Hasselblad lens choice - 80 vs 60 vs 50 vs 40mm

[eli griggs]

80, 50 wide enough focal spread, easy to carry and use, from experience.

Saving my penny's for 38mm camera/super wide, it's a nice unit.

 

[Alexander6x6]

The only Hasselblad lens essential to me is the 38mm Biogon.

You should try the Distagon 40 IF introduced by Carl Zeiss in 2003. This lens resolves 200 lpmm.

 

[Rayt]

You should try the Distagon 40 IF introduced by Carl Zeiss in 2003. This lens resolves 200 lpmm.

The 40mm IF is an excellent lens probably the last Zeiss masterpiece for the Hasselblad. The advantages of the SWC are the leaf shutter and self enclosed body in a small package. You can use it on a tripod for interiors with zero distortion, landscape photography, and stealth photography because the shutter has no vibration and I can hold it at 1/15s. Of course lack of TTL viewing is its biggest drawback. Many pluses and minuses.

 

[Alexander6x6]

The 40mm IF is an excellent lens probably the last Zeiss masterpiece for the Hasselblad. The advantages of the SWC are the leaf shutter and self enclosed body in a small package. You can use it on a tripod for interiors with zero distortion, landscape photography, and stealth photography because the shutter has no vibration and I can hold it at 1/15s. Of course lack of TTL viewing is its biggest drawback. Many pluses and minuses.

Well, the 40 IF has a leaf shutter too, but I think you meant the impact of mirror vibrations, which can also be switched off when using a tripod.

 

[Rayt]

Well, the 40 IF has a leaf shutter too, but I think you meant the impact of mirror vibrations, which can also be switched off when using a tripod.

Oh yes that’s what I meant.

 

[Shaps]

I had a full Hassleblad setup years ago that I used commercially and for my own work. I would suggest you get the HC-3 viewfinder, very light weight, has a diaopter like this one https://ebay.us/m/MfKlIj, also the magnifying hood is very useful. And the Hassleblad bellows sunshade with the adapters needed for some lenses.

 

[Pieter12]

I had a full Hassleblad setup years ago that I used commercially and for my own work. I would suggest you get the HC-3 viewfinder, very light weight, has a diaopter like this one https://ebay.us/m/MfKlIj, also the magnifying hood is very useful. And the Hassleblad bellows sunshade with the adapters needed for some lenses.

Any particular reason for the preference of the 90º vs 45º prism, beyond the adjustable diopter?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have a 90 and 45 degree prism but seldom use them anymore. I keep a waist level finder on my 500C and a HC-3 on my 553ELX. I really like the HC-3 since it brings the eyepiece further back, so my nose isn't scrunched up against the back.

 

[rulnacco]

I just skimmed the thread, honestly, but I think I got the gist of it.

It sounds like you have settled on a 60mm. If that's your only lens (at the moment), I think it's a great choice. I have one myself--a CF version, along with a 50mm CF FLE, 80mm CF, 120mm CFi, 150mm CF, and 180mm CFi.

I started with an 80mm and 150mm, then added the 50mm (a plain CF at first, and then the FLE version when I found one at a great price). I added the 120 later because I love macro shooting and the 180mm because it's stunning for portraits (I was running a commercial studio when I got it). The last lens I added was the 60mm.

I wanted that one because, for a single carry-around lens, the 60mm gives me the wider-than-normal field of view I love for walkaround shooting, it's fast enough for daylight, it's fairly compact (much more so than the 50 FLE or a 40mm), and the image quality is stellar. And even though it's very close to the 50mm and rather close to the 80mm, it gives me a noticeable enough difference in angle of view from either of those to be useful even with those two lenses--however, as I said, the main reason I bought it is because if I want to go out walking with only a single lens, for me the 60 is perfect.

One thing to consider, as I did, is trying to get all your lenses from the same series--that allows you to swap lens hoods and filters between multiple lenses. I settled on the CF lenses (and CFi) because they all use the Bay 60 filter (the lenses I have do; the 40mm doesn't), and I far prefer the ergonomics (focusing ring, no shutter/aperture interlock) of the CF and later lenses to the C versions.

If you start with the 60 and then decide to go longer along with it, the 100mm would potentially make sense as there's a bit of a spread between the two. However, it might be even more sensible to go with the 120mm Makro-Planar, as that doubles your focal length, and you can shoot closeups or portraits with that lens. Or if you go with the 150mm--which is lighter than the 120 and nice for carrying around--you end up with a combo that's sort of like a 35mm and 105mm in 35mm format, which is really a very useful pairing indeed.

 

[Shaps]

Any particular reason for the preference of the 90º vs 45º prism, beyond the adjustable diopter?

The 90 I mentioned is very light and the diopter is a plus. I’ve tried the 45 before and preferred either the folding hood, chimmeny, or the 90 I mentioned. The others I found too bulky and sometimes too heavy.
As far as metering I’ve always preferred hand held incident or spot meters to built in for this and large format.

 

[skahde]

I liked the CT*-Distagon 4/50mm quite a lot although it needs to be stopped down to 11 2/3 to get really sharp corners: Field curvature. The center is crisp from wide open. If it can be had for little money, I would check the shutter and then enjoy this wonderful lens, despite it's quirks.

 

[Kayo]

I just skimmed the thread, honestly, but I think I got the gist of it.

It sounds like you have settled on a 60mm. If that's your only lens (at the moment), I think it's a great choice. I have one myself--a CF version, along with a 50mm CF FLE, 80mm CF, 120mm CFi, 150mm CF, and 180mm CFi.

I started with an 80mm and 150mm, then added the 50mm (a plain CF at first, and then the FLE version when I found one at a great price). I added the 120 later because I love macro shooting and the 180mm because it's stunning for portraits (I was running a commercial studio when I got it). The last lens I added was the 60mm.

I wanted that one because, for a single carry-around lens, the 60mm gives me the wider-than-normal field of view I love for walkaround shooting, it's fast enough for daylight, it's fairly compact (much more so than the 50 FLE or a 40mm), and the image quality is stellar. And even though it's very close to the 50mm and rather close to the 80mm, it gives me a noticeable enough difference in angle of view from either of those to be useful even with those two lenses--however, as I said, the main reason I bought it is because if I want to go out walking with only a single lens, for me the 60 is perfect.

One thing to consider, as I did, is trying to get all your lenses from the same series--that allows you to swap lens hoods and filters between multiple lenses. I settled on the CF lenses (and CFi) because they all use the Bay 60 filter (the lenses I have do; the 40mm doesn't), and I far prefer the ergonomics (focusing ring, no shutter/aperture interlock) of the CF and later lenses to the C versions.

If you start with the 60 and then decide to go longer along with it, the 100mm would potentially make sense as there's a bit of a spread between the two. However, it might be even more sensible to go with the 120mm Makro-Planar, as that doubles your focal length, and you can shoot closeups or portraits with that lens. Or if you go with the 150mm--which is lighter than the 120 and nice for carrying around--you end up with a combo that's sort of like a 35mm and 105mm in 35mm format, which is really a very useful pairing indeed.

Thank you very much for the reminder. At this point, I have gotten myself a 60mm CT, together with the 150mm CF that came with the camera.

For my next lens, I think I may consider a CT as well, mainly due to costs. After a month or two, I am thinking perhaps of getting either the 100mm, because of its reputation, or the 80mm, because of its lighter weight.

Filters are certainly useful, so I will keep that in mind too.

 

[Kayo]

I liked the CT*-Distagon 4/50mm quite a lot although it needs to be stopped down to 11 2/3 to get really sharp corners: Field curvature. The center is crisp from wide open. If it can be had for little money, I would check the shutter and then enjoy this wonderful lens, despite it's quirks.

I had also been looking at the older C 50mm, the non-T version, for a little while. I saw one in excellent condition listed on a camera store site for just slightly above $200, so it was, without doubt, a bargain.

However, while I was still thinking about the weight and whether it would truly suit me, it was quickly purchased.

For a wider angle, I think I may be more interested in something like the 40mm someday. Since I already have the 60mm now, the 50mm feels too close to it, so my heart does not lean toward it quite as much.

 

[Kayo]

I have a 90 and 45 degree prism but seldom use them anymore. I keep a waist level finder on my 500C and a HC-3 on my 553ELX. I really like the HC-3 since it brings the eyepiece further back, so my nose isn't scrunched up against the back.

I would like to believe that the waist-level finder suits me better, especially since I wear glasses. I have had some trouble with eye-level finders before. Waist level finding still feels more new or exotic coming from digital.

I am not sure whether the HC-3 would suit me, though I would like to try one someday perhaps. The added weight is something I do think about, but I have heard that focusing becomes much easier with it.

Speaking of focusing, at the moment I do not have any plans to upgrade to one of the brighter focusing screens. I am not sure how much it would truly help, though of course I can imagine it would be nice.

Focusing is still a little difficult, but manageable. Since I do not usually shoot very quickly with medium format, I think I can live with it for now.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I would like to believe that the waist-level finder suits me better, especially since I wear glasses. I have had some trouble with eye-level finders before. Waist level finding still feels more new or exotic coming from digital.

I am not sure whether the HC-3 would suit me, though I would like to try one someday perhaps. The added weight is something I do think about, but I have heard that focusing becomes much easier with it.

Speaking of focusing, at the moment I do not have any plans to upgrade to one of the brighter focusing screens. I am not sure how much it would truly help, though of course I can imagine it would be nice.

Focusing is still a little difficult, but manageable. Since I do not usually shoot very quickly with medium format, I think I can live with it for now.

The 553ELX is already a hefty camera so the grip and HC-3 don't really make much difference. The HC-3 is a pretty light prism actually. As for the waist level finder, I never really had a problem focusing with the standard screen or the split-image screen. Keeps my 500C pretty weight friendly also.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Speaking of focusing, at the moment I do not have any plans to upgrade to one of the brighter focusing screens. I am not sure how much it would truly help, though of course I can imagine it would be nice.

If you had the opportunity to borrow a digital back, you would quickly realize how wrong your assumption is. The Minolta ground glass Acute Matte is crucial for precise focusing.

 

[itsdoable]

<snip>
Speaking of focusing, at the moment I do not have any plans to upgrade to one of the brighter focusing screens. I am not sure how much it would truly help, though of course I can imagine it would be nice.

Focusing is still a little difficult, but manageable. Since I do not usually shoot very quickly with medium format, I think I can live with it for now.

If you had the opportunity to borrow a digital back, you would quickly realize how wrong your assumption is. The Minolta ground glass Acute Matte is crucial for precise focusing.

Personally I still find a good ground glass (Like the older pre-acute matte screens) the gold standard for focus accuracy, as long as you have a lot of light. They also show the out of focus zones better. Except maybe the really early screens, which had a terrible Fresnel pattern.

Acute Matte screens are prismatic (not ground glass) and have a slight aerial image so the final focus is just a little vague. But they are bright, and that often trumps everything - because if there it's too dim to see detail, then you'll never get focus regardless of the screen used. The Acute Matte II minimized the aerial image issue by going to a lenticular surface, which was being used by most of the other manufacture by then.

Personally I like and use the Acute Matte (I and II), and there are simple techniques to resolve the aerial image where that focus accuracy may be needed. Or just close down to f/4...

 

[Kayo]

If you had the opportunity to borrow a digital back, you would quickly realize how wrong your assumption is. The Minolta ground glass Acute Matte is crucial for precise focusing.

I think I may try a digital back in a month or two. Perhaps I will also borrow an acute matte focusing screen to compare.

 

[Kayo]

Personally I still find a good ground glass (Like the older pre-acute matte screens) the gold standard for focus accuracy, as long as you have a lot of light. They also show the out of focus zones better. Except maybe the really early screens, which had a terrible Fresnel pattern.

Acute Matte screens are prismatic (not ground glass) and have a slight aerial image so the final focus is just a little vague. But they are bright, and that often trumps everything - because if there it's too dim to see detail, then you'll never get focus regardless of the screen used. The Acute Matte II minimized the aerial image issue by going to a lenticular surface, which was being used by most of the other manufacture by then.

Personally I like and use the Acute Matte (I and II), and there are simple techniques to resolve the aerial image where that focus accuracy may be needed. Or just close down to f/4...

May I ask which models count as the acute matte II screens? I have mostly only heard people describe them as d vs non-d, so I am still a little unsure about the exact model numbers. I will be on the lookout for one if the price is fit.

 

[Alexander6x6]

I think I may try a digital back in a month or two. Perhaps I will also borrow an acute matte focusing screen to compare.

Just shoot wide open checking the focusing accuracy on the digital image.

 

[itsdoable]

May I ask which models count as the acute matte II screens? I have mostly only heard people describe them as d vs non-d, so I am still a little unsure about the exact model numbers. I will be on the lookout for one if the price is fit.

Correction, when I said Acute matte II, I 'm referring to the Acute Matte D. I believe it's a marketing name, as the D no longer used the Minolta patent.

 

[rulnacco]

May I ask which models count as the acute matte II screens? I have mostly only heard people describe them as d vs non-d, so I am still a little unsure about the exact model numbers. I will be on the lookout for one if the price is fit.

There was the original Acute Matte screen, and then later came the Acute Matte D screen. Both are described above.

You can tell the Acute Matte D screens, because they have a pair of cut out semicircles (D-shapes) in one corner of the metal frame.

If you scroll to the last post in this thread, you can see my post in how to tell the difference between an original-style Hasselblad screen and either of the Acute Matte screens.

 

[outwest]

I prefer the 60 greatly over the 50 and the 100 over the 80. My bag usually has the 60, 100 and the 150. If I was limited to just one lens, I guess it would be the 80 but you could take along a Mutar 2x. The 250 kind of sits in a special category. I'm pretty good at hand holding but I prefer to travel with a good monopod and save the tripod for unusual situations.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Reading all comments here I must confess that my choice would be the F-Distagon. I had great fun shooting with my Zodiak-8 many years ago. Now I have the F-Distagon, which is better suited to digital photography. To avoid fancy distortions, one should only manage to keep the horizon straight exactly in the middle of the frame.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I had also been looking at the older C 50mm, the non-T version, for a little while. I saw one in excellent condition listed on a camera store site for just slightly above $200, so it was, without doubt, a bargain.

However, while I was still thinking about the weight and whether it would truly suit me, it was quickly purchased.

For a wider angle, I think I may be more interested in something like the 40mm someday. Since I already have the 60mm now, the 50mm feels too close to it, so my heart does not lean toward it quite as much.

If weight/bulk are at all a concern for you, you'd be far better off saving your money a little longer and getting a superwide of some flavor instead of the 40mm. The 40 is HUGE (the chrome ones take I think a 93mm filter), and unlike the 38 on the Superwide, it does have some distortion at the edges.