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.

Time of improvement of the 1102 FTCCFE


New Member
Regarding purchasing a 110/2 I wonder when the optical improvement were made to this lens.

In addition to this I am not sure if the version(s) with the databus-contacts first was called 110/2 TCC, and than later changed name to FE 110/2

F 110/2
F 110/2 TCC
FE 110/2

But my main question is: When did the optical/stray-light improvements take place?

1) At a time before the TCC/FE-version(s) was introduced
2) at the same time
3) or in between any of these versions?

In 1998/1999 (already with Databus; well into the TCC/FE-period) the two separate lens elements in the rear were replaced by a cemented group, and there were slight changes made to the internal baffling.

Zeiss say the only way to distinguish between "old" and "new" version is by a square light baffle behind the last lens element, which the new version has, the old lacks.

The version names did change from F to F/TCC to FE, but only in Hasselblad catalogues and brochures.
On the lenses itself (all versions) it only says "F", with the TCC = FE version being marked by the double blue line, and, of course, the Databus contacts.

The TCC and FE version are one and the same.
The name changed in literature only because the 203 FE had arrived, and the TCC designation would suggest it was made for the TCC camera only (which had its name changed too). The name did not change with the change in design/baffling.

The name change from TCC to FE (and from TCC to FCC) brought these names back in line with the usual Hasselblad nomenclature.
By the help of your excellent knowledge, I have now discovered the square light baffle on a picture of a FE 110/2 and also the lack of this at another 110/2, also a FE.

Thank you!
I do not quite understand "baffle" . I just had a look to my 2/110 and find a thin black piece just about one millimeter away from the rear lens . Its shape is "squared" with extremely rounded corners . Is that the baffle you are talking about ????

Yes, this piece is what Q.G is refering to
That's exactly it. Thank you very much, Christian, for putting up the picture.

Now how about a hunt for serial numbers of FE f/2 110 mm Planar lenses, plus info about whether or not these lenses have this baffle?
Hello Q.G.
When this discussion came up , i wanted to suggest to collect the serial numbers , but i did not dare to do so , because i thought it would be a stupid idea . O.K. it is not , and so i give here the serial number of my FE 2/110 lens .
It is a CARL ZEISS PLANAR 2/110 T* 8850313 and it has the baffle .
I can't remember when i bought it , but it seems to be the current version . I had a look to the MTF curves from the TCC and FE versions . They are identical
Hi Q.D and Jürgen

Still a huge gap to Jürgen's, but at least a start: FE110/2 #7143361 has not.
My 110/2 FE is SN7511716. It has some "material" added to the four sides in the back of the lense. Did anyone post a picture of the "baffle"? I wouldn't call mine "a: baffle, but certainly it is four separate pieces of light baffling material...


Hello Austin,

Said picture is four posts up from your reply.


You were right, and it is a bit of a stupid idea.

How great are the chances that we just happen to find numbers of two lenses, one without, one with the baffle, that are remotely close?
The gap now is 368,355. There aren't that many 110 mm lenses, so there must be several serial number ranges with huge gaps in between.
And there aren't that many owners of FE 110 mm lenses in this Forum.
So perhaps it would be easier to win the jackpot in some lottery or another? Still, it's a start...
Hi Q.G.,

> Said picture is four posts up from your reply.

I receive these via email, and there is no posting "history" in the posts. I assume you mean four posts up... using the web interface, which I do not have access to right at this time...thanks anyway.


Here is what I can contribute to the discussion. Lens serial numbers are a particular interest and I've been noting serial numbers to try to get some idea of when lenses were produced and in what numbers.

The 110mm non FE seem to be in two serial number blocks 588 and 607 and a guess would be about 3000 made.

The FE 110mm are in a number of smaller blocks made between 1991 and 1998: 694xxxx (two blocks - some F lenses), 714, 746, 751, 794 and 810xxxx. My guess for the number made based on the serial number ranges I've seen is 1500-2000.

The second version with the cemented rear element seems to have been made i n very small batches. The ones I have seen are in the 885 block, 886 (two blocks) and 890xxxx. I've seen very few of this last version so it is difficult to say how many were made - but I would guess very few (a couple of hundred??) between 1999 and 2002.

Not sure this sheds too much light on this - it is of fairly esoteric interest? If anyone has one of the second version FE110 I'd like to hear from them (I have noted Jürgen's). Rick
Hello Rick,

I have a non-FE from the 694xxx block (6948821), showing the date st& H68.
That would suggest that the first production run (the non-FE lenses) of the 694xxxx block(s) happened in 1986.
In between this run and the one from the 694xxxx block producing FE lenses, the 205 must have gotten along well enough to be considered ready for production and release.

Does your record of these 694xxxx block(s) show in what year they started producing FE-lenses?
My contribution is from my Hsselbald lens ring: Planer 2/110 with a T* Serial number 8105403, and from the lens barrel with two blue stripes, and F 110mm. This lens was purchased with a 203 FE directly from B&H photo in New York, August 2000.

Hasselbald had a promotion where they kicked in the 80mm lens if you purchased a camera and lens, so I started off with the 203 FE and a 110mm lens. One month later Hasselbad USA in New Jersey sent me the 80 mm lens.

This 110mm also has the 'baffel'

At the time, this lens seemed ideal for protraits, and other compositions where background was not important.

My next purchas was in 2001 Spring, a 150mm from an Attorney in Boston through Photo dot Net for $1,300 (mint).

My last purchase was from a doctor in 2002 for $10,000, a package which included: a 205 FCC with winder, one back made for the 205, 250 mm FE, 350 mm FE superachromat, 1.4xe lens adapter, and various extension rings. (all itmes are mint)

The doctor wanted to switch to Leica and felt the Hasselbald was too cumbersome for his use.
Hi Richard,

What is your opinion about the FE 4/250mm and the FE 4/350mm (in terms of optical performances & ergonomy)?
Hi, Tetron

You asked a question to Richard, but I permit allow me to mention that he might instead meant the lens CFE 350 when he wrote FE 350. The CFE 5.6/350 Sa is the superachromat.

I have the FE 350/4. My choice for this lens this was not only due to the full stop faster speed, which itself would have been reason enough, with brighter view and possibility to really decrease the depth of field. But the FE 350/4 focus directly down to 1.9 meters, also with smooth inner focus. Compare that minimum distance with 3.75 m for the SA.

The CFi/CFE lenses has central shutter, and the optical performance of the superachromat’s are outstanding of course. But the FE 4/350 is known for its beautiful bokeh, that is delicate rendering in out-of-focus areas.
Tetron (Nicalei)
Response to your post 10/16/05

Hi Tetron;

Performance of both meets exceptional criteria, Ergonoomy is not easy with the 350, because of size and weight. Moving from an 80mm lens to 350mm is a big jump. It is a big jump from the 250mm to the 350mm. The 350 takes time to discover, and use. It took me about 9 months to acquire an expert feel for the 350 lens. I set up the shot, then wait for the light, some shots can take up to 3 hours to get it right. Patience rules.

Both Lenses (250 f4 SN 8867567 & 350 f5.6 sn 8847088 tele superachromat) give superior performance, however the 350 tends to become cumberson to carry on an airplane, because of packing for clothes, and other things. 250 lens is cased in soft leather case. 350 lense is encased in hard circular leather case.

Both lenses need to be tripod mounted. The 350 has a tripod mount. Hand holding has some movement when film is printed in large sizes of greater than 20" x 20". My Preference is 30" x 30", thus the need for tripod mounting.

250 is easier to carry on a trip, 350 is heavier and too long to be easily carried on.

I always use a tripod on all Hasselbald photos. Action shots can be taken with the 350 as it has 500 th speed setting.

Most of my work is of stationary objects in a staionary setting.

350 is tack sharp. 250 is also tack sharp, but not the same as the 350. I often shoot ships 5-10 miles off shore at sundown as they pass my home. It takes time to find how to use these lenses for composition and color. Both lenses are learning experiences.

I like all the lenses in the Hasselblad line up, and have a strong feeling that Digital will not overcome this format for a long time, because using the Hasselblad is born of patience, which results in superior images when printed large scale.