Hasselblad 200/2000 + 110 F2.0

[sim]

Hallo,

Does anyone have any experience (good or bad) of using the 200/2000 series of Hasselblad cameras? I know they are not made anymore, but are they still serviced? Can't find much info on the 'blad site.

Any experiences with the 110 f2.0? Intrigued with this as an option for the redudeced depth of field compared to a C type lens (120 f4.0).

Thoughts/ observations welcomed!

Sim.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hallo,

Does anyone have any experience (good or bad) of using the 200/2000 series of Hasselblad cameras? I know they are not made anymore, but are they still serviced? Can't find much info on the 'blad site.

Any experiences with the 110 f2.0? Intrigued with this as an option for the redudeced depth of field compared to a C type lens (120 f4.0).

Thoughts/ observations welcomed!

Sim.

I am a V guy, not an H guy, so I can't help you.

PM Q.G., he can help you.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

I am a V guy, not an H guy, so I can't help you.

Then you should know that 200/2000 is V, not H...


They, in fact, are what Victor had wanted all along, so as such even more V than the other ones.

PM Q.G., he can help you.

Why PM? Why not keep it in the 'community'?


Having a 200-series camera serviced will still be possible, if you go through Hasselblad.

2000 series cameras, maybe. Hasselblad only i suppose. Perhaps even only Hasselblad USA, i don't know.


They are great cameras though, and unless you treat them badly, will not need much servicing.
But perhaps better stay away from the 2000 FC and FC/M. Get a 2000 FCW or 2003 FCW at least.
And when you do, take a close look at the metal shutter curtains. Both of them. Make sure they are absolutely pristine, wrinkle free.
Any dent or other blemish on the shutter of a camera up for sale would make me run away from it fast.

The 200-series have cloth shutters, and are much less vulnerable.


The f/2 110 mm Planar is a lens of its own.
Rather soft, less sharp compared to the other Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses (except for the very center, which is very sharp). But that only when used wide open.
And you must use the lens wide open to make it reveal its charm: stop it down, and it is nothing special. Just another great, sharp Zeiss lens like the rest of them.

Wide open, the very shallow DOF drowns any unsharpness in a smooth, rather pleasing rendition of tones.
But not always: it sometimes produces double contours in its "Bokeh", which can be very annoying. I haven't yet managed to lay my finger on the reason for the double contours. Has something to do, i think, with distance and size of the subject, along with f-stop.

Anyway: a great lens i would not like to miss.
But one that is rather special, both in the 'look' it produces, and in that it is quite different from the other Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses in that respect.

The 110 mm's diaphragm mechanism is rather complicated (there is little room to stow the blades away, so it has a complicated double set of blades), and is less robust than that in other lenses.
But then, you may never run into any problem with them at all. So no worries; i should perhaps not have mentioned this at all.

 

[edtbjon]

The 200 series cameras is the recent stuff, which can be serviced just about anywhere. The 2000 do use a different kind of shutter curtain (i.e. titanium instead of cloth on the newer ones), which is no longer made, but unless you poke something into the curtain, a 2000 series should serve you well too. I personally shoot with a 2003FCW which I'm very happy with. Also, the service issue with the 2000-series cameras is mostly about the shutters and there is someone in the UK who have come up with a solution to broken 2000-series shutter curtains, so there's still hope. (OK, I have wet dreams about a 203, but prefer to pay the bills when I'm awake. )
The 110 is a very nice lens which is sharp enough, but maybe not on par with most of the other 'blad lenses in the sharpness aspect. But this is more of an issue if you are looking for a test bench camera/lens combo. I used to own one in the 80ies and I'm looking for one now too (at the right price that is...). Having said that it's not the sharpest 'blad lens, it definitely have character and it's very nice and bright )on the ground glass) to work with.

B.t.w. Steve, the 2000 and 200 cameras are indeed V cameras, built in Sweden using german glass. The only difference/asset is the shutter in the camera.

//Björn

 

[Q.G.]

One more thing about the 110 mm: i find it is quite difficult to focus.
A screen with split image rangefinder helps a lot, but needs a clear line in your subject to focus on.

And move a bit after focusing (the camera or the subject), and focus is off again. Especially in the closer distance range.

 

[Lee J]

Hallo,

Does anyone have any experience (good or bad) of using the 200/2000 series of Hasselblad cameras? I know they are not made anymore, but are they still serviced? Can't find much info on the 'blad site.

Lots of info here re. service/repair (check the discussion and links): http://www.flickr.com/groups/hasselblad_focal_plane/

Any experiences with the 110 f2.0? Intrigued with this as an option for the redudeced depth of field compared to a C type lens (120 f4.0).

It's great. Reason enough to get a 200[0] series body.

 

[Bokeh Guy]

Just sold my 110mm yesterday. I agree with QC - difficult to focus and sometimes the DOF is too shallow (that might just be my ineptness as a photographer).

The big thing for me with the 110 (at least while I had it) was its ability to focus close--2 feet due to the floating element. I have the 150mm, which is sharper, but the closest focusing distance is 4.6 ft or thereabouts.

 

[Sputnik]

For me it's the close focusing of the 50/2.8 that really makes the 200/2000-series so wonderful. As mentioned earlier, try to get a 2000/2003FCW or later. On the other hand you can get the 2000FC/FCM at bargain prices because people are afraid of them.

 

[Q.G.]

The big thing for me with the 110 (at least while I had it) was its ability to focus close--2 feet due to the floating element.

No floating element in the 110.

 

[Bokeh Guy]

QC, you're right. Got it confused with the Distagon, although you can get pretty close with it. Thanks.

 

[Struan Gray]

David Knapman in Gothenburg, Sweden can and will service 2000 series models, if he has the parts.

I have a 2003FCW. There is one small wrinkle on the shutter, but it's worked fine for me in some quite harsh environments. I can believe the conventional wisdom that in the aggregate the 2000 series had slightly more problems than the other Hasselblad models, but my system has been no more trouble than any other secondhand equipment I have owned.

I too lust after a 110/2, but I remind myself that I can get the same low depth of field with the 150/2.8 wide open. The advantage of the 110 is the extra stop when shooting in available light, and that you don't have to back off so far. Both would help when photographing candids of my kids at play in dim northern interiors, but neither has ever been an issue in more formal portraiture. The disadvantage of the 110 is that it is alone among the shorter lenses in maintaining a high price on the used market - thus far, its charms have not been sufficient for me to actually buy one.

 

[Q.G.]

I have the f/2.8 150 mm too, but they are not quite the same ...

 

[Struan Gray]

Good thing too. I would hate to think I was lusting after something I already had

Outdoors I appreciate the extra reach of the 150. Indoors I'd love to have the 110.

 

[sim]

Thanks for your comments here - far more positive about the 2000 shutters than I had expected. Getting seriously tempted with the 100 lens now as the short dof is waht I am looking for & quality seems to be ok/good wide open - hate to spend all that money for an F2.0 & no tbe able to use it above 2.8/4!!

Cheers.

 

[hka]

Good thing too. I would hate to think I was lusting after something I already had

Outdoors I appreciate the extra reach of the 150. Indoors I'd love to have the 110.

Here the same...