Supplying the lens serial number will help clarify the lens identification.
There was a 80mm "C"-Lens sold as a kit lens during the 90s together with the 501C. Optically, this one is identical to the CF-Version and also features the same barrel, minus some functions. Is this the lens you have or an altogether different one?
There was a 80mm "C"-Lens sold as a kit lens during the 90s together with the 501C. Optically, this one is identical to the CF-Version and also features the same barrel, minus some functions. Is this the lens you have or an altogether different one?
... and interesting hybrid 80 F2.8. The 80 is marked C, however it has all the properties that were incorporated into the CF. It was apparently produced with the proposed upgrades to see how users reacted. If someone has additional information I'd be glad to read it.
The Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 Planar C "New C type" was a lens that was available only as a package with the 501c and A12 magazine.Being honest, I don't know. I bought it as a stand alone so I don't know if was a kit lens or something different. All the numerals and letters are filled in with white.
I never understood the raison d'être of the Distagon 40mm, knowing that there is a so nice Biogon 38mm.
I shot with the 40mm and I found it too heavy and big to handhold it 'relaxed'.
Perhaps the possibility of viewing trough it, as a SLR, could plead in its advantage...
But this isn't at all a negative critic on its optical performance.
The only advantage I see with the 40mm lens is that one can see through the lens. I greatly prefer the 38mm Biogon because of the rectilinear correctness and lighter weight.
I have not used the Biogon in years but I have used both the older C T* 40mm and the 40mm FLE CFi,
The 40mm C T* is a heavy beast, hard to handhold, but still a very competent lens. The FLE is a whole other planet of goodness. It's smaller, more ergonomic, behaves remarkably well with specular highlights, and - of course - the FLE feature gives you optimized optical performance at all distances. I also rather like the way it does line bending, as I find that to be a useful aesthetic tool.
Having said that, I just don't find a lot of use for an ultrawide. I'd say that better than 80% of my Hasselblad negatives are shot with either the 60mm f/3.5 Distagon or the 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar.
My most used Hasselblad lenses are the 50mm, 80mm and 100mm. I do not take portraits so my least used is the 150mm lens.
@chuckroast I would recommend the 150mm instead of the 180mm. Nearly identical coverage but significantly better handling and portability. Cheaper, too. I think it's possible to get a pair of 150+250 for the same budget as the 180 alone.
Nothing against the 180mm, I own one. But I can't recall a situation the 150mm couldn't handle. Essentially the only reason I use the 180mm lens is to justify owning it to myself and to exercise its shutterPeople say it's optically sharper than the 150mm but I don't have a scanning/printing equipment which allows me to see the difference.
@chuckroast I would recommend the 150mm instead of the 180mm. Nearly identical coverage but significantly better handling and portability. Cheaper, too. I think it's possible to get a pair of 150+250 for the same budget as the 180 alone.
Nothing against the 180mm, I own one. But I can't recall a situation the 150mm couldn't handle. Essentially the only reason I use the 180mm lens is to justify owning it to myself and to exercise its shutterPeople say it's optically sharper than the 150mm but I don't have a scanning/printing equipment which allows me to see the difference.
@chuckroast somehow my brain failed and I read your earlier comment as you thinking about acquiring the 180 or the 250!
Hmm early on I was thinking about switching from the 150mm to the 180mm lens. Since neither would get much use, it is better that I did not swap.
No, no. I currently own the 40, 60, 80, 120,180, & 250. Of those, I use the 60 and 120 most. I bought the 180 rather than the 150 because I felt the 150 was too close to the 120.
At this point, I use the 40, 180, and 250 so rarely, that I am considering selling some or all of them, thereby keeping the lenses I use the most.
I do not have access to 11,000ppi scanning equipment and I honestly can't see any difference using equipment I have.
@dokko states that the 150mm is the weakest lens in the lineup, but you don't have his equipment. To get an idea of what you'll be getting, here's a full-sized scan of the 150mm at f/5.6, 8,000x8,000 resolution with minimal compression:
LINK TO THE SCAN - the focus point is on the Fomapan box under the ruler.
And this is only available if you have access to a high-end mirrorless, Coolscan or Imacon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?