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

I believe the DAC software was an "invention" to cut down the cost for the development of wide angle lenses like the 28mm and 35mm lenses for the H-SYSTEM .
When larger sensors would currently be available , this software would probably not have come (at this point of time) .
But now , as there is software available to correct lenses to "perfect" , it will possibly not last very long till corrections to other lenses will be available . This was mentioned earlier in this thread .

Looking at GENUINE FRACTALS V5 , we must recognize , that this is software doing similar things . And the results are great .

So , there is no reason , to mistrust the H 28+35mm lenses . Interesting would shurely be , as Q.G. pointed out in his posting , to see images with and without DAC .

onOne and PowerRetouche offer software to make images more perfect .

And still my emotions are with the fantastic lenses we have today and I am afraid , that software corrections could lead to less carefully made lenses .

Regards Jürgen .
 
Point about coverage of the 28mm well taken QG.

I would not lump the 35 in with the 28, as it offers full coverage for the 645 and is actually the comparison to the 40 that should be made.

However, just to be clear ... I'd LOVE to have the 40 IF for use with my CFV as well as film ... but just am not THAT willing to part with a King's ransom for the pleasure.

It's nice to speculate though : -)
 
For that matter, none of these lenses are cheap. The 28 mm is close to 4k, I believe. The problem with the IF is that it is possible to find used. For those of you who live in Southern California, Samy's Camera does have one for rent at a reasonable price.

BTW, the combination I would love to try out someday is the Biogon with a digital back. The IF is reputed to be of the same quality as this classic, except, of course, for the distortion. That I would have to rent.
 
Martin,
The Biogon 38 is legendary of course with some desputes from the Mamiya RF 7 43mm lens and their users. However, on digital sensor, the information tells you that the flange distance is too close and the medium format sensor normally lack of micro-mirror to compensate for such high acute angle of light and thus create optical aberrations. On the other hand, despite the Hasselblad V system never took off on digital age, the Distagon T* 4.0/40 CFE IF was intended to be for digital sensor. Furthermore, folks often criticize the distortion of the lens based primarily on the MTF charts. However, distortion is only important if our eyes can identify it and the distortion in this term is defined by the rate of change and not the absolute value of the MTF charts.

From my lens experiences, I find Zeiss optics to be the best especially on wide and super wide angle.

-Son
 
Thanks Son - I mentioned the Biogon because the IF has been compared to it in terms of sharpness. Again, the criticism has been one of distortion when compared to the Biogon. The more I use the IF, the less of an issue this is me. I totally agree with your comments regarding the MTF chart. I seriously doubt ever using the Biogon with a digital sensor, especially in view of your comments. It was just a thought.
 
> Hello Son and Martin,

FYI: Two years ago, I had used a borrowed 903 with a V96C digital back and brought back so stunning photos of the Himalayas. The sensor on the V96C gave me not one problem and the back worked extremely well!

Tsun >
 
Tsun,
I have no doubt that your images were great but the sensor is a crop factor one and thus you are not seeing the edges where the acute angle light. I know folks who own the Biogon and used it on the P39 back and were not happy with the results. However, the definitive answer will come when both the Biogon and the CFE IF are tested together on the close to full frame sensor. Perhaps I will take the opportunity to do the test when I get the remaining gears together and share the information here. It is difficult to get both the Biogon and the CFE IF and a 39 megapixels back all together at once but I remain positive that this test will be done in the future.
-Son
 
For anyone who might be interested, there is a supposedly mint condition IF listed on ebay. It is the first one I have been able to find. (It is now too late for me.)
 
SWC C T* or 40mm CFE FLE for more money? Which option would be better with a CFV back. Will a SWC C be a problem if repair are needed? Is the "Blsck SWC C" listed at KEH a reasonable purchase?

Steve
 
Just a look at the ftm curves, show that the If is the Best.

I recently baught a "the new baby SWC lens" (ZM Biobon 21mm 4.5) for my M8 Leica. One conclusion is that numérical picture do not allow quick focusing as I use to do 20 years agon with a SWC. Even with this 21mm lens I have to care.
 
Finally, after ordering filters when I purchased my lens at the end of March and waiting 7 weeks only to have B & H tell that B + W was not making them anymore. I consulted Hasselblad parts and received more than fair number of dealers across the US, but I was unable to buy what I wanted.

Then I wrote Michel Huppert in Germany as I had purchased from him before. He placed a special order to have them made. A couple of days ago I received the B + W beautifully made filters. Also, the purchase including a $29.00 dollar overnight shipping fee, was less than the price I originally agreed to with B & H.

Anyone looking for new filters for a 40mm IF and or other equipment including Contax. Check out his website. He and his wife are delightful to do business with too.

http://www.foto-huppert.de/

Regards:

Gilbert
 
I'm sorry Gilbert, you sort of lost me. Did you purchase filters for a 40mm IF you own? I use Lee filters with adapter rings. For the 40mm IF, there are two ways to go. You can unscrew the so-called lens shade and use a Lee Hasselblad 93 Adapter Ring or also unscrew the second ring and use a Lee 86 Adapter Ring. Either one allows me to attach the Lee wide angle hood and use whatever filters I want.

I did go to the web site you kindly posted, but cannot make any sense out of it. Can you clarify a bit. Thank you. Martin
 
Martin:

Thanks for the info.

Sorry for any confusion. Yes, and at the time I purchased the lens I ordered a B + W KR 1.5 and a Kaesemann Circular Polarizer. I normally purchase Heliopan but they do not make the required filters.

Click the Zum shop, then you can click the icons, or the drop downs at the top. Since you live near me, I guess you will have to brush up on your German or hope there is a picture.
happy.gif


Regards:

Gilbert
 
Thanks Gilbert, I will give it a try. Might I also suggest you take a look at the new Lee wide angle hood with an attachment ring for their 105mm circular polarizer. You can see it on the B&H web site. It is a great combination for wide angle lenses. Regards, Martin
 
Martin,

Do you actually have and use the Lee 105 mm. polarizer -- not the 4x4 square one but the screw-in (circular one)? If so, how heavy is it?

The reason I am asking is that I obtained a Heliopan 105 screw-in polarizer from KEH, but it was somewhat on the heavy side (the ring must be approx. 13 mm. in width -- and of course brass) and subsequently returned it since, after working with the set-up, I couldn't trust that the adapter would stay on the lens with the polarizer attached. In short, is the screw-in Lee polarizer relatively narrower and lighter?
 
Wayne - Yes, I have one and use it. It is about 10mm wide. If you add the threads, probably 12mm. So it is most likely close to the Heliopan. I am not impressed with it's weight. Its metal, but not brass. The problem I had was how to use it with a shade/hood and be able to make adjustments. The new Lee hood I mentioned above has solved that problem very nicely.

Everthing is tightly held in place, so I'm not concerned with anything coming apart.

What was your application for the 105mm - lens, etc? Where you using the Lee 105 ring?
 
Martin,

I picked up the Heliopan polarizer specifically to use in conjunction with multiple grad filters (either coloured and/or ND when needed) when shooting landscapes with my 'Blad kit. My initial objective was to learn to apply multiple grad filters independently (I have two adapters) in response to needs of the scene and/or my corresponding objectives; my long-term goal is to have this knowledge in place when I can afford a 6x17 and/or large format kit. I initially figured that a screw-in polarizer would be more versatile and durable than a 4x4, but a few too many 'almost' mishaps that would have been disasterous led to my decision to trade-in the Heliopan.

As such, I am not as confident as you seem to be with the spring-loaded retaining mechanism of the Lee adapters. This may well be due to the fact that the Heliopan's brass ring is likely appreciably heavier than the Lee (which I suspect is aluminum), which likely tips the balance in this instance (no pun intended).

My original post was prompted by the fact that I was planning to acquire a 4x4 polarizer in the near future. As I generally have no problems working with a single grad and a polarizer (multiples are another story), I was not necessarily adverse to acquiring the Lee screw-in polarizer since it would be comparatively more durable. I was, however, waffling since I did not know how high the ring was which is an issue when shooting wide (a vignetting concern, particularly with a 38). Your original post was serendipitously timely in this instance
biggrin.gif
since you likely had the information I needed (aren't these forums just wonderful
biggrin.gif
).

FYI: even if I standardize on 4x4 polarizers, the 105 mm. adapter will still be useful to me as I have a B+W 105 mm. metal hood: it is circular and subsequently quite useful since one does not have to be concerned about vignetting inadvertently when adjusting a polarizer or single grad with a rectangular hood attached (the reason I passed on the Lee wide-angle hood).
 
> I have a CFE 40mm IF that I still enjoy using for architecture and scenics, shooting mostly B&W. Instead of buying the very expensive 93mm filters from Hasselblad or other filter manufacturers, I bought the 95mm filters from Tiffen and B+W. If you remove the glass from the threaded holder, the glass is just the right size to slip into the filter holder on the front of the 40mm IF. The 95mm filters are generally more readily available than the 93mm.
 
Robert - That seems like a reasonable solution. However, I don't think I would trust my four thumbs with such a task. How do you like the IF?

Wayne - I actually did buy the B+W wide angle hood. I initially saw it mentioned on Robert White's (UK) web site as a way of shading the Lee 105 polarizer. (The new Lee hood was not available then.) I will keep it because it seems like such a neat way to shade the polarizer and probably will have some great application in the future.
 
> I have both the CFE 40mm IF and the 50mm. The 50mm was my first wide- angle that I've owned for a few years but when I began using the 205FE bo dy I bought the 40IF since it was compatible with the body. Occasionall y the distortion in the corners of the 40IF is clearly noticeable, partic ularly when I shoot architectural and objects in the corners that are sup posed to round are ovals and square objects appear as trapezoids. Howeve r, the wider angle plus the CFE feature more than outweights the distorti on. When I print from the 40mmIF negatives, I will crop out the distort ion if it bothers me. For scenics with the 40IF, I normally don't crop m uch and really enjoy the wider angle of the 40MM. Since I've had the 40 IF, the 50mm stays in the drawer most of the time. The 205FE plus the 4 0, 80, 120, and a 180 plus a 2X multiplier makes a great travel combinati on. Just as a precaution, I usually take a 503CW body as a backup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top