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.

Stiff Manual Focus

Paul,

Yes. I know they do.

The 120 mm did not need a change in its glass at all to gain a stop. And its glass hasn't changed.
It needed a shutter with larger aperture.

Perhaps you should stop believing that with time things can, and will, only get better.

Take for instance the 1950s Biogon. When it was finally changed, using 'brute force' computer power trying to outdo the slide rule and pen and paper original calculations, they absolutely failed to improve the original design.

Or the f/5.6 250 mm Sonnar, which today is still the same as it was when it was introduced in the early 1950s, for use on the 1000-series Hasselblads.

Other lenses too have not changed since they were first introduced, most of them being at least 30 years old, some even almost 50 years.
And where real improvements were achieved, it was done by producing completely new designs, new lenses (40 mm FLE Distagon, 50 mm FLE Distagon, 180 mm Sonnar, 350 mm Superachromat, 500 mm Tele-ApoTessar).

And look at the 40 mm FLE Distagon. When they tried to improve upon that design, producing the IF, they indeed managed to improve one aspect (resolution), but only at the cost of another aspect (distortion) of the design.
That's what you get when producing high quality items. Any change of one aspect will disturb the balance, and result in a loss of quality in other aspects.
 
What is the source of your information Paul?

I've been continuously using these lenses for over 35 years now, and witnessed little to no change in many lenses from a practical user perspective. The coatings improved flair control, and the wide angles introduced floating elements for critical work.

Mostly it's been improvements in the work-a-day functionality and durability. For ex&le, the replacement of the sync port with the locking one on newer lenses fixed a problem many high volume studio shooters used to experience. Redesigning stuff like the hood mount is at best cosmetic, and indicates Zeiss' struggle to justify launching new offerings to stimulate sales.

The good news is that if one can find any one of these Zeiss optics in good working order, they will deliver stunning images (in the hands of a good photographer : -)

BTW, as a side note, while I have just about every 500 series lens from fisheye to 350 ... in those 35 years I've only had one lens sent in for repair: a 120/4 Makro that needed the stop down lever repaired ... it was used in studio for many years and the SD lever was used on every shot.
 
Q.G.

I am quite aware of the fact that time on itself does not improve an industrial design.
New materials, research, CAD techniques and the need to improve
designs when circumstances change i.e. ultra short zoomlenses for
digital applications have given us new and better designs.

CZ did indeed bluntly repeat some of its designs when the change over from "C" to CF series was made.
At the time some of these designs were so good that a redesign was not felt nessecary.
You gave a perfect ex&le the 250/ 5.6 Sonnar.
I will give you another one the 100/3.5 Planar.

This means that for some of the oldest lenses it is still possible to order new glass elements from CZ as these are still used in the CFi lenses.
Of course now they come with T* star multi coating against the older twin layer coating.

The 120 S-Planar and the 120 Makro-Planar is a different story.
The rear lens group of a 120 Makro-Planar does not fit in a 120 S-Planar. I do not know about the front element but just for curiosity I will ask my repair man to mesure the front elements. And ask him
whether they are exchangeable in the optical sense.
I will get back to you on that point.

I do know from experience that the optical performance at close range of both these fine 120 lenses is not the same.
This has also been mentioned by Ulrik and can be seen in the MTF data they are not identical and was mentioned by people from CZ as well.


For Ulrik I have some good news:

I was also annoyed with the slow and heavy movement of the helicoid with the old 500 "C" lens.
I had mine modified to accept power assisted focusing.
With the help of a windscreen wiper motor from a Mercedes S Class and some custom built gears I now enjoy power assisted focusing that can also be remote controlled.
My local garage will be quite happy to supply a kit to you.
The only disadvantage is the car battery I have to drag along to keep the system powered....... Sorry just kidding.

Marc,

I have been using Hasselblad gear as a photogapher which is a little over 40 years now.
As with you I have a large inventory of lenses amongst which both the 500 mm both "C" and the CF.
For sentimental reasons I never sold a lens I used professionaly. Many are now retired or semi retired like the 120 S-Planars.
I still enjoy working with Hasselblad/Zeiss products every day and hope to do so for a long time.
 
Paul,
you mentioned the 100 mm lens as an ex&le of one where the glass has never changed. This is not so. We have to be aware that there are small undocumented changes over the years. I will give you an ex&le. I have a 100 mm CF lens where there is some damage to the coating of the rear element. I asked Zeiss recently how much a repair would cost. They gave me a price but said that they had to have a look at the lens first to see which rear element had been used and if that type was available. This repeats experience that I have made before that the Zeiss people can't always tell you what parts were used for a lens of a given serial number.

This was their reply: "Den Austauch der Hinterlinse können wir evtl. anbieten - dazu müssen wir aber das Objektiv im Hause haben um den genauen Bauzustand zu ermitteln."

I have not yet send the lens to Zeiss.


Ulrik
 
Ulrik,

I know some changes of parts and glass elements are not always documented or made public.

I had a 100 mm "C" series lens with a damaged front lens.
CZ reported that it was perfectly possible to fit a part that is now fitted to the 100CFi.
The answer was based on the serial number of the lens. I ordered the part and the lens is perfect after replacing the damaged part.

Could it be the answer you got was generated to have you help their turnover in the service department?
 
The maximum aperture for the shutter of a "C" lens is 25 mm
as against 22 mm for the CF series.

It seems rather unusual for the designer of a lens to limit the speed
by fitting a shutter mechanism that is too small.

Allthough the S-Planar and the Makro Planar are both constructed along the same design principle they are different as far as the size of their glass elements is concerned.

The Makro Planar gained one stop by using larger glass.

This information comes from a reputable Hasselblad technician
with several decades experience.
 
Sounds entirely reasonable. Assuming that Zeiss would have been dim enough to end up on a suboptimal design with regards to the shutter size is in my view a laughable assumption.

Wilko
 
Q.G.

Carl Zeiss did not improve the speed of the old S-Planar just by fitting a different shutter.
The Compur shutter has a larger maximum aperture i.e. 25 mm as against 22 mm for the Prontor shutter in the CF series lenses.
The Makro-Planar got larger glass to become one stop faster.
This information comes from a reputable Hasselblad technician.

The 1950 Biogon as fitted to the SWA and the SW was changed long before the 905 SWC was produced.
Maybe you forgot.

The choices made in the design for the 40 mm IF were not accidental but quite deliberate.
The balance was not disturbed just altered when changing circumstances needed that.
Distortion can easily be corrected in digital post production.
Other lens parameters were improved for new applications.

I am convinced that you have good user knowledge of Carl Zeiss products.
As for any one else your knowledge is limited and will only be expanded if you are willing to respect opinions and experiences from other users.
And please do not inform me what I should do.
I am sure old enough to decide for myself.
Whether I am wise enough remains to be seen.
 
Paul,

I guess we will not reach agreement about the 120 mm lens.

Not about the Biogon either: it wasn't changed until the 905.

The changes that made the IF were indeed deliberate. Of course they were.
And yes, the balance was altered. It was brought out of balance: let one parameter get worse to let another get better. That's the point: any assumption that a "quality oriented company like CZ" would not "simply repeats its designs after 20 years" is based upon a believe that this "quality oriented company" hadn't done its best to begin with, and a rather naive assumption that with time things can and will only get better.
Quite apparently they have. And they do not.

"And please do not inform me what I should do."
But it is o.k. for you to do so?
 
Q.G.

I did not at any moment suggest what you should do.
Read carefully.

It is useless to discuss matters with you because only your opinion counts and will be the standard that has to be accepted as far as you are concerned.

I will not waste my time anymore to exchange views with you and wish you good luck at this forum.
 
Paul,

Please don't get upset. Some people are just that way. An annoying fact of life.

Wilko
 
Q.G.

I promised not to discus matters regarding Carl Zeiss products with you. I will keep my promise.

What I would like to mention is that you are an arrogant amateur with very limited real experience in photography.

You are an obstacle for other participants in this forum with your unfunded opinions.

I feel free to express myself in this way as you see fit to attack others on a personal level that has nothing to do with matters at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top