Disappointing Hasselblad Distagon

[JOReynolds]

I use a 50mm Distagon f/4 T* in Synchro Compur for architectural pix (mainly rotten wooden doors in weathered basalt reveals - lots of detail to resolve), on a heavy tripod, cable release, mirror up, f/11, focussing carefully, Delta 100 in Rodinal, 80mm f/5.6 Componon in De Vere 203/Multigrade 500, 16" x 12" or A3. Ought to be really crisp. But the corners were not as sharp as with Canon 50D mk ll with 50mm f/2.
I heard that the older Distagons were not very impressive so I (gulp) shelled out over £800 for a recent lens with dual focus rings and Prontor shuuter. The only improvement was in contrast - 40 years difference in age. I checked corners with 20x industrial microscope - no real improvement. Any comments?

[photomi7ch]

My first thought was wow! how big are you going to print this picture to need to check it with 20x microscope.

[B&W Neil]

I suppose you have checked your enlarger lens ?

Neil.

[MarcAeonDELETED]

Check your enlarger lens.

[MarcAeonDELETED]

Sorry Neil I missed that. Ok, another two pence then, contact print the negative and look at it with a loop.

[vanannan]

I use a 50mm Distagon f/4 T* in Synchro Compur for architectural pix (mainly rotten wooden doors in weathered basalt reveals - lots of detail to resolve), on a heavy tripod, cable release, mirror up, f/11, focussing carefully, Delta 100 in Rodinal, 80mm f/5.6 Componon in De Vere 203/Multigrade 500, 16" x 12" or A3. Ought to be really crisp. But the corners were not as sharp as with Canon 50D mk ll with 50mm f/2.
I heard that the older Distagons were not very impressive so I (gulp) shelled out over £800 for a recent lens with dual focus rings and Prontor shuuter. The only improvement was in contrast - 40 years difference in age. I checked corners with 20x industrial microscope - no real improvement. Any comments?

80mm Componon or Componon S?

[DavidH]

If the corners don't look sharp under a magnifier then no enlarging lens, however good will make them so. Never having used such a lens I wouldn't know what it's capable of, although you'd expect any lens made for a Hasselblad to be exceedingly good.
Have you done comparison shots at a wider aperture? I just wondered if its performance declines at the smaller openings. Perhaps diffraction starts to become a problem at the corners if you go past F/5.6 or 8.

[Mark Snowdon]

I have both of the 50mm lenses. I also found the older lens to be unsharp in the corners at wider apertures but have never had any problems with the newer lens which has the floating element (FLE). You have to set the FLE to the focus range you are using, then focus as normal. I tend to use the newer 50mm for landscapes and so it is normally on f16 or f22 where any corner softness may not show up.

[pentaxpete]

I also treated myself to a 50mm f4 Cfi Distagon ( NEW in about 2003)and have never seemed to get the 'Exquisite' sharpness from similar ones I have seen in the Hasselblad magazine 'Forum' ( now gone broke) and other magazines. I did try mine at f32 but it must have suffered from diffraction In Scotland I took one at full aperture f4 and it was sharp enough though and that was hand-held !
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4095/4920139567_2f3bc6ebc2_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25850987@N03/4920139567/)
Scotland 4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25850987@N03/4920139567/) by pentaxpete (http://www.flickr.com/people/25850987@N03/), on Flickr

[JOReynolds]

My first thought was wow! how big are you going to print this picture to need to check it with 20x microscope.

The 20X microscope was all I had at the time.

[JOReynolds]

80mm Componon or Componon S?

Componon (no S)

[JOReynolds]

If the corners don't look sharp under a magnifier then no enlarging lens, however good will make them so. Never having used such a lens I wouldn't know what it's capable of, although you'd expect any lens made for a Hasselblad to be exceedingly good.
Have you done comparison shots at a wider aperture? I just wondered if its performance declines at the smaller openings. Perhaps diffraction starts to become a problem at the corners if you go past F/5.6 or 8.

You're quite right - it's the associated brand name that creates the expectation of excellence, thus the disappointment. I'll try shooting at different apertures as you suggest - would have been easier with linked aperture and speed rings on the old Synchro Compur.

[cesare]

I've got a CF 50/4 and thought it produces decent results - saying that, i'm not done any critical measurements for it to check.

My initial thought is i'm wondering if the field is not flat at closer focus distances - chances are the corners are out of focus, rather than blurry due to lens distortion. I'd be interested if you were to re-run your test with a target further from your camera.

I think hasselblad only have a few lenses designed for closer focus distances, and I certainly know a number of people who prefer the 120/4 over the 150/4 for portraits, due to improved sharpness at closer focus distances with the 120/4 as it is designed as a macro lens.

[cesare]

Now that i'm back home, I've run some quick tests with some lenses staring at a brick wall to see the differences.

The test was a tripoded mamiya 645 ZD, which is a 22mp digital backed camera, towards 645 frame size. The lenses were all shot at F/11, and the distance to the wall was 1.2m. I tried to get it square on, and although difficult to judge was certainly within the constraints of how much i'd fiddle in the field to get a close up shot like this (not that I take pictures of walls you know, but the odd doorway, a bit of rusting stuff on a beach, you know the score).

Lenses tested:

Mamiya AF 45/2.8
Mamiya AF 55/2.8
Mamiya AF 80/2.8
Hasselblad C T* 80/2.8
Hasselblad CF T* 50/4
Arsat Fisheye 30/3.5

I've stuck the images in a flickr set, with full size images if you want to take a peek. You can right click on these images and choose 'original size' to see the true glory of their sharpness.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cferrari/sets/72157634619214001/

My conclusions:

1) My garden wall is in serious need of repointing
2) All these lenses are sharp as you like in the centre of the frame.
3) The mamiya 55/2.8 seems to me to be very even across the frame, and is a bit of a 'dark horse'. I should use it more often.
4) The mamiya 80/2.8 is more contrasty than my hasselblad C T* 80/2.8. I also think it's sharper in the corners too. Rather surprising as the image circle is smaller and it's not a rated lens. Maybe newer hasselblad 80 lenses are better?
5) My hasselblad 50/4 is soft in the corners, and this is on slightly cropped 645 (48*36mm sensor), so i'm not surprised the OP is seeing problems in the corners on 6*6.
6) I like the Arsat fisheye, and I think I should shoot it some more and see what interesting effects I can find.

I've got some 6*6 arsat fisheye shots to develop, and i'm now excited to see the results. I don't expect them to cope with much enlargement, but they should make an interesting 12*12.

[JOReynolds]

My first thought was wow! how big are you going to print this picture to need to check it with 20x microscope.
I should have added that I was examining the negative with a 20x microscope. I usually print at 15x12 or 20x16. I still reckon that the 80mm f/2.8 Planar and 150mm f/4 Sonnar are as sharp as any equivalent Mamiya, Bronica or Fuji but the 50mm f/4 Distagon FLE is just not as crisp in the corners.