Hasselblad lens adaptor for Contax bodies

G

Guest

Hi, all
I am wondering how the MM lenses work on a Hasselblad? Don't the Hasselblad lenses have the shutters built in to the lenses. I know there is an adapter, does the adapter have the shutter?
I am curious, I have no experience with Med. format.

Thanks, Mark
 
G

Guest

Mark,
you have missunderstood the function of the adapter. It is for using Hasselblad lenses on Contax bodies, not as you think for using Contax lenses on Hasselblad bodies. I use the adapter regulary for outstanding picture quality on 135 film with my RTS III. Together with the vaccum function for absolut flatness of the film and the Hasselblad Sonnar 250 superachromat, I don´t think any other combination can give such outstanding performance in this format.

Ingemar
 
G

Guest

Dear Friends, As an owner of Contax N & Ax cameras, I can tell you that the Contax Ax combined with my Hassellblad Carl Zeiss lenses( with a special Adaptor just purchased)is something out of this world. I have never seen anything better in terms of sharpness detail and quality in all my photographic experience.The back focus system on the AX worked brilliantly especially with the Tessar 250mm F4, and the 50mm F2.8 Distagon. With all due respect I do not think many other brands can match this quality.
 
G

Guest

Hi Thomas,

could you go more into detail and compare the combination of 1-2 Hasseblad lenses via the adapter to your AX with with a specific Zeiss C/Y lens in terms of quality etc.

Thanks

Dirk
 
G

Guest

I agreed but there are many adaptors can bring Hasselblad lens to 135 SLR bodies, of course, only AX has the AF and close-up advantage.

Brgds/Kaisern
 
G

Guest

Yes, I have made the same experiences by using various medium format lenses with an adaptor on my CONTAX AX camera. Generally 35mm lense are sharper, but since you use the center of the medium format lenses only, there are less optical problems, even with full open apertures.

Regards, Rainer
 

wubke

Member
Dear sir

Would be possible to get user manual for the Hasselblad to Contax adapter.

Just bought one of this but i fear to break something.

Where it would be possible to find more information on this item?

Thank you.
 

junken

New Member
> [As far as I know there is no specific manual for the adapter, at least I= did not get any. But using it is easy and I don=B4t think you need to worry about breaking something. First you just mount the adapter on your Contax body, just as you mount a lens. Then you mount the Hasselblad lens, exactly the same way you mount it on your Hassy body. As there is no connection for automatic aperture stop down, you have to shoot at the aperture setting you need. My experience is that it mostly is no need for stoping down, if you shoot at a distance. Enjoy your new outstanding combination!]
 

junken

New Member
As far as I know there is no specific manual for the adapter, at least I did not get any. But using it is easy and I don´t think you need to worry about breaking something. First you just mount the adapter on your Contax body, just as you mount a lens. Then you mount the Hasselblad lens, exactly the same way you mount it on your Hassy body. As there is no connection for automatic aperture stop down, you have to shoot at the aperture setting you need. My experience is that it mostly is no need for stoping down, if you shoot at a distance. Enjoy your new outstanding combination!
 

wubke

Member
Dear Mr. Ljungqwist

First of all thanks for your prompt response.
I will follow your kind advice.
Currently i am still not in possess of any Hasselblad lens but i am en route to purchase one.
I am offered two used ones: the 80/2,8 c and the 250/5,6 . Have you any experience of this two?

Many thanks for your encouraging advice!
 

rico

Well-Known Member
Gianluca,

For some reason, many Hassy lenses are poorly regarded, especially the 80/2.8 standard. Despite the Zeiss origin, the designs must be old. I haven't owned the 80/2.8 for a long time, but here is an interesting test page showing coma and general lack of focus:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BTW, this Japanese fellow is a C/Y fanatic: Do you know anyone with the 200/2 Aposonner AND the 300/2.8 Tele-Apotessar? Holy Mackerel! He has a nice gallery, too.

I should add, the adapter makes sense in combination with the latest Zeiss offerings for Hasselblad, namely the Superachromat lenses. The MTF shows awesome performance and, of course, a killer image circle for C/Y users. The best thing is the (relative) affordability versus the C/Y APO glass. What was Contax smoking when they priced the 300/2.8???
 
J

jakob_groes_ii

Rico writes: 'many Hassy lenses are poorly regarded, especially the 80/2.8 standard. Despite the Zeiss origin, the designs must be old.'

Id you see the verdict of the 55/1.2 - only grade 5 out of 10, the lowest of them all. Strange.

Regards, Jakob
 

junken

New Member
My opinion is that the combination Contax body and Hasselblad lenses is interesting if you allready own the systems. Even though I have very good experiences of Hassy lenses on my RTS III body, I don´t think I would choose to buy these lenses instead of normal CZ/Contax lenses if I did not have the Hasselblad body. It is much more convenient to use Contax lenses, they are not so bulky and faster to work with, and image quality is mostly as good. There are some exeptions and that is first the superachromat, but also the 110/2.8 FE which is outstanding. If you own an older Contax with slower X-sync there is a point in being able to use the shutter in the C and CF lenses and sync at 1/500.
Last a reflection about the "poor " MTF values of some of the Hasselblad lenses. This I think they share with most medium format and large format lenses, if compared with the best 35 mm lenses. These simply have to be sharper to perform well with the small film format. But still, if you compare the results the medium- and large format appear sharper, I´ve yet not seen anything comparably to a well exposed dia on a fine grained film shot with a Hasselblad.
 
C

chenly

Any medium-format lens, and the Zeiss offerings in particular (Hasselblad, Rollei, plus the superb Biogon 38mm for Arca-Swiss) will pretty much stomp any 35mm-format lens when used on 35mm film/digital chip. This is because only the center of the lens, the so-called "sweet spot," is used to cover the 24mmx36mm film frame standard to 35mm photography. Every lens performs better in the middle of the image circle than on the perfifery; thus, a lens designed to cover the 54mmx54mm area of a 6x6 camera (Hasselblad, Rollei, etc...) will not get near its coverage circle's limits when using the smaller 24mmx36mm 35mm film frame.
 

colin

Well-Known Member
If only it were that straightforward.
Whilst it is known that the "centre" of a lens performs better, Med.Format lenses do not produce the same lines pmm as 35mm lenses. 35mm lenses provide an incredible resolution due to the higher lpmm, but the detail will break up with excessive enlargement.As will any lens of course. A Zeiss or Leica lens will produce sharper and superior results compared to a MF lens(incl.Zeiss)adapted to a 35mm camera.
Colin
 

wubke

Member
Mr Tudor and Mr Ljungqwist

Your advices are straight in the direction i would go.
Before yor kind posting i made up the opinion that the 250 superachromat would be the way to go.
The Hasselblad site states that this lens is intended for very big enlargement. And so i hope the lack of lines per mm would be overcomed. I say this because i'm offered a like new one for roughly half the prices.
My choice to committing in this "strange" combination is also due to a future switch towards medium format. And i don't mean to run any comparative test between lens intended for different formats. I believe it would be unfair and useless.
Zeiss lenses for small format have nothing to complain about quality we all know!

Best regards.
 
C

chenly

I own the TeleSuperAchromat 250 and use the Super 350 on occasion. Forget about whatever specficiations you might have seen; these two lenses are the best I've ever seen at their respective focal lengths, and the images from the Super 300 are much better still. You absolutely can't miss with the Super 250. The only hitch is that, because it is color corrected down into the infrared sprectrum, negating the need to refocus when using infrared film, it has a Zeiss single-layer lens coating; the fabled T* coating would absorb the infrared wavelengths. Again, I cannot recommend the Super 250 strongly enough.
 
C

chenly

Colin Elliot:

Check the Zeiss Contax 35mm MFT charts, then compare them to the Zeiss Contax 645, Zeiss Hasselblad, and Zeiss Rollei MTF charts, paying particular attention to the distance from center (i.e., crop out information on the medium format lenses past 25mm).

Additionally, there is no standard for MTF charting in the photographic industry. Zeiss leads the way by taking s&les from the production line; many other manufacturers (can you HEAR me, Canon EF series?) publish only their CAD readouts without accounting for the less-than-perfect manufacturing process.

Lastly, lines per millimeter is not the best way to describe the apparent sharpness of an image; acutance, that is to say, edge sharpness, corresponds very will with viewer's impression of sharpness, and is something to which the Zeiss engineers pay particular attention. As with other esoteric pursuits (e.g., loudspeakers, musical instruments, yada, yada, yada), numbers can be made to say anything; the proof of the pudding, in this case, is in the viewing. I'll take my Hassy 503CW/Super 250 chromes up against anything in the world (the ones I don't screw up, anyway).
 
C

chenly

<H3>Formatting Error</H3>The formatting code mail requires 2 argument(s); you provided only 1 argument(s).
 
C

chenly

WTF? Here's the charts AGAIN, in a separate messag below. Be sure to note the distance in mm from the center; these charts (f/5.6 on the left and f/8 on the right) go from 0-~40mm, while the 35mm charts will go from 0-~25mm.
 
Top