE and CFE IF. However, in actually speaking with Zeiss, they believe there is a big difference between the design and performance of the 40mm FLE and IF versions.

BTW, I love Zeiss glass, but would never lick their boots. If their lenses were always perfect, they would not come out with new designs to further seek perfection.
 
I think it would be the other way round.

With film, you would indeed notice the difference.
That's why (you're right, Martin) Zeiss tried to improve the thingy.

With low resolution (they all are) digital sensors however, you might indeed not, and it wouldn't really matter which one of these lenses you pick.
How many lp/mm would a sensor see, of the 200 the latest 40 mm Distagon resolves? Indeed: not a lot. Perhaps 25%.
 
>There are several important issues here. The question that was >originally proposed was related to the image quality of the newer >40mm IF lens on a Hasselblad H digital system using the CF to H >adapter. It was not that the images using a 40mm CFE lens on an H2 >with a digital back were poor but not any better than the 35mm HC >lens. In fact, I would state the HC lens was better in a number of >ways. However, the 40mm IF lens is supposed to distortion free and >extremely sharp. Importantly, I do not think it is clear that it is >going to be that much better on digital sensor that is essentially a >crop relative to film. Moreover, I am not convinced that the CF to >H adapter does not have an effect on the images. So I would like to >see how well the IF lens does on the H system but for me it is only >for academic interests since I just cannot imagine it would be that >much better to justify the cost.
 
The 40 mm IF is not (!) supposed to be distortion free.
I don't know where that idea comes from.

In fact its distortion is the worst of the V-system line, and about double that of its predecessor.
 
It was my impression that there is a world of difference between looking at a tranie with a 6-10x loupe and a very large digital file (P45 DB) on a screen at 100%. Are we comparing apples and oranges?

In addition, one commonly held concept in the 35mm world is that some high quality digital sensors have exceeded or will exceed the resolving power of many lenses. Your thoughts?
 
Again, the other way round: digital sensor's resolving power is still way behind resolving power of lenses (and film). Even not so good lenses.

And on top of that, the resolving power of sensors is even lowered further, to prevent aliasing effects.
The things used for that today are called "anti-aliassing filters", but were more commonly known as "soft focus filters", or "softeners".
 
To clarify, I think the movement of lens off camera using a CF to H adapter is not a neutral event and does have some effect on the image especially the wide angles. I do not know this for a fact but I think it is a real possibility and probably not simple to prove.
 
Mark, I did email Zeiss and asked if the CF adapter had any adverse effect on their lenses. I was particularly concerned about infinity focus. They actually had not tested it!! However, they felt (could not imagine otherwise)very confident that Hasselblad would have addressed any and all of these issues prior to production of the CF adapter.
 
>Well... I could do infinity focus but overall I was just not that >happy with my results. I just do not know how you could easily >compare more subtle changes including distortion. Part of the issue >for me was that i also had the Mutar PC in most of my tests and I >think the PC and adapter together had an effect. Hasselblad told >me the 2 adapters would not work on an H system with a digital back >but that was not correct. I did a fewer tests with the 40mm CFE vs >35mm HC, and in honesty, the 35mm HC was better in color, and even >in resolution. I just would say that overall I could find no reason >to keep the 40mm CFE for my H system. If i needed one lens for both >a hassy V and H then I could see the justification.
 
If the adapter is made properly (and we can indeed assume it is) there is no effect on image quality. No worries.
 
Q.G. - I appreciate your comments and do agree that the adapter should be more than okay. It has been out for a while now and I imagine we would have heard otherwise if there where significant problems.

Mark - You know I tried the CFE/CF/H2 combination and was disappointed. The results where not "bad" or anything like that, but not what I expected (whatever that really means). Since it was a used lens, maybe something was not quite right. But I think not.

I believe that the primary intent of the CF adapter was to allow those professional photographers with a significant investment in Zeiss glass to use these lenses with the H series. Perhaps even to encourage them to make the change without having to sacrifice their beloved Zeiss lenses and be satisfied with Fuji glass. I do not think the idea was for H owners to invest in Zeiss lenses they did not already own.

Therefore, I get the distinct impression that it is highly unusual for someone to buy a V series lens once they have the H series, especially one that cost 5k.
 
Martin, of course Zeiss lenses are never perfect - I realize that. All I was trying to get across was my scepticism about people getting poor results from these Distagons because of their design defects, when other factors (eg hand-holding, fast film, low-resolution sensors etc) were more likely to be the cause. I knew a hifi enthusiast who used to compare systems by listening to blank grooves on vinyl records with the volume turned up high. He was also a professional photographer, and used very unusual film/developer combinations to squeeze the last bit of resolution from a microscope camera. The latter was justified by the superb results, while the former was not.
 
G'day:

I'm with Bojan!

I'd love to see pictures from both types, posted here. My LCD is 'digital' capable. It's hard for an 'old gnarly' like me to see the difference when being quoted MTF charts - as if I care anyway.

As far as I know, an MTF chart never took a picture of anything.

This all seems a bit like two car owners saying "mine goes 150mph ... yeah, mine goes 155mph" when the speed limit is 60mph and the roads are only safe to 90mph. As for 'hard to use', it seems like yesterday (relatively) when my SLRs had pre-set lenses, and there was no instant return mirror.
z04_cowboy.gif



Cheers,

Colin

@Simon: The 20x20 colour glossy printed results I have seen side by side of same interior library shot, same day, same film, same POV, of 40 v. 38 (in 2001 with unsold lens/body by very experienced pro.) did not show any noticeable difference to me or the other two interested guys except the expected marginal wider view, and a 'sense' for me of more 'depth' with the 38. I only have the 50FLE which is OK for me. If I was going wider, it would be the 38 - it is so compact, and with such DOF, I reckon I'd shoot over 'open sights.'
z04_bier01.gif
 
I'm not sure I've kept track of this question or all the responses but I'll add a few words:

I have not used or even seen a 40 IF. I'm sure it's spectacular. How much it out performs the FLE version verses the cost probably depends on what you are using it on, how often, and for what.

I have used the 40FLE on a H2D and H3D using the CF Adapter. Since it's manual focus compared to the H/C 35 I found it not worth it. On the digital cameras the HC/35 is more than good enough, and the results I had come to expect from the 40 were not as apparent on the digital files ... Very good mind you, but not worth the money UNLESS you already have the 40. How much incremental gain you'd get from the IF version & digital back is pure speculation. Probably not $5,000. worth I'd guess ... at least not for me considering the percentage of shots I do with an extreme wide angle. Plus I have a SWC.

CF Adapter for the H cameras: IMO, this piece of kit is worth it even if you don't already have some CF, CFi or CFE lenses ... at least for now. It offers the use of focal lengths not available in the H/C line up as of now. Again, it depends on what your applications may be and how frequent those needs may be. I like using the Fisheye (for it's effect), and 180/4 via the CF adapter for ex&le.

On the H3D, there's no contest IMHO. The DAC corrections in Flex-color favor the HC/28 and 35.

I would say that the V lenses seem to perform better with the CFV back than they do the H3D/39 ... perhaps something to do with the size of the sensor's photo sites?
 
Colin,

MTF charts aren't nearly as useless as you paint them to be.

They do indeed 'take pictures': small detail is always present, and the charts show how a particular lens will deal with it. Any and every time it takes a picture.
Not potential performance, but what it does every time light is going through it. It can't do anything else.

Now there are many ways we (!) can spoil the results, and make the picture worse, yes.
In the car analogy: this car does (!) 200 mph, and if not, it is only held back by us, dragging our feet.

It's not a matter of "No use to get a car capable of doing 150 mph, when the speed limit is 60".
It's "Get your foot of the brake and let the thing run, and it will do 200 mph!".
 
G'Day Q.G.,

I expected a response from you. And I bow to your much greater theoretical knowledge of such things.
crazy.gif


And I knew you'd agree with what I said..."there are many ways we (!) can spoil the results, and make the picture worse".

No doubt, MTF charts were derived scientifically and are administered in controlled circumstances. They are a true indication of the performance of the actual len(ses) physically tested, and a good guide to average expected results in production lenses. But it all matters 'diddley squat' if the field user is incompetent.

As for the topic at hand, "what Marc said above" works for me, because I have no knowledge or experience with H, or this IF beast.

As for where I stand in this simple topic, "what Bojan said".

Cheers,

Colin

PS. I think dragging feet would be very painful. At any speed.
z04_smilieparty.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top