Difficult to say of betterness or quality. (Do remember the definition of quality.) It is shure that they are different. Hasselblad describes SA to be be made for scientific work etc. for wider spectr of electromagnetic waves. I would quess that they both are perfect matc what they are made for. Although my experience is limited to 250 CFi.
Kerkko K. >[Delete this line and type your message here]
My experience is that the non Achromat CFi Version of the Sonnar is an excellent lens. I borrowed it from a friend and got great results. The sharpness was there and the colour and light work very naturally on the Provia 100F. On the other hand, since I couldn`t afford this lens, I ended up with the 250mm lens that I am not satisfied with. It's the f/4 Tessar version that only works with focal plane shutter cameras. It could be that the cause of poor image quality is my tripod suffering from the kick it gets from the shutter, but if I was to compare the results I got from the Cfi Sonnar with my Tessar I would say that The Sonnar is a much better lens. A lens that I could easely live with! The Tessar could prove to be a great lens for portraits, at least that is it's reputation, but for landscape…I will see. Perhaps when I put it on a beefy tripod with a decent ballhead things will be different. As for the Achromat version, I have no experience with it apart from holding it in my hands for a few second from what I can tell that it is a little smaller and more lightweight lens than the non Achromat version. But I did read that to bring out the advantages this lens has over the non Achromat version one needs to have flawless technique and perfect conditions, otherwise it is no better than the very good and much cheaper Cfi Sonnar.
Having both for a while, using them both too, one day the idea struck me that it might be fun to compare the f/5.6 Sonnar to the f/4 Tele-Tessar.
So i set up a series of different shots (close, far away, against the light, etc.), put both on the same, tripod mounted camera, used both at the same apertures too of course, and i could not detect a difference (other than a slight difference in focal length) at all.
M. de Bakker,
I would like all the readers to know that my judgment is completely subjective and is based on pictures that I made in varied conditions. As I mentioned in my post, I still have hope for the Tessar. But since you, M. de Bakker, have mentioned the equal test results I would like to know which Sonnar did you compare with the Tessar? The C, CF or CFI Version? This is important, since there are people who will say all three versions are very much the same in their performances and other who will say that the CFi Sonnar is a better lens than the other two. Luka
My test was purely subjective too, of course.
I compared the CF f/5.6 Sonnar to the F f/4 Tele-Tessar.
I'm one of those people who 'do not believe' there is much of a difference between versions.
I tested an 'ancient', 'pre-1957' f/5.6 250 mm Sonnar to a CF version of the same lens too. And guess what?
Indeed! 'Great pains' notwithstanding