Hi
One of my three Hasselblad CZ lenses is the CF 120mm Makro.
Though it is a "close up" lens, it's not quite the same as 35mm Nikon 60mm 105mm or 200mm in that you can't get really close and photograph the tip of a pen, for example. Or the middle of a flower. The minimum focal distance is about 2 feet (according to MIR and through my own experience : http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/hasselblad/lenses/hassel_lenses2.htm).
I read recently about extension tubes. Specifically the 32\32E. It strikes me that this will help get a more close up shot (unless I have mis-understood) with my 120mm for not a great deal of money. But am I correct in saying that it will only reduce the minimum focal distance from 2 ft to 1.8 feet? So I still won't be able to gain that much focal distance? If so, I notice there's the 55 which will reduce it from 2 feet to 1.25 (382mm). That would make a difference, but what is the pay off?
What I am getting at is that with my old Nikon 60mm (which was stolen) I could get to within a couple of inches of something really small, fill the frame and still focus. I can't do that with my Hasselblad 120mm. I was hoping an ET like this one from ffordes or this ebay one would help? Or am I just using the lens wrong?
I also read http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/HasManuals/Extubes.pdf but I don't really understand it!
Other than the realisation that there are some exposure differences to account for, has anyone get experience of said ET that they can share? Do they enable the frame to be filled more by a small subject, or is the difference marginal?
One of my three Hasselblad CZ lenses is the CF 120mm Makro.
Though it is a "close up" lens, it's not quite the same as 35mm Nikon 60mm 105mm or 200mm in that you can't get really close and photograph the tip of a pen, for example. Or the middle of a flower. The minimum focal distance is about 2 feet (according to MIR and through my own experience : http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/hasselblad/lenses/hassel_lenses2.htm).
I read recently about extension tubes. Specifically the 32\32E. It strikes me that this will help get a more close up shot (unless I have mis-understood) with my 120mm for not a great deal of money. But am I correct in saying that it will only reduce the minimum focal distance from 2 ft to 1.8 feet? So I still won't be able to gain that much focal distance? If so, I notice there's the 55 which will reduce it from 2 feet to 1.25 (382mm). That would make a difference, but what is the pay off?
What I am getting at is that with my old Nikon 60mm (which was stolen) I could get to within a couple of inches of something really small, fill the frame and still focus. I can't do that with my Hasselblad 120mm. I was hoping an ET like this one from ffordes or this ebay one would help? Or am I just using the lens wrong?
I also read http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/HasManuals/Extubes.pdf but I don't really understand it!
Other than the realisation that there are some exposure differences to account for, has anyone get experience of said ET that they can share? Do they enable the frame to be filled more by a small subject, or is the difference marginal?
Last edited:
