80mm or 60mm lens

I recently bought a hasselblad 501cm from a friend at a good price. It came with a 160 CB lens, which is fine, but I am wanting to get a new lens as a “standard/normal” lens.

I was thinking either getting a 60mm or 80mm lens, but am open to any recommendations. If anyone can provide input it would be greatly appreciated.

I mainly take landscape/outdoor photos.

I have 50mm, 60mm, 80mm and that 160mm.
In my last trip to the mountains I took 60mm and 160mm. I would say better photos (for me) were done with the 160mm and only in the city or not so far landscape I used the 60mm, I would have taken the 80mm and I wouldn’t have noticed much difference except for one photo that I missed the 50mm.
60mm is terrific and don’t think the 160mm is ‘okish’ wonderful lens in my opinion, of course I have no other large lens for Hassy than that so I can compare with others.

i have both but prefer as a walkaround lens the 60mm

It really boils down to your personal style, and only you can really know that.

Not sure if you shoot 35mm, but the 60mm is basically like a 35mm lens in the smaller format, and the 80 is like a 50mm. And there are basically 35mm people and 50mm people (I'm the former).

Either one will make very good landscapes.

Colin has stated it pretty well. The 60 is a lovely, very sharp lens, but a stop slower than the 80. That stop is helpful if you want to work handheld in low’ish light.
Having both is ideal, but to pick one is a bit of a toss up. The 60 doesn’t get a lot of love, vs. the 50, which can make it a very cost-effective choice.

I have the Hasselblad 30mm Fisheye, SWC [38mm], 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm and 500mm lenses. I tried the 60mm lens and it is too close to the 80mm lens. The 80mm is my "Normal" lens. I recommend starting with:

• 50mm, 80mm, 250mm lenses OR
  
• 60mm, 100mm, 250mm lenses Note Bene: the 100mm lens is too long for ME to use as a normal lens

Both the 60 and 80mm have a wider diagonal angle of view than a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera.

I have several Hasselblad lenses but my CB 60mm is my favorite.

For FL equivalence, the flaw is the use of the diagonal distance...some formats are square, some are overly long (135, for example), and some approximate the aspect ratio of the 8x10" standard. It is better to consider the vertical dimension of the frame, to calculate 'equivalence' in FL, as this gives the exact same vertical Angle of View regardless of format size!
For 135 format:

• 35mm 'wide angle' is 1.46x vertical,
• 24mm 'very wide' is 1x vertical,
• 100mm 'portrait' is 4.2x vertical.
• 'normal is arguable. 135 format uses a longer FL than its diagonal would lead you to use...45mm. 'Normal' in 135 format have ranged between 45mm - 58mm!

Now apply all those multipliers to the 56mm vertical of 6x6 medium format

1. 'wide' is 80mm (81.7)
2. 'very wide' is 56mm
3. 'portrait' is 235mm
4. 'normal' vs a 45mm 'normal in 135 format would be 105mm

Those results above are not what one expect to use, yet they are driven by our expectations arising from using 135 formal SLRs.
So, if you like to carry a 135 format camera with 35mm 'WA' lens around, as many photojournalists liked to do, 80mm would be perfect.
If you prefer the somewhat long FL as 'normal', such as used by typical 135 format SLR, really you want 105-110mm FL

I have used 80mm and 105mm as my “standard/normal” lens for 6x6cm cameras.

I prefer the 80mm.

I flank the 80mm standard/normal with a 55mm wide and a 180mm telephoto.

Medium tele forces you to simplify and focus (sic) your photography.
It also allows some very nice but relatively subtle compression/flattening of the scene. Which is also one of my favorite things in photography when it is possible.
160mm is about 85mm in 135 so not crazy long at all. Some people shoot that viewcone exclusively.

It will be a challenge and will take some guts sticking to that lens for some time.
You will surely curse your decision many times when you are locked to that focal length. But it will also let you hone your photography and make it subtly unique.

If you have to get a new lens right now, get an 80 though. It will always be faster and/or lighter than other lenses due to it “normality”.

For whatever reason an 80mm lens costs on the order of $900 and a 50mm or 150mm cost closer to $500-600. Might steer your decision.

IMHO the one nice thing about the 80mm is the 2.8 aperture. With an f4 lens you have to manage your film speed a bit more in case you end up in adverse light and want to hand hold. Hasselblad is a bit all over the map (oh you want an f2.8 50mm? hope you've got a focal plane body that hasn't crapped itself yet cuz the shutters are NLA and the bodies run $1-3k).

But I will say that in the modern era where we have the "cell phone" things I think a key differentiator is varied focal lengths.

I personally have the 50, 80, and 150 and most of the time I don't use the 80 unless light conditions require. I find myself reaching for the 50 for general photo and I do really like how longer lenses like the 150 work with composition flow. Here's a 50mm shot of faithful dog:


I'd be inclined to go with the 50mm and the 150mm as others have mentioned though I haven't tried the 60.

Also worth poking around the available info and perhaps renting some units to try yourself. The 100mm is the sharpest lens in the set from my understanding. Apparently the 150mm is the more common "portrait standby" but the 180mm is well liked by those who use it. And also worth mentioning that with an old C lens you're much more likely to run into shutter problems and a CLA is going to run you $280 from David Odess so finding some combination of return policy/receipt of service in the past 5 years would be optimal. There's a 50mm C T* that was on the Bay with CLA advertised recently for ~$600.

A series here on lens comparisons/options:

https://emulsive.org/reviews/camera...d-v-system-master-guide-c-and-c-t-star-lenses