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.

Hasselblad Sonnar 180 CFE or CFi?

Y

ymc226

New Member
I only have the 200 series bodies (203FE/205FCC) and plan on portraits of my family, wanting to fill the negative completely of the head. I am using strobes in the basement and currently have a 110 FE Planar and 150 FE which I use for "static" portraits synching at around 1/30 or 1/60 but again, would like very close up shots.

I also use a 80 CFE and a 40 CFE IF for motion shots using the leaf shutter synching at 1/500.

For my current system, what would be the advantages of spending extra to get a 180 CFE as opposed to the CFi if my initial purpose was for portraits? I would lose the electronic communication between the lens and the camera and thus, the ability to default to the automatic mode for non-flash picture taking. Is that all that I would trade away? Is there any difference in the optical qualities of the CFE compared to the CFi?
 
Optically the CFE and CFI versions are identical.
The 180 is less suitable for portraits than the 150 FE or the 150 C/CF versions.

A wellknown forum user says:
"Portraits made with the 180 lens will give you a hard time with all females over the age of twelve."

Have you thought about using a small extension ring?
Hasselblad made a 16 mm ring with databus contacts.
16 mm could be a little too much though.
Please note the 8 mm ring (without databus) can not be used with 200 series bodies.
 
I tend to agree that the CFi/CFE 180mm is rather sharp and shows all details (wanted and unwanted) for portraiture. However, Phocus and Photoshop can resolve this very elegantly. For portraits, I tend to work with the CFi120 mm macro lens.
 
Contradiction in terms

Or why not use a Softar?

But this is contradictionary.
You buy the best lenses and then you "degrade" them because they are to sharp?

--Olof
 
Olof B said:
You buy the best lenses and then you "degrade" them because they are to sharp?

--Olof
Click to expand...


That is right:
You spend a small fortune to get the best lenses you can get and spend some change to ruin these excellent products from Carl Zeiss.

I sold a softar with a couple of minor marks to be confronted with an unhappy buyer.
He wanted the softar to be perfect just like his Carl Zeiss lens :(
 
Olof B said:
Or why not use a Softar?

But this is contradictionary.
You buy the best lenses and then you "degrade" them because they are to sharp?

--Olof
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Unfortunately we only have Softar's, not Sharptar's

In other words, you can only degrade image quality with what essentially is a piece of transparant plastic with small bubbles on it (that is what a Softar is, plastic..) So a brilliant lens is degraded by artificial means.
 
wbulte said:
Well, yes. Unfortunately we only have Softar's, not Sharptar's

In other words, you can only degrade image quality with what essentially is a piece of transparant plastic with small bubbles on it (that is what a Softar is, plastic..) So a brilliant lens is degraded by artificial means.
Click to expand...

Should that not be Sharpars?
 
I really don't see the issue. The rule of thumb is to take the highest quality picture and the modify (in this case degrade) the qualilty selectively via software. The reverse is not possible, isn't it !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top