Buying a second Hasselblad Lens

[Rinthe]

I have a Hasselblad 500c/m. The 80mm/f2.8 is great! but it's time to buy my second lens. I want something longer. I will be doing a lot of portraits, I also want to snipe people from far away Sharpness is important, but all the hassy lens are sharp right? Any suggestions?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Indoors or outdoors?

If indoors it's easier to work with a 100mm. Outdoors a 150mm is probably a better choice. I recommend a 21mm extension tube for close-up work.

Either lens is killer from what I can tell. I have never tried the 100m, though, but the word around the campfire is is that it's the sharpest and most distortion free lens for the 500-system.

- Thomas

 

[wclark5179]

the 150 is a fine portrait lens.

I've got the Sonnar f 4. From the serial # mine was made in 1970.

 

[Rinthe]

i will be doing both indoor and outdoors. wow I just search hasselblad 150mm and it was $3000, then i searched for zeiss 150mm, much cheaper! Anyways, I think I have a CF 80mm, that's the multi coated one right?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a Hasselblad 500c/m. The 80mm/f2.8 is great! but it's time to buy my second lens. I want something longer. I will be doing a lot of portraits, I also want to snipe people from far away Sharpness is important, but all the hassy lens are sharp right? Any suggestions?

Rinthe

The common next (longer) choice for the Hasselblad is the 150mm Sonnar. It's a very popular portrait lens. I love mine and my model appreciate it, because of it's 'mild softness' (I mean this in a good way). However, the 'sharper' lens is my 180mm, which is probably the better choice for advertising and technical shots. If I want to go longer yet, I'll use the 250mm, which is also a great leans (after Zeiss repaired my eBay purchase). I have never used any extenders, but they may be an option.

 

[Q.G.]

My second choice, considering what you want it for, would be the 250 mm + 32 mm tube.

 

[mlcolbert]

check out the hasselblad manual by ernst wildi that will give you a good overview of the lenses as well as other equipment available. The later editions cover the digital models as well but the fifth edition (which I have) is fine for my non-digital models 503 cw and 500 el/m's. Easily enough found through abe books website



michael

 

[Ian David]

The 150 is a nice second lens.
Ian

 

[hassyfan]

The 150/4 Sonnar CF was my second lens.

Ron

 

[bdial]

I also have the 150/4 CF. It's the one that is on the camera most of the time.

 

[André E.C.]

Sonnar CF 150mm f/4 or the more expensive 180mm, you decide, they're both great, can't go wrong at all.

Wanna go longer? Load the 180mm with a 2x converter and there you have, a trully stunning 360mm.

Good luck!

 

[jerry lebens]

The Sonnar 150mm is the traditional lens for classic portraits on a 'blad. Leaving the 80mm Planar aside, it's probably the easist lens to find on the 2nd hand market and, thus, should be cheaper.
Further - you might find that a 100mm is a little bit too wide angle for portraits, making noses and ears look slightly out of proportion. And, similarly, anything above 180mm is probably too telephoto and will tend to "flatten" faces...

Regards
Jerry

 

[2F/2F]

250mm is what I would go for. I might fill in the gap with a 150 after I added a wide, for a nice four lens kit, but probably only if it came along for cheap. For what I like, I generally prefer long lenses that are more than just a little bit long, but not as long as LONG long. In 35mm terms, this would mean that I would take a 135 over something in the 85-105 range in most circumstances in which I wanted a long lens.

 

[BenZucker]

120mm f/4

 

[mikebarger]

I didn't know Nikkors less than 300mm were considered long.

Mike

 

[2F/2F]

For 35mm, I start "LONG long", as in just plain-ol' "long", at 200mm. "More than just a little bit long" is 135. (Maybe I should use "longish" instead.) "Medium long", or "just a little bit long" is 85-105. "Really long" I would probably use for a 300 and 400. "Super long" perhaps for 500 and 600. "$*#$*&% long" (or "long-$*#$*&%") is for 800mm and longer.

 

[Q.G.]

The 150 mm is a popular portrait lens.
And it is indeed great, if you can approach people for a very 'overt', obvious portrait shoot. It needs you to get too close to 'snipe' (bad choice of word, i think).

The longer 250 mm lens is great for that.
And it can do the other thing too(you just back up a bit more - which actually is a good thing).

 

[2F/2F]

...(you just back up a bit more - which actually is a good thing).

...if you desire the effect that is achieved by backing up a bit more. You may, and you may not. You may for some pix, and not for others. This is why you can own/rent/borrow/use both lenses...or neither!

Not that I don't agree that the 250 is preferable for a lot of things. (I suggested it to the OP over the 150.) I also tend to prefer backing up farther than most for tightly-framed portraits...but I realize that this is just a personal preference, so I state it as such. The term "good thing" is dependent on the criteria that have been laid out. "Portrait" does not necessarily mean "flattening" the apparent depth to a "very good" () degree.

 

[Q.G.]

Well, yes. I agree. Just as i agree that buildings falling over backwards aren't necessarily a bad thing, so it's quite o.k. to do architectural photography at close range without movements.

Bill Brandt liked to 'enhance' body parts in his portraits. But generally, we do like the flatter approach. (It's more flattering to make things flatter.) Which is why such bits of general wisdom exist.

 

[2F/2F]

"Which is why such bits of general wisdom exist."

Yes...and they should be stated as bits of general wisdom, IMHO, not as outright facts.

Glamor shots are always supposed to flatter, so will necessarily fall under tighter aesthetic "general rules". Portraits are simply "about" a person, and can be this using almost every photographic technique in existence. I do not like to see "general rules" applied to something as conceptual as portraiture. In fact, it makes my skin crawl a bit. Personally, my favorite portrait pix tend to be shot with normal or slight wide lenses, and they also tend to be shot on location in natural light. This does not mean that other things are not portraits, however, or are not "good".

 

[Rinthe]

great information here, thank you guys! I am debating between the 150mm and the 250mm. with the 250mm i can 'snipe' (can't think of any other word ), but 150, i need to get up close to the subject. but 150mm is still tempting because it's a classical portrait lens and cheaper too!

 

[Rinthe]

So i've been looking at 250mm and saw some Tessar which is 250mm/f4 instead of the other 250mm/f5.6. are both of these good quality lens?

 

[André E.C.]

Or, you can buy a 2x converter for that 150mm, and have a fantastic 300mm when needed!
More flexible possibility to a solo 250mm, IMHO.

 

[André E.C.]

So i've been looking at 250mm and saw some Tessar which is 250mm/f4 instead of the other 250mm/f5.6. are both of these good quality lens?

The f/4 is the older C, I would buy the CF(i) f/5.6, but again, your decision and your money!

 

[Rinthe]

Or, you can buy a 2x converter for that 150mm, and have a fantastic 300mm when needed!
More flexible possibility to a solo 250mm, IMHO.

sorry but I'm not sure what converters are. would they affect the image quality? are there 1.5x converters?