MTF charts for first four S lenses

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rosuna, I presume you are only talking about the H 35mm lens here. I don't know the answer though. I don't even know if there are corrections for the 35mm lens. I am pretty sure that corrections are applied for the zoom and for the 28mm.

[sdai]

Do Hasselblad's MTF graphs consider software corrections or only optical performance?

 

I'm not sure about the chart for 35 HC, Michael must know this pretty well. I've only seen a MTF of the 28 HCD with DAC on and off for comparison/demo purpose.

 

But, it doesn't make any practical sense by measuring the "pure" optical performance IMHO, without a good camera, the best lens on earth can do nothing.

 

If company A does digital correction and in turns beat company B's product in overall output quality, who doesn't do digital correction, then company B is stupid.

 

I think Leica learned digital correction (incl. vignetting correction on wide angles) from Hasselblad since the DMR but they're quite smart, they didn't say a single word about it in any official material.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[georg]

I know that the Fuji-lenses do have problems with aberrations and sharpness in extreme situations, I have seen several large format prints from Alpa (+Schneider/Rodenstock lenses) that have superior IQ.

I don't know the 40IF, I've sold my beloved Hasselblad 2 years ago and never considered such an expensive lens ;-) but I know that Zeiss has unique skills in design & manufacturing when the client wants to pay for them.

 

Zeiss MTFs are always measured with real production samples and must not directly compared to Fuji's (or any other manufacturer) MTF.

 

Better lenses will always deliver higher IQ despite all digital tricks which can also be used by Leica or any other system which saves necessary information from the lens (type, aperture, distance) but superior lenses cannot be imitated.

[bradleygibson]

Hi, all,

 

In terms of comparing MTF's, while it's true as a general rule that different brands/manufacturers cannot be directly compared, Hasselblad has stated that the MTF's published for the HC/HCD series glass (Fuji) can be used to compare against the Zeiss V glass.

 

Likewise, the Rollei MTF's are also comparable for both their Schneider and Zeiss PQ/PQS lenses.

 

This means that you *can* compare published MTF's for medium format glass (links) for:

Contax 645: (Welcome to Carl Zeiss Camera and Cine Lenses)

Hasselblad V: (Welcome to Carl Zeiss Camera and Cine Lenses -- scroll down about half way)

Hasselblad H: (Lenses)

Rollei 6008: (Gallery Folder - photo.net)

 

Enjoy!

 

-Brad

 

Zeiss MTFs are always measured with real production samples and must not directly compared to Fuji's (or any other manufacturer) MTF.

[dfarkas]

Still no links to MTFs for Mamiya AF glass?....

[sdai]

I have some Mamiya charts in print but I probably have left them at a separate location 'cause I can't find them now. They're not better or worse to say the least ... here on Mamiya's web site, they have republished a PopPhoto test report with comparison to Contax Zeiss lenses, and the Mamiyas are not too shabby at all ... in fact, they're better counterparts.

 

http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have some Mamiya charts in print but I probably have left them at a separate location 'cause I can't find them now. They're not better or worse to say the least ... here on Mamiya's web site, they have republished a PopPhoto test report with comparison to Contax Zeiss lenses, and the Mamiyas are not too shabby at all ... in fact, they're better counterparts.

 

http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf

 

IIRC, and if it is the same test, that test was a little unfair in which lenses they tested comparatively. They chose some of the best Mamiya lenses to compare to some of the worst Zeiss lenses. I would like to see a comparison which was more neutral.

 

From what I have seen, and I have no personal experience with Mamiya, the sharpness is often on par with more expensive brands, but the boke is not always as nice. It is not clear to me to what extent this is true, but I have seen some truly beautiful Zeiss boke, and some fairly atrocious Mamiya boke, but I don't recall seeing any truly awful Zeiss boke (I have seen some nice Mamiya boke though).

[bradleygibson]

Agreed--I've been looking for Mamiya MTF's for some time now, but haven't been able to find any... The PopPhoto tests are interesting, but as carsten points out the Sonnar 210 isn't one of Zeiss' strong points--and neither is the 80mm for reasons I've not quite understood.

 

In any case, if anyone has come across Mamiya 645/645AF/D MTF charts, I'd be very interested in taking a peek.

 

Thanks, all,

Brad

[carstenw]

Agreed--I've been looking for Mamiya MTF's for some time now, but haven't been able to find any... The PopPhoto tests are interesting, but as carsten points out the Sonnar 210 isn't one of Zeiss' strong points--and neither is the 80mm for reasons I've not quite understood.

 

The 80mm lens tested was the Contax 645 80mm f/2, whose design was a compromise in order to get the f/2. A really nice lens, but not the sharpest of the bunch. It does sharpen up nicely when stopped down, however.

 

What really bothered me about this test is that there are several truly outstanding lenses in the Contax 645 lineup, any of which Mamiya (or anyone else) would have had real trouble beating, or even matching, but they took the worst couple. The 35mm f/3.5 or the 120mm f/4 Macro would have been much better, or even the 55mm. They claim that the 45, 80 and 210 were the only lenses with equal focal lengths, but fail to mention that the 80/2 is a full stop faster than the 80/2.8, and anyway, what about the 120 macro? Mamiya has one... Additionally, even the chosen Mamiya 210mm falls down a bit in the corners.

 

The other thing that bothered me is that as anyone who uses cameras knows, the look of the lens is more important than sharpness, yet this aspect was completely ignored. I have a feeling that the Zeiss lenses may have better boke and CA handling than the Mamiyas, but this would need to be put to the test.

 

On a personal note, the physical feel of a lens and camera system is also very important to me (second to image quality, naturally). I feel better working with equipment with a quality feel. The Contax 645 lenses are metal, and feel very solid, with nice manual focusing. I have read (but cannot personally confirm) that the Mamiya feels plasticky.

 

In the end, I got a very strong feeling that they tested with an agenda. In order to do a real test, the entire lineup should be tested, even focal lengths which are only nearly the same.

 

---

 

Found the test: it was re-published by Mamiya

 

http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf

 

They attach this note:

 

"Please note: Of the nine lenses presently available for the Mamiya

645AF and the lenses presently available for the Contax 645, only three

lenses of identical focal length have been tested by Popular Photography

and are compared in this report."

 

One can read this in two ways: one is that these were the only matching focal lengths. However, the other way is that PopPhoto and/or Mamiya is only showing these three lenses. Does anyone have access to the original test by Popular Photography? The conclusion is also Mamiya-specific, which can hardly be the real conclusion. There were surely also Contax 645 and Pentax conclusions, and I would like to see those as well, for comparison.

 

In the end, Mamiya appears to have done some seriously self-serving editing here. They would have been much better off just leaving things alone. Their system is known to be quite good at a reasonable price. There is no need for selective editing to reinforce the point.

[rosuna]

 

But, it doesn't make any practical sense by measuring the "pure" optical performance IMHO, without a good camera, the best lens on earth can do nothing.

 

 

 

I cannot agree with you at this point sdai. You can use H lenses with Hasselblad cameras and backs, but you can use then with Hasselblad cameras and Phase One backs, for instance. Then, you would get the uncorrected optical performance. Nothing else.

 

Whether Hasselblad publishes MTF graphs for software-corrected performance of the H lenses, that information is misleading. You will get that only with Hasselblad backs, or using Phocus software.