LOL, I actually have quite a flat belly at the moment due to training and eating judiciously. I mostly use my 80mm when out and about, but also have a 150mm and now in the market for a 50mm to complete the "holy trinity".
Agree on this. I recycled that same strap from my DSLR, just buying the appropriate attachments for the Hasselblad (they are not that expensive).
Hopefully now Lent is in full swing I can lose some weight. Boiled seafood can't be that fattening. There is a guy who has some old Hasselblad straps that are about the same price as the one you recommended but doesn't look as comfortable.
I started in 1972 with the standard combo 500CM with 80C, added the 150C in 1973 and the 50C T* in 1974. If I was starting from scratch today, I would go with the 50 CF, 100 CF and the 180CF. All of those can use the Bay 60 filters.
Here's the actual link, i typed it in cold earlier and forgot www,
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu
Nothing wrong with the 60 for getting your feet wet, I have a 3 lens kit with 60, 80 and 150, if I had to ditch one, it would likely be the 80. As for 60 vs 80, the 80 is faster which can be nice, but the 60 is slightly sharper. If your vision likes wide, it would be a good way to start.
I use the Hasselblad straps, because I like the fastening clips on them better than the op tech, but the op techs are nice otherwise.
I'm gonna post a link to a 60 and tell me what you think but looking at pictures with the 60, I like them. And like someone else mentioned, I won't lose any money on it.
It's just another format you can shoot with the Hasselblad V series, same 120 roll film but 16 images to a roll in a rectangular format . . . 6x4.5. Like I said . . . some compositions work better in a rectangular vs square format. I like having the choice . . YMMV
Like this one . . .
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/summer-stream-hillsborough-nh.58876/
I cannot agree more with this ^^^^^
That's a really awesome shot. Guess that is one more thing to add to the list.
IIRC, there are distinct differences between the 60mm and 80mm lenses when it comes to minimum focusing distance and length of focus "throw".
The Hasselblad users here will correct me if I am wrong.
But if I am right, if either of those characteristics matter to you, you may wish to factor them in to your choice(s).
Personally I tend to lean toward the 60mm focal length - my square format "standard" lens is a 65mm (Mamiya) lens.
My Minolta is 75 and my Olympus is a regular 50mm. I think I am overthinking this and need to just to make a plunge and figure it out by talking pictures.
The 60mm lens is too close to the 80mm lens so I recommend the 50mm and 80mm or 50mm and 100mm lenses. I recommend:
38mm [SWC]. 50mm, 80mm, 150mm [or 180mm], 250mm or
38mm [SWC]. 50mm, 100mm, 150mm [or 180mm], 250mm
I own the 30mm [Fisheye]; 38mm [SWC]. 50mm, 80mm, 100mm,150mm, 250mm, 500mm and 3XE. I do not have the 120mm or 135mm because I would not use them enough for close up work. Instead I use fixed length extension tubes.
I have a 503 CX and 903, not a 500 C/M.
That's quite a setup you have. One of my friends said when he had a 500 that he used 60/100/180. What are you thoughts on that setup?
Consider getting a prism finder if you want to shoot (relatively) quickly and easily. I never got on very well with the WLF myself.
Also I agree if you think 80% of your shots will be of buildings you will find the 80mm a bit limiting FOV-wise. The 60mm or 50mm FLE may be a better option there, although they are slower. They are both optically better than the 80mm though. Also consider that the 80mm isn't really a very flattering focal length for close up shots of people (say, head and shoulders type shots); for that 120mm+ is more effective. The 120mm Makro and 180mm Sonnar are superlative portrait lenses.
Man, I'm like a kid in a candy store right now. So many options and so little money.
Hasselblad lenses shorter than 60mm are huge hunks of glass. The beauty of the Hasselblad design is compactness and not being too heavy for using hand held. The 150mm, like the 80mm, is easy to hand hold. The 60mm is a nice compromise and makes a compact, easy to carry package. Lenses shorter than 60mm are heavy.
I use heavy 300mm Olympic Sonnar and 400mm Leitz and Kilfit lenses on tripod mounted 2000FCM, but that’s a completely different topic. If my 2000FCM outlasts me (fingers crossed) I doubt a longer Hasselblad lens is in my future.
Thanks for the help. How would you feel about a 60/100/180 setup?
Autocords have 75mm lenses which are just slightly wider than the Zeiss 80mm. If you feel that you need something just a little wider then try a 60mm.
Used Zeiss lenses have stabilized in price. If you buy a lens and after trying it, decide that you don't want it, you can always sell and get most of your money back. Any little bit you lose just figure it as a cheap rental fee.
I never thought of it like that. That is a good point. I do need to go wider than the 75mm. I love my Autocord but it isn't wide enough for some shoots plus having interchangable backs would help with a project that is coming up.
The 60mm is a marvelous and often overlooked lens. I advise many folks to consider the 100mm Planar and the 60mm Distagon. The 100mm is one of the standout Hasselblad choices, and the 60 is a nice all rounder. I even bought the Rollei version when I moved onto the Hy6.
That is they way I am leaning and maybe adding a 180. Thanks,
After I got the swc, I concluded that the 50mm was rather useless, so I sold it and never regretted it. But I like wide angle and I like the convenience of having two camera’s instead of having to change lenses.
Regards,
Frank
Thanks!
For travel to Europe I use the 38mm [SWC], 50mm and 80mm lenses.
It's all relative. As soon as your kit grows beyond a Hassy with a single lens you have to accept the fact you'll be lugging some weight around, but it's still not so bad compared to some systems. I have absolutely no issue using the 50mm hand held either, and from what I understand the 40mm is only marginally heavier.
Good point thanks for commenting.
45-50 yrs ago I walked around with a gaggle of cameras and lenses. As time went by, I carried less and less. The Hasselblad system is so ingenious that it can be used as hand held compact kit as well as on a tripod for many different kinds of photography. In many ways a Hasselblad is the only real competition to a 35mm SLR in terms of versatility, with the advantage of a larger negative.
This is exactly why I picked it. I can carry different film ready to go, lenses change out, and there are a ton of accessories.
I've had a 500c/m for about 15 years, and haven't used it nearly enough. I've recently started using it much more often, and am happy to say that the love is back. What a great system!
I recently bought a copy of the Hasselblad Manual, 3rd Edition, which has all the information relevant to a 500c/m system at the right price point. Ideally, you should try to get a copy of the Revised Reprint 1989 that has an extra chapter covering new camera bodies, lenses, and accessories introduced between 1986 and 1989. TIP: Whatever edition of the book you purchase, make sure it has all of the color pages intact. The first copy I bought had all of the fashion/glamour photos surgically removed via an X-ACTO (or similar) knife, so I had to return it. Even if you don't typically do this type of photography, you paid for a complete book.
As for lenses and accessories:
I really recommend the 42170 Acute-Matte focusing screen with grid and split-image microprism. I shoot a lot of urban-scapes, and find the grid invaluable for keeping everything aligned when hand holding the camera. The only downside is this particular focusing screen currently sells for a lot more than I paid 10 years ago.
I think having two A12 backs is sufficient. I used to have three, but found that I really didn't need to carry three backs around. Loading a roll of film isn't a major time issue unless you're shooting a wedding.
As for wide-angle lenses, I can't say enough good things about the 50mm Distagon f/4 CF FLE. I use this lens much more often than my 80mm Planar CF. I absolutely love it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the 80mm; the 50mm just suits my style better. Also, I now only use CF lenses. For me, the CF useability is preferable to the earlier C lenses. I don't find that the later CFi or CFE lenses offer any features that I need. I guess I'm a CF die-hard.
That specific one is on my list. They are going for a lot but it looks like it would help out tremendously with landscape and building photos. I do disagree with you about the C vs CF lenses just on a price point thing. I just might pick up (see next post) the 60mm C and start shooting. Later one add 60/100/180 cfs,
You did bring up a good point. I think we kind of get bogged down in the best lenses when we should ask what fits my style. I think the only way to know is to start.
Agreed, an Acute Matte D screen is a must IMO. They're so much brighter than a normal screen. I have the one with the etched grid and rangefinder patch, which makes focusing a breeze. They're very expensive, but worth every penny.
The CFi/CFE lenses do have an appreciably nicer focusing feel (probably the best of any lenses I've used). The shutters were also upgraded to have better longevity.
I think you are the fifth person to say that. Already on the list but I will underline it in red sharpie.
you can always crop in the darkroom to your liking.
Look at Mr. Fancy Pants with his own darkroom! You speak the truth though, I just need to get mine up and running at my shop once I clear out the room and hook up some water lines. I've been waiting for this awhile.
