It has been a long time since I post some works here but FM has always been home for me with all of you who seeks alternative methods. In this thread I would like to share the looks of the Hasselblad Planar T* 2.0/110 FE and with a Tele-Converter looks (will post more images tonight) on the Canon 5D modified for alternative lens. All images have no sharpening application.

Best Regards,
-Son

1. Planar T* 2.0/110 FE 5th Generation at F2.0 for back and front bokeh and glow. There is a slight CA at wide open f stop but I was under pressure for time and the adapter is not perfect in thickness.

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=24

2. Planar T* 2.0/110 FE 5th Generation at F5.6 for back and front bokeh and glow. Here the CA is gone despite the adapter is not perfect.

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=25

3. 100% view at F5.6 from the 2nd image.

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=26

4. Will post more with tele-converter for looks later tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks Son, at what distance did you take these shots?

Thanks again Son.

I'd like to keep this thread going with different lenses. There are a LOT of nicely priced MF lenses out there from Hassy, Mamiya, Pentax, Rollei, etc., of exceptional quality that may be perfect for 135 use with an adapter.

hi Andi, I was ~ 3 feet away. I did a lot of comparison and I found that certain medium format optics are extremely sharp and they are as sharp as the best 35 mm lens. There are also lots of other lens but they are not to par with the 35 mm and if your background is 35 mm you will be more selective like I am when choosing the medium format optics. I know you also use the medium format system (Hasselblad V) and if you get the chance to try the 110 mm F2.0 you will love the resolution. More importantly the way it render skin tone is amazing when I compare it to the Leica Summilux 1.4/50 ROM which is also a great lens.

-son

Tele-Converter 1.4x and resolution on medium format lens.

My research show that the tele-converter on the Medium format lens are very good. In fact in one case it actually increased the resolution and attenuate the CA. In this sample on the Planar T* 2.0/110 FE, it is also very good getting sharpness from corner to corner. The next post will be bokeh and Tele-Converter.

Best Regards,
-Son

The 1.4x Tele-Converter show great results with corner to corner sharp even at F5.6 for duplication of a 10x16 inch frame. The colors are accurate and with clarity. The distortion is like zero since we are not only using the center image circle we are magnifying the center image circle. Again, no sharpening applied as usual.

1. @F5.6 full resized image for web

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=29

2. @F5.6 Center

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=30

3. @F5.6 Left top corner

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=31

4. @F5.6 Right bottom corner

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=33

The 1.4x Tele-Converter and bokeh with no sharpening applied. The additional of a 1.4x tele-converter reduces the light in term of f stop but not in absolute term of depth of field.

1. @F2.8 (lens set at F2.0)

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=34

2. @F7.8 (lens set at F5.6)

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=35

3. @F7.8 (lens set at F5.6) at close distance 100%

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=36

I would like to add that not every lens has the same depth of field. The medium format lens has its own characteristics in terms of glow, bokeh and depth of field. Some 35 mm lens also give you very nice shallow depth of field such as the Contax Planar T* 2.0/100 and the 1.2/85 50th and 60th Jahres. In addition, the apo and superachromat lens will also have very shallow depth of field. Working with these lens one must focus accurately to see the high resolution. If the focus is failed then the whole results are off. This was a point Andi pointed out in one of the thread and I absolutely agree. In medium format the focus error is not forgiven but due to this characteristic it shows a different looks.

Best Regards,
-Son

Wow.. that is quite amazing.. I would like to see the same field of view with something like the canon 85mm 1.2 or perhaps the leica 80mm 1.4 or 90mm apo f2 for a direct comparison....

I could see this thread costing me $$$ down the road.

Son - any thoughts on the best/best of the MF lenses you've played with over the years? Something like your 'exotic lens' final word thread from awhile ago.

Conner999 wrote:
I could see this thread costing me $$$ down the road.

Son - any thoughts on the best/best of the MF lenses you've played with over the years? Something like your 'exotic lens' final word thread from awhile ago.

Conner (forgot your real name),
here are the lens that i considered pure resolution, 3D, bokeh and colors:

Mid Distance Focal Length:
1. Rollei Carl Zeiss Planr HFT 2.0/110 PQ
2. Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2.0/110 F or FE
3. Schneider Apo 4.0/90 PQS
4. Contax 645 Sonnar T* 2.8/140
5. Contax 645 Apo-Makro-Planar T* 4.0/120 (the only problem with this lens is flare from strong light background).

Wide Angle:
1. Hasselblad Distagon T* 4.0/40 CFE IF
2. Contax 645 Distagon T* 3.5/55
3. Contax 645 Distagon T* 3.5/35
4. Hasselblad 2.8/50 F or FE (I like the F version; I will expand on this topic later with tests)
5. Hasselblad 3.5/60 CFi or CF or CB
6. Hasselblad Biogon T* 4.5/38
7. Rollei Distagon HFT 4.0/50 FLE
8. Hasselblad Distagon T* 4.0/50 FLE

Telephoto:
1. Hasselblad Superachromat 2.8/300 Power Pack
2. Hasselblad Superachromat 5.6/350
3. Contax 645 Sonnar T* 4.0/210 with tele-converter
4. Mamiya Apo 2.8/300
5. Hasselblad FE 4.0/350
6. Hasselblad Sonar T* 4.0/180

Zoom:
1. Contax 645 Vario-Sonnar T* 4.5/45-90

PC Lens:
1. Rollei Schneider PCS 4.0/55

Edited by Pham Minh Son on Mar 10, 2008 at 01:35 PM GMT (Reason: Added more lens)

Son, since you have a Hy6, have you had a chance to try any of the new Schneider AFD lenses? I'm guessing they should be equal to, or a step above every single lens listed above, but they don't have aperture rings, so they'll be harder to adapt to 35mm (or impossible to adapt).

Excellent Son. A fountain of info as always.

Thanks - Rob

Son - the Hasselblad 50mm F4 CFI isn't listed; I thought you liked that lens. The F2.8 version is ~3 pounds, so for dSLR shooters it may be too large for most people. The 50L F1.0 weighs 2.2 pounds and feels very heavy on the 1-series due to the density.

the modern FLE 4/50mm should make part of this list. you may have a look at the Zeiss historical data base and compare the MTF with other Hasselblad or Contax lenses.

H110/H50FLE/1.4-50mm CX

Andi - We're talking about the same lens I remember you posting some comparison shots (on a 5D?) between the Hass and several other 50's. Do you have any other images with Hass 50 on Canon body you could show?

Robert,
My digital back does not work on the Rolleiflex Hy6 so this data is not known yet. I will update you when the data become available.
Son

John,
I listed the Rollei and the Hasselblad Distagon FLE 4.0/50 already and they are the same lens.
Son

here is the sample of the real life image of the Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2.0/110 FE on the Leica DMR. I will post the Rollei Carl Zeiss Planar HFT 2.0/110 PQ later on.

	http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=14

I am currently working on limitation of lens and digital back resolution and the information can be view here until I update more in the coming weeks. I know Andi asked this question before and now I have the opportunity to fulfill the question. The image will be improved upon the correction to the flare on the auto bellows. I have never seen details like this before. After getting some of the highest resolving power lens I have not been able to reach to a new level until the multi shots back was acquired.

Best Regards,
Son

http://popcapture.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43

Hi Son,

Which teleconverter are you using in your tests? Is this the Canon 1.4x TC?

Thanks,
James

James Grimm wrote:
Which teleconverter are you using in your tests? Is this the Canon 1.4x TC?


Son, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it would be the Contax 645 Mutar.

James Grimm wrote:
Hi Son,

Which teleconverter are you using in your tests? Is this the Canon 1.4x TC?

Thanks,
James


James,
You asked the best question in this series of testing with regarding to the tele-converter. It is the Contax/Yashica manual mount. This baby is extremely sharp. I know this will confuse a lot of you but it works. The reason I go about doing this is due to the adapter thickness problem. The Canon tele-converter will not work since there is data requirement and my interest is in the Contax tele-converter. I then use my adapter to fit the rest and solve the infinity problem.
Best Regards,
Son

tom in mpls wrote:
James Grimm wrote:
Which teleconverter are you using in your tests? Is this the Canon 1.4x TC?


Son, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it would be the Contax 645 Mutar.



Tom, this is not the Contax 645 but instead the C/Y 135 mm manual focus version. I used it for resolution and bokeh which no one talk about but I also use it to solve infinity problem with the current hasselblad adapter to the canon mount. Thus, one for two.

Son

Stupid me, I managed to get myself completely mixed up. Not the first time I've pretended to be an expert in an area where I have more ignorance than expertise. Never mind.

Time to change my username.