Leica versus Hasselblad(Zeiss) glass

[KEVIN BURKE <KBURKE@iterated.com>]

I originally mailed Brad directly with a short list of my impressions
on the Leica/Hasselblad issue.  There seems to be some general
interest in the group so I've gotten a few more comments together.
Those not interested in psuedo-"techno" or weren't interested
in my 75/1.4 postings should perform your favorite mode of mail
deletion.  This is a bit long.

Over the last 10-15 years I've accumulated various components of
Leica M and Hasselblad 50X/CF systems.  Most pieces are the
current offering.  I've shot with a variety of emulsions covering chrome,
B&W and C-41 with both.  The resulting images were either printed,
projected and/or squinted at through a variety of loupes of various
magnifications.  The following comments are admittedly unscientific
in their derivation.  I did not shoot the same scene at the same time
with the same emulsion type in each camera.  This, of course, leads
to not having both cameras on tripods at the same time, processing
the emulsions at the same time, etc.  I'd consider a truely objective
comparison to be conducted in a manner more like that described
by Mr. Puts.  So, take this for what it's worth.

I generally like all the Zeiss/CF lenses I have.  Over the years, I had
noticed what I thought were qualitative differences between the Leica
M and Zeiss/CF results so I started studying the negatives and chromes
more carefully.  My impression was that the quality of the shadow regions
of the M lenses was something that I'd seen few other lenses deliver.
Of the brands I'm familiar with (which is limited), no other *line* of 
lenses
I'd seen was so "clean" in this area.  Edge definition and relative contrast
are high yet color purity was maintained and blacks were really
black rather than acquiring a slight color cast.  Also, I seem to have an
easier time making out what is going on in there when the chrome density
goes up.

Please note that I stressed this attribute as it relates to a line of 
lenses.
Of the Zeiss/CF lenses I own, two definately give the M lenses a run for
their money (or should that be run for their glass?).  These would be the
38/4.5 Biogon and the 250/5.6 Superachromat.  The smoothness of the
image from these lenses is at least as good as any M lens I have
experience with, although, the 250 SA is a bit prone to flare.  Zeiss do not
currently use T* coatings for the SA as they haven't recomputed it to
maintain it's three-color-plus-infrared correction with such a modification.

As good as the 38 Biogon and 250 SA are, the workhorses in my MF
stable are the 60/3.5 CF and 150/4 CF.  I have heard these lenses
referred to as "classic" designs.  I think these current computations
have been in the line for at least 20 years.  Maybe that makes them
classic.  They have a few quirks but the effects have largely been
second order in my application areas.  I've never passed up a shot
because of lens quality.  The 60/3.5 looses just a bit of resolution and
contrast in the corners but it does it in a very nice way (IMHO).  The
MTF curves say that tangential and radial resolution/contrast tail off
together.  16"x16" prints don't actually show this very easily.  At f/4-5.6
my 35/2 Summicron looks nearly as good in the corners as the center.

The 150/4 is fairly uniform across the image field at most apertures
and distances.  For the portrait work I do, this lens can be too sharp
depending on the subject.  The contrast of the lens is generally high
and the shadow qualities can be controlled with lighting and film choice.
It's not as easy to coax a "glow" out of the 150 CF as it is from my
90/2 Summicron.  Still, acheiving good quality in enlargements is a
piece of cake.

The black sheep of the family has been the 100/3.5 CF.  It's a little
short to be a universal portrait lens and a little long to do large studio
setups.  (My buddy, a struggling pro, tried my 100 against his 80/2.8
and stuck with his 80 for these reasons.  He puts food on the table with
his lenses.)  At long focus distances, the lens really sparkles.  The
contrast is exceedingly high.  However, I and a few other 100/3.5 users
I've chatted with have found that occaissionally we don't like the results
we get from it.  In comparison to the 38, the detail contrast is very high
and sometimes seems harsh (oh no, shades of hi-end audio speak).
The 38 seems to allow one to continue to magnify the image without
changing the perceived characteristics.  For comparison, my 50/2
Summicron photographed a hat on a door in strong sidelight that
appears to float off the paper (how many beers did I have?)  This is
one of the few images I've been able to sell more than one of.

So, with such lens performance, why do I bother with the Hasselblad?
Two big reasons actually: (1) image size and (2) single lens reflex
viewing.  The larger image size makes high quality levels easy to
achieve providing there is sufficient light.  I'm doing more family/child
portraits for friends and neighbors these days and really don't have
the opportunity to maintain technical rigor in many cases.  The
Hasselblad is also essentially my only SLR system.  I chose Leica
M for all the reasons many people do: available light and candids. I
have to admit that I occaissionally try this with the Hasselblad but the
advantages of the format are usually lost.  I've lusted after various
35mm SLR systems but haven't been convinced that they would
replace the 2&1/4.

Also, I have to put in a shameless plug for VHI service in New Jersey.
These folks are - without a doubt - the quickest, most reliable, friendliest
and competent camera product support operation I have ever encountered.
I could go on and on about the things they have done for me.  Maybe
their job is a little easier since the Hasselblad has performed more
consistently and reliably for me than the M.

Summarizing: the Leica image quality seems unique and I like it a
lot.  That, in and of itself, isn't responsible for the ultimate success
of my images (I can foul that up by myself, thank you) but many lenses
have given as much satisfaction at their 10th birthday as they did
when I first bought them.  There has only been one really questionable
lens in the bunch.  The Zeiss/CF lenses are also of a high caliber - each
having it's own subtle personality.  These traits are largely lost in the
noise as the advantages of the larger format have swamped them out in
my work.

Whew...  Time to go drink too much cranberry mash or something.

Happy holidays all...

 -Kevin
kburke@iterated.com