Multicoated camera lenses Vs non-multicoated camera lenses. Comparing Hasselblad C and CT* lenses.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 авг 2024
- Comparing multicoated lenses to non-multicoated lenses using Hasselblad 80mm Planar C and 80mm Planar CT* lenses. Does the multicoating make a difference? If it does is the extra expense justified?
Please click on the link below to download the test images:
www.dropbox.com/sh/c8i8vcomwz...
![[BLACKSWAN] ‘Roll Up’ Official Music Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ulvCwyKrwqw/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for a great comparison. I use the 80/2.8 chrome non T* on my Hasselblad 500 C and I am very pleased with the result I get. There are three benefits of the older lenses I like compared to newer CF lenses: the depths of field scale is so quick to read, self timer, and that exposure value is locked by default.
Beautiful lenses. Look after them and keep them maintained and, like most things Hasselblad, they’ll last forever.
Lens snobs are typically united in their automatic underrating of older uncoated lenses as a result of overrating the advantages of a newer multi coated lens. I use both on my 500cm and agree with your assessment that the difference is negligible. One benefit is that high demand for multi coated lenses keeps the price reasonable for the uncoated ones. Thanks for a great video. Again.
Thanks for commenting - always appreciated
I'm so happy that I went back to shooting film again several years ago. Is my Hasselblad Carl Zeiss CF 80/2.8 (multi-coated) lens the sharpest versus other brands? No. Do I care? No, it's sharp enough. Sharpness is sometimes over-valued, especially in regards to shooting portraits. The character and rendition of the lens on film is fantastic! Interestingly, here in Japan the older chrome C 80/2.8 sells for about a 100% premium as compared to the newer multi-coated CF non-chrome version. (only the 80mm). I think people here value the collectability and heritage (and looks) over the more commonly found alternatives. The C 80/2.8 chrome version is a gorgeous lens IMHO.
Yes, agree 100%. The latest Nikon or Canon fitted with a top-of-the-range lens may resolve more lppm but almost everybody will prefer a decent print from a Hasselblad.
Hi Jonathan, thank you for the thorough comparison. I recently had the opportunity to buy another Hasselblad 500 C with the chrome lens. I did a straight up comparison between that lens and the T* 80mm. I alternated lenses within a roll of B&W film. I couldn’t tell any discernible differences in sharpness or contrast.
Yes, it’s remarkable how good the earlier Hasselblad lenses are.
The big disappointment was the reduced quality of construction in the CFI / CFE range passed on as "improvements". To some degree, the CF was a reduction in quality over the C. I have 9 CF optics including a very nice 30mm Distagon that I purchased from Worldwide Camera Exchange.
Yes, the later lenses use more plastic than the C or CT* lenses. But I don’t think they became less reliable? Hasselblad CF lenses were introduced almost 40 years ago and they appear to be passing the test of time.
Sadly I see many lenses where the lens coating has been scrubbed away during cleaning.
I disagree - The multicoated lenses show a definite improvement.
A lens hood makes more difference than the lens coating..🦘
Thanks for commenting. Always happy to read other views. Do you think the differences will show across all media? Or just when printing? Agree totally about the lens hood!
Really interesting analysis, thank you! My personal focus is more on vintage Nikkor lenses. I wonder whether these results are applicable to Nikkor, too.
Yes, coatings improved with many Nikon lenses.
I just enjoy the esthetic of each lens. My Rollie with 2.8 f planar is magical with color and black white
The Planar is a beautiful lens!
It makes sense when backlet. Coating is for flare/vailling control mostly. It's a different aesthetic.
Also, for zooms, coating matters a lot because of the high number of lens elements, but that's not really the subject here (primes).
Thanks for commenting. Yes, primes or zooms, the more glass the more potential issues. That’s why, often, the simpler lenses are the best performers.
Interesting comparison. I also thought the sun flare would be much worse on non-multi coated. Question: some old lenses are yellow tinted, guessing they are for black and white; how would they perform with colour? Much obliged.
Thorium in the glass can cause old lenses to yellow. This can be reversed by exposing to strong uv light. You can still use colour film but obviously the results will be affected. Some like this, others don’t. I quite like the softened colours. If you wanted pin sharp pictures and accurate modern colour reproduction why would you be using a vintage lens? Just try it out and make up your own mind.
@@WorldwideCameraExchange , many thanks. Enjoyed your videos.
Happy to help!
Real big image quality differences exist when Zeiss improved the optical formula what happened for example with wide angle lenses when C series became CF series.
Zeiss Superachromat lenses could never have multilayer coatings even in year 2000 because they transmit without any focus shift the whole spectrum from near UV to IR.
Thank you commenting - it's always appreciated. Yes, the later Hasselblad wide angle CF lenses were improved which is why I compared two 80mm f2.8 Planar lenses, both C type, to keep other variables to a minimum. Not all lenses use or need multicoatings - which is why Leica, for example, isn't very vocal on the subject.
Not true in general. The Tele-Superachromat T* 5,6/350 CFE has T* multicoating, for example.