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.

Disadvantage to have Fuji lenses instead of Zeiss

Hi Austin,

Frankly, I don't have the extended experience with the other Fuji MF lenses to render an informed opinion. WRT the Fuji/Hasselblad, I just put an outdoor portrait into the Photo Gallery. The picture is named after the subject: Alex. It is neither the best bokeh produced by my H1, nor is it the worst. It is merely the first picture I could throw on my flatbed scanner. I would love to hear your thoughts when you get a chance. Obviously, I was using an aperture setting to throw the background way out of focus, for almost an abstract background effect. I shot it at f2.8, and used a very mild fill from the on-camera flash. Thanks.
 
>Hi Austin > >I guess we do not have to agree - and no, I have not used the 110.2 - >the fastest Fuji lens I have is the 180 and its 3,2 not fast but not >slow either. I have a friend that used it once or twice a year for >shooting commercials for "house of prince cigarettes" that had to go on >bill boards 2 x 3 metres. It was portraits only focusing on the models >eyes with out of fucus backgrounds and from these enlargement >unpleasent bokeh would have been apparent I think. Since I have not >tried all Fuji lenses nor all Zeiss I am not going to argue one thing or >the other just that I have been pleased with the Fujis and that I hope >that Hasselblad does not screw things up by working with Fuji on the H1. >My background for comparison of Bokeh is that of a photographer but >mainly that of a publisher. I publish science, art and photgraphic >books. My publishing house has received awards for the very high quality >of our books and Ihave been a jury member of the "ministry for cultures >photgraphic bookaward" so in short i spend at lot of time looking at a >lot of pictures. But if you have tested or in other way compared the >mentioned optics for bokeh with a different result that is just >perfectly fine with me, as is the fine advice you have often shared on >this list > >respectfully > >Ruben
 
Hi Kevin,

> WRT the Fuji/Hasselblad, I just > put an outdoor portrait into the Photo Gallery. The picture is named > after the subject: Alex. It is neither the best bokeh produced by my > H1, nor is it the worst. It is merely the first picture I could throw > on my flatbed scanner. I would love to hear your thoughts when you get > a chance.

Unfortunately, I can't tell a thing from that picture. The background is reasonably non-descript, and dark. Bokeh "checking" is best, IMO, done with a rather complex fore/background (dark and bright areas, like backlit leaves through trees) that will really tax the ability of the OOF areas.

This image is quite a bit more "interesting" with respect to bokeh:

http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/photos/details.php?image_id=10

And here is an image shot with a 110/2 shot at f2:

http://www.darkroom.com/Images/LABOWL02w.jpg

which looks simply amazing in print...the graytone transitions are creamy smooth and are simply spectacular. It's this smoothness of transition that to me, defines good/bad bokeh.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin,

You're not worried about the double line bokeh of the 110 mm Planar? You'll see it best in "medium unsharp" areas that have medium to high contrast transitions of tone.

In your ex&le, it's visible in the boys raised left arm.
It's more visible in this shot:

http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/photos/details.php?image_id=184&mode=search

(Or look for the image "Boy" by "Qnu" in the Gallery if the above link doesn't work).

Notice in particular the shoulders and the edge of the boy's left ear.
Makes me want to rub my eyes.
(And no, it's not a artifact produced by scanning or digital post-production).


And a "by the way" request: please don't judge the image on artistic merits. There are none, and would there have been, they would have been quite coincidental. It's just a snapshot. No posing, no composing, no lighting: just a grab shot.
I was talking to the boys father, but the tyke did not stop pestering me, demanding to see my camera. So it took it out of my bag, put the business end of it "in his face", and quickly pressed the release. Exposure turned out to be good, though no meter was used. Lucky me!
And yes, it did shut him up. ;-)
 
Hasselblad and Zeiss do have a reputation for being expensive and yes, MOST good things do cost a lot.
The difference here is that a once unknown Fritz Victor Hasselblad had a dream and a vision to which he committed an entire lifetime. A revolutionary camera that broke new ground in several directions. A professionals tool that set the absolute standard for over fifty years in medium format photography.
It's interesting to learn that upon completion of the first civilian model (1600F) he was reluctant to put his own name on his creation. Pitty that Fuji doesn't share those sensibilities. In my view, Mr. Hasselblad EARNED that reputation and the right to place his name on his product. Plus the higher than average price tag on a clearly superior product which was in fact underpriced. Sorry folks, but I find virtually everything about the H1 deeply offensive.
RH.
 
Photography is not my day job. I am an economics professor. But I have had a lifelong interest in landscape photograph. I have used a 4x5 view camera with Schneider optics for the last 18 years. I do mostly black and white, and the optics produce wonderful middle gray tones. While not a professional, I think I have reasonably good judgement about optical quality.

I recently decided to purchase another camera. I want more mobility and want to move to digital color at some point in the future. I was in a camera store talking with the clerk about my choices, when he handed me the H1. I was totally prepared to dislike the camera. I purchased one of the first Mamiya 645s years ago and quickly learned to hate the camera. After an hour of playing with the H1 in the store and shooting three rolls of film, I came to the conclusion that it was the finest piece of photography equipment I had ever used. It was a delight to use, and the ability to lock in a spot reading and set it to any desired zone was just plain cool.

But what about the optics? The message boards were all talking about the poor quality of Fuji lenses. I did some research on Fuji medium and large format lenses and spent some time studying the MTF data for the H1 lenses. I also studied my negatives and prints from the store shooting session, which seemed consistent with what I gleaned from the MTF data.

Well, I purchased the camera. I will be retiring in five years and plan to make photography my new day job. I continue to find the H1 a delight to use. I have both the 80 and 150. It is hard for me to see how anyone can be upset with the portraits from the 150.

Again, I am not a professional. I cannot speak to the durability of the camera. But the MTF data for the lenses has been totally consistent with the images I have taken with the camera. Overpriced? Yes. But when has Hasselblad equipment not been overpriced?
 
I've never heard a Bugatti or Patek Philippe owner complain about price. If you think an item is overpriced you have that wonderful option to just walk away. Is a Van Gogh overpriced at 43 million? I don't think so. But my neighbor does. Which explains her fascination with Norman Rockwell.

To my mind Hasselblad has never been overpriced. Perhaps until recently. Have you ever cocked the shutter on a Mamiya RB 67 ? Feels (and sounds) like a nut cracker. And they don't cost much less than a Hasselblad. Other "indifferent" products abound. But then lots of people don't really notice.

The traditional Hasselblad is an elegant and beautifully made machine. According to a number of people I've talked to, it potentially inspires a person to take better photographs. That's a very special quality. Although I haven't taken any pictures with it, the look and feel of the H1 repels me. Which is most likely my problem. I hope the Hasselblad company sells lots of them. I'm afraid they won't see me in the line.

So what do you think of the new Leica MP ?

RH
 
RH

Apparently the technical term for breaking ground in several directions at once is quaquaversal tectonics...

I am sympathetic to your views and there is something nobler about the venerable mechanical beasts of the V series (true classics), but hope that the world is a big enough place to accommodate more than one 'blad line, especially as it is a fait accompli. Even a do everything including making a cup of tea one like the H1. The problem is if the H1 is too successful and the V system dies, or NOT successful enough and the company goes under. Somehow I don't think it will be a full return to the V series.

I have never used an H1 and don't know if I ever will (not my cup of tea), but I have used Fuji lenses on a TX-1 (Fuji badged, so a bit 'purer' than the Xpan) and GSW690III and they are very good - sharp, and I like the colour, with my film and subjects. Although Fuji lenses must be a bit different in optical rendering of the subject, this might just be difference, not lesser quality. Is there any reason why such a clever firm with such resources can't make good lenses?

Betty, I have always wondered about the point of Zone system metering with a roll film camera (given the whole roll is processed the same), especially with a camera that does the placement of zones for you (less satisfaction in getting it right in one shot?).

Nick (from where it is too hot today)
 
Hello RH,
what is expensive? I think that we can find expensive the price of one caffee, or one cigarette. But when it is for plaisure, I think that the price is only a watter-bubble, nothing.!.
When I used nikon camera, lot of years a go,I was very regarding to the price of what I spend. But with the time you need other things and if you want it, one montain is nothing. I think that we don't need to be rich to use Hassy, we only need to choose and find the good equipement that we need. And like for a rolex, we don't put money on the street, we invest it, and we can work.
If someone find that anything is expensive, it means that it is not made for him.
 
RH,
can you help me, with your experience using some lenses. I see that you use the 100mm/3.5 and it is in my mind to find one. I only know this lense with article that I can see everywhere, and they say that it is very good.
My question is one, I use now the 180mm because I use it for portrait, but I will need one normal lense. I don't know and I don't like the 80mm. I don't understand why a lot of people use the 80mm. What is the difference between those two lenses.?.
Thanks a lot. L.
 
Laurent,
Please don't misunderstand; there is nothing wrong with the 80mm Planar. It's just that the 100 / 3,5 is something special. Optimized for distortional correction and resolution (particularly at or near infinity) Zeiss settled on this speed and focal length in search of the "perfect standard lens". And unlike the other Zeiss optics in the line during it's inception (their designs were shared with Rollei), the 100 / 3,5 Planar was designed exclusively for Hasselblad. It's still a puzzle to many long time users why the lens was not (and is not) more popular. It's quite possibly the finest optic in all of medium format. Yes, by all means go find yourself a nice ex&le.
RH.
 
There is no disadvantage to using the Fuji lenses over the Zeiss, except to one's ego and to marketing for Hasselblad. I purchased an H1 and have been using the 80mm lens. I own and have extensively used Leica M lenses and many Nikon lenses. The Fuji lenses are extremely sharp, the color rendition is excellent and the bokeh is good too. Sure, I would have preferred Zeiss glass because it would have felt better, but the results that I have been achieving have been exceptional. I also would have preferred the classic look and build of the V series, but they do not carry as well in the hand and field. The H1's ergonomics are exceptional. In addition, many posters discuss the high cost of the H1. The H1 is actually significantly less expensive than the V series cameras with similar features, that is metering, etc. It is about the same price as the Rollei 6008AF and more expensive than the Contax. Those cameras have slower autofocus and are not as compatible with future digital technologies. In short, I am very pleased with the H1 and the quality of the lenses thus far. I am buying the 210 mm lens and if it does not perform well, I will inform all. Regards
 
Steven,

"There is no disadvantage to using the Fuji lenses over the Zeiss, except to one's ego and to marketing for Hasselblad."

If you can't see/characterize the differences in the two lenses, then for YOU there is no "disadvantage". For some people who see, know and understand the differences, there may in fact be a disadvantage to the Fuji lenses.

I, personally, have used a LOT of Fuji medium format lenses, as I have or have had a number of Fuji MF cameras. I have not used an H1, but I have seen pictures from the H1. They are characteristic Fuji from what I saw. Very sharp, very nice color (if not a bit too saturated), and bad bokeh. Now, you may not care for bokeh (or even know what it is), but that does not preclude someone else from caring about it, which would make the Fuji lenses possibly a disadvantage.

Fuji lenses are also slower, which IS in fact a disadvantage to quite a few people, my self included.

Austin
 
Austin - The topic of this post is Disadvantages of Fuji with a question mark. I have given my opinion, as have you. I did not attack you for what I thought you may know or not know. I mentioned that I use Leica lenses. I have 21 mm, 35 1.4 and 50 Noctilux. There are no lenses that have a better reputation for bokeh than Leica, so I know what bokeh is. In my opinion, the bokeh is very pleasing with the HC lenses. Maybe you should use them prior to issuing an opinion, as a user should anticipate the results and manipulate them. Just looking at some shots is not enough. It is only through several dozen shots that the real picture emerges. Also, these lenses are not the same as the other Fuji lenses as Hasselblad worked in conjunction with Fuji to develope particular specifications. In regard to speed, the 80 is a 2.8 lens. I think Contax has a 2.0 with their Zeiss, but I do not believe that that lens is a German lens either. I agree with you as I like speed as well.
 
Steven,

"I did not attack you for what I thought you may know or not know."

As a note, I didn't attack you at all, and if you took it that way, well, it wasn't meant that way. I simply stated facts, and stated my opinion.

Do note though, that in your previous post you said:

"There is no disadvantage to using the Fuji lenses over the Zeiss, except to one's ego..."

Which is clearly not stated as opinion, but as fact, and you tied it up in a nice bow with what certainly could be construed as an insult.

"Maybe you should use them prior to issuing an opinion"

I don't have to personally use them or me to SEE the actual results.

"Just looking at some shots is not enough. It is only through several dozen shots that the real picture emerges."

I have a very good eye. I have looked ar more than some from the H1, and I shouldn't need to look at many to see "the real picture emerge" (a little too touchy-feely for me ;-). I can still pick out characteristics of a lense in a single image, but certainly more than one is warranted.

"Also, these lenses are not the same as the other Fuji lenses as Hasselblad worked in conjunction with Fuji to develope particular specifications."

Yes, I know that. That doesn't make them good or bad, and has no bearing on what the resultant image quality is. Even different lenses by the same manufacturer can be vastly different, true with Zeiss as well.

You do not need to be defensive of your H1. I am sure is a fine camera. But, all this has nothing to do with the reality that there are ARE disadvantages, to some, to the Fuji lenses, which is a fact. There are also disadvantages, again, to some, to the Zeiss lenses.

Austin
 
Hey guys,

please cool down. A forum is for exchanging different opinions in a nice way...

I do not understand one point:

"...It is about the same price as the Rollei 6008AF and more expensive than the Contax. Those cameras have slower autofocus and are not as compatible with future digital technologies..."

How do you come to this conclusion?

Every digital back that I have seen for the H1 is also available for the Contax 645 and the Rollei 600x. Especially the Rollei series 6000 has had built in automatic features like no other brand before them. And Rollei also offered digital backs under their own name, when Contax for ex&le even did not offer a 645. I made the experience that often the digital back manufacturers are missing to list Rollei as compatible with their digibacks. But if you send them an e-mail, every manuafctuerer is stating that the same back is available also for the Rollei at the same price and the same convenience.

The Rollei has the advantage over every other Medium Format System that you can leave the shutter open while using digital backs. There is no vibration at all while taking a shot digitally. No other manufacturer is offering that as far as I know...

But this is a Fuji lens thread, so this might be dicussed in a different topic separately.
 
Hey Guys and Gals.

re Fuji v. Zeiss, with Leica and Contax acting as co-counsel.

Can we call it a 'draw' on the personal attacks and counter claims, and move on. I think there's another Forum for hurling epithets. <grin>

This is my first posting, but I've been 'watching'. It is very informative, for the most part.

Forty years or more ago, I used to get caught up way too much in how good one lens was when compared
with another, or even how a Nikon (or now a Fuji even) may or may not be as
good as another make (like Zeiss). Heck, one time I almost got into a fist fight about the Carl Zeiss of Jena lens on an Exakta 35 SLR built in Dresden. (The cameras with the film cutter built in).

Then, last year I took a 10 day vacation
taking only my trusty old friend - a back-up Rolleiflex TLR 3.5 Tessar 'point and shoot'- my second ever MF
camera which I've had for about 40 years I think. (My first was a Rolleicord VB,)

Just took the TLR, 3 filters, a lenshood, cable release, Weston Master IV (yep), and a (CF)
tripod - plus I think about 15 rolls of Ilford Delta. Yep, not 50 rolls. I figured a roll a day - all winners <grin>.

When I see those big old squared prints 10.25 x10.25 sitting in 16x20 mounts, proud, and equal to others of grander parentage,
they remind me - everyday - that what we SEE, and how we tell the story, is infinitely
more important than the tools we use. Sure the tools help. Like the
tripod. And the excellent simplicity of the Zeiss Tessar lens. (Please don't tell me about it. :) )

I've seen pictures made by those with the latest marvels - 6008s, Mamiya7s, 67s, 203 or 205 and now the H1, and a
big bag of lenses and winders and such. Some are sensational. Most are very
average. Quite a few are terrible.

You could actually buy my entire Rolleiflex TLR "point and shoot" kit for less than
a new Hassy circular polarizer, and make very acceptable gallery prints.

Of course, I love my 503CW (no winder) and
80 and 180, but when I bought them, it did not help me SEE better. It only helps me record what I see, a little better, (and it's nice to have backs and finders and such.)

As for the right or wrong of a Hassy with Fuji or Zeiss. What's the
difference. Mr 'Blad asked Mr. Zeiss to make lenses in Germany; now he's asking
Mr. Fuji to make some in Japan. Hey, if it works for Herr. Leica to use foreign manufacturers, it has to work for
Hasselblad. It hasn't hurt Nikon and Canon either. And, in this great big free market, we buy what we like, igmore what we don't, and manufacturers adjust accordingly.

You knew that, anyway.

Thought for today. If you want to take an "equipment sabbatical", buy a
Holga120 for US $30, then look at a site like www.davidniles.com/holga/ or another similar site, for some
inspiration. Then have some fun SEEING.

Be unencumbered, just once in a while. It's good for the soul. Throw the bokeh out with the bathwater.

OK, that's it. I'll post again in 2005. Thanks for being patient.
 
Laurent,

The reason so many people use the 80mm Planar, is because that is the lens that they bought with their kit, and it is the fastest of the leaf shutter lenses. Since most 50x buyers already have a normal lens (the 80mm), they will not get another normal lens, unless there is a specific need for it. They will usually go for a 150mm or a 50mm next. Since Hasselblad lenses are an investment, and not a casual purchase, most will not jump to acquire a lens whose FOV is too similar to their other lens(es). The 100mm was designed for photogrammetry, and hence it has minimal distortion at infinity, and it has a deserved reputation for being one of Zeiss' sharpest lenses for the Hasselblad.

Taras
 
"...It is about the same price as the Rollei 6008AF and more expensive than the Contax. Those cameras have slower autofocus and are not as compatible with future digital technologies..."

How do you come to this conclusion? The autofocus issue has been tested in some of the magazines. As far as the digital technology, although all of the cameras mentioned may use a digital back, it is my understanding that the functions between the back and the camera are integrated better such that the camera can control a lot of the functions of the back. For the record, I agree with most people that the H1 would have been more attractive with Zeiss lenses. It would have made my purchasing decision easier. However, I am happy with the H1 and I hope that they do eventually add faster and some longer lenses.
 
Nice link to the Holga Site, Colin - I would not throw bokeh out with the bathwater - just try to get its importance into perspective - as you say, its the part of making some great pictures it is all about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top