Hasselblad 30mm vs Mamiya 37mm

RoboRepublic · Feb 14, 2022

I'm thinking of stream lining my MF range of cameras by pairing down the equipment I have.

Ideally I'd keep my Hasselblad V series of lenses, and sell of my RZ67 equipment, however one place where I'm having trouble is the 37mm fish eye. I seem to quite like its results as they are not extremely fishy.

I don't own the 30mm F-Distagon, however the photos posted on flickr seems to indicate that the fish-eye distortion of the 30mm is quite pronounced compared to the 37mm. Those extra 7mm seem to go a long way.

I'm looking for experience and thoughts on this sentiment from those who have owned and shot both lenses, thank you!

Sirius Glass · Feb 14, 2022

The 30mm Fisheye is one of two C lenses that I have. It was offered at a price so low that it even got past my lack of need for it. Once I got it I found it an interesting lens that has a number of specialize good uses. Ditch the RB67, using it at your age could cause you to require wearing a truss.

Nokton48 · Feb 14, 2022

I have the black T* 30mm Distagon and it's fun to use. I would recommend it

Kingswood Gardens Hassy 30mm Distagon Fisheye 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Frog Pond, Kingswood Gardens, Mansfield Ohio. Kodak 70mm Surveillance Film, ADOX Borax MQ dev, Hasselblad 500C/M 30mm T* Distagon, Handheld exposure. Arista #2 8x10 Matte RC paper, Multigrade dev. Processed in 70mm Kindermann Dev Tank

Kodak Surveillance reminds me a lot of the older Tri-X emulsion.
The sun was just out of the frame upper left corner. The circular garden works well with the Hassy Fishy lens.

Formal Gardens Kingswood 30 Dist 70mm WL Surveillance by Nokton48, on Flickr

Hasselblad 500C/M 30 Distagon T* Fisheye Yellow Hasselblad filter 70mm WL Surveillance Film A70 film back ADOX Borax MQ Kindermann 70mm tank Arista 8x10 #2 RC laser aligned Omega DII 180 black Rodagon Omegalite diffusion head Multigrade dev

Across all the way on the other side is large wonderful fountain

Maris · Feb 14, 2022

Definitely recommend the Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye.

There are far more interesting rectangular pictures in the world than square ones like the Hasselblad delivers. Sure, the Hasselblad user does not have to accept being straight-jacketed into a square, they can crop, but then the Hasselblad becomes a big, heavy, expensive, 645 camera. The Mamiya, on the other hand, remains a big, heavy, cheap 67 format camera offering a significantly larger usable negative.

The Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye is sharp.

Island, Lake Cootharaba
Gelatin-silver photograph on Freestyle Premium Reserve VC FB, image area 16,4cm X 21.2cm, from an Ilford 120 format SFX 200 negative exposed in a Mamiya RB 67 camera fitted with a 37mm f4.5 fisheye lens and #25 red filter.

Sirius Glass · Feb 14, 2022

Maris said:
Definitely recommend the Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye.

There are far more interesting rectangular pictures in the world than square ones like the Hasselblad delivers. Sure, the Hasselblad user does not have to accept being straight-jacketed into a square, they can crop, but then the Hasselblad becomes a big, heavy, expensive, 645 camera. The Mamiya, on the other hand, remains a big, heavy, cheap 67 format camera offering a significantly larger usable negative.

The Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye is sharp.

Island, Lake Cootharaba
Gelatin-silver photograph on Freestyle Premium Reserve VC FB, image area 16,4cm X 21.2cm, from an Ilford 120 format SFX 200 negative exposed in a Mamiya RB 67 camera fitted with a 37mm f4.5 fisheye lens and #25 red filter.

6x7 is not all that much bigger than 6x6.

One thing that one must be aware of with a Fisheye is the location of the photographer's feet. I always check before taking the photograph.

tokam · Feb 15, 2022

As @Maris said 6x7 is a LOT bigger than 6x4.5. I can't be bothered doing the maths.

CJG · Feb 15, 2022

tokam said:
As @Maris said 6x7 is a LOT bigger than 6x4.5. I can't be bothered doing the maths.

If you make rectangular prints 6x7 is a lot bigger. But so is the camera. I've owned both. Both have their own set of great attributes, up to you to decide.

wiltw · Feb 15, 2022

RoboRepublic said:
I
I don't own the 30mm F-Distagon, however the photos posted on flickr seems to indicate that the fish-eye distortion of the 30mm is quite pronounced compared to the 37mm. Those extra 7mm seem to go a long way.

In post 3 is a supposed 'fisheye' shot...but the true definition of 'fisheye' is that any line which does not pass precisely thru the optical center, along vertical or horizontal path, results in a CURVE appearance to that 'straight' line. But the brick column at the right edge of the photo looks to be quite strait, not curved. Per that photo, the 30mm does not seem very 'fisheye'.

This photo better depicts what a true fisheye should do with straight lines
https://in.pinterest.com/pin/467952217532423204/

Sirius Glass · Feb 15, 2022

wiltw said:
In post 3 is a supposed 'fisheye' shot...but the true definition of 'fisheye' is that any line which does not pass precisely thru the optical center, along vertical or horizontal path, results in a CURVE appearance to that 'straight' line. But the brick column at the right edge of the photo looks to be quite strait, not curved. Per that photo, the 30mm does not seem very 'fisheye'.

This photo better depicts what a true fisheye should do with straight lines
https://in.pinterest.com/pin/467952217532423204/

The line that does not pass through the optical center may result in a curve that is visible but it is not a guarantee. Where did you find a definition? It is not anywhere near the definition given in Wikipedia: A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image. Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view. Instead of producing images with straight lines of perspective, fisheye lenses use a special mapping, which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

wiltw · Feb 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
The line that does not pass through the optical center may result in a curve that is visible but it is not a guarantee. Where did you find a definition? It is not anywhere near the definition given in Wikipedia: A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image. Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view. Instead of producing images with straight lines of perspective, fisheye lenses use a special mapping, which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

Another example where the world gets more stupid (less well informed) as time goes on, as reflected by the Wikipedia description of fisheye missing the major characteristic of the fisheye! Another example of the axiom, "Don't always believe Wikipedia" that has been around for decades.

From the Olympus book on Olympus lenses, published in 1985:

"Many Types of Fisheye Lenses
...The Zuiko Fisheye 8mm f/2.8 is of the equisolid angle projection type...The effect produced by this type of lens is similar to what you see when you look at the view reflected on a crystal ball or spherical mirror...the line running through the center of the lens remains straight from end to end"
"The 'Diagonal' Fisheye Lens
The other of the two (Olympus) fisheye lenses...is the 16mm f/3.5 ...but unlike the 8mm Fisheye, this lens produces an image which fills the whole picture frame...the image circle is...46mm. This is almost exactly the diagonal of the 35mm picture frame. That is the reason this lens is known as a 'diagonal fisheye'...
It is very effective in taking advantage of the unusual patterns caused by the fisheye's barrel distortion to create 'dream images' fascinatingly different from the way we see with the naked eye...
When the composition in the viewfinder doesn't have too many straight lines, those fisheye distortion characteristics don't show up so strikingly...The fisheye lens is not all distortion, Significantly, the lines that cross through the center of the lens are always straight. "

Sirius Glass · Feb 15, 2022

wiltw said:
Another example where the world gets more stupid (less well informed) as time goes on, as reflected by the Wikipedia description of fisheye missing the major characteristic of the fisheye! Another example of the axiom, "Don't always believe Wikipedia" that has been around for decades.

From the Olympus book on Olympus lenses, published in 1985:

"Many Types of Fisheye Lenses
...The Zuiko Fisheye 8mm f/2.8 is of the equisolid angle projection type...The effect produced by this type of lens is similar to what you see when you look at the view reflected on a crystal ball or spherical mirror...the line running through the center of the lens remains straight from end to end"
"The 'Diagonal' Fisheye Lens
The other of the two (Olympus) fisheye lenses...is the 16mm f/3.5 ...but unlike the 8mm Fisheye, this lens produces an image which fills the whole picture frame...the image circle is...46mm. This is almost exactly the diagonal of the 35mm picture frame. That is the reason this lens is known as a 'diagonal fisheye'...
It is very effective in taking advantage of the unusual patterns caused by the fisheye's barrel distortion to create 'dream images' fascinatingly different from the way we see with the naked eye...
When the composition in the viewfinder doesn't have too many straight lines, those fisheye distortion characteristics don't show up so strikingly...The fisheye lens is not all distortion, Significantly, the lines that cross through the center of the lens are always straight. "

No one disagreed with the line through the center being straight. Read what was written, not what you wanted to see, "The line that does not pass through the optical center may result in a curve that is visible but it is not a guarantee." Even one that a self proclaimed expert can understand that.

wiltw · Feb 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
No one disagreed with the line through the center being straight. Read what was written, not what you wanted to see, "The line that does not pass through the optical center may result in a curve that is visible but it is not a guarantee." Even one that a self proclaimed expert can understand that.

No self-proclaimed expertise, I could back it up with a book published by Olympus as the source of information.
I merely criticized the Wikepedia answer as missing the key characteristic defining 'fisheye'

reddesert · Feb 16, 2022

Colloquially, "fisheye" is used to refer to any lens with a very wide field of view that is significantly different from rectilinear projection. However, there are degrees of difference from rectilinear. As the Olympus reference notes, there are extreme fisheyes that produce a circular image on the detector, which typically have something like a equal-area projection (equal solid angle is the same thing) and a near-180 degree field of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection

However, there are many "full-frame fisheyes" (what Olympus called a diagonal fisheye) and these lenses may have a field of view less than 180 degrees and a projection that is not rectilinear, but not as extreme as equal-area. The wikipedia article on fisheyes has a table of some common projections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens#Mapping_function . Different fisheyes are just different, there is not a single correct fisheye perspective. If you orient a straight subject azimuthally rather than radially in the image, it will typically be distorted into a section of an azimuthal circle, but if the subject only occupies a small segment of the circle, the distortion from straight will not be as noticeable.

A side note about "distortion." The term leads people to think that the rectilinear projection is "correct" and everything else is distorted. Rectilinear projection of 3-D into 2-D space is just one choice. It leads to subjective issues like the egg-shaped stretching of people's heads near the corners of a rectilinear wide-angle lens photograph. Many of us have probably taken a picture of a group of people standing indoors with a wide-angle lens and found this "distortion" at the corners of the image. Of course, it isn't the lens's fault, any rectilinear wide would do the same thing. In fact, a full-frame fisheye would have less of the egg-shaped stretching, but it would cause vertical lines like the people's bodies to be curved.

RoboRepublic · Feb 16, 2022

Thanks to everyone who shared their photos. They are helpful.

I didn't intend to litigate 67 vs 66, I do also wonder why a book by Olympus has made it into this dialogue. I'd like to refrain from that conversation until another time.

I would like to re-submit my initial query:
Has anyone shot both these lenses? If so could you kindly comment on what the experience is to see the world through the 30mm versus the 37 and why you prefer one over the other?

I usually like shooting interiors, if that helps. I'm specifically interested, with respect to the 30mm, if photos will be highly reminiscent of early 90s zany album covers.
Yes, this maybe in part to its square nature, but i believe history and familiarity with that specific angle of view play into it as well.

I'm really trying to target the 'feel' of the lens with out spending the required money for a tourist pass.

Sirius Glass · Feb 16, 2022

wiltw said:
No self-proclaimed expertise, I could back it up with a book published by Olympus as the source of information.
I merely criticized the Wikepedia answer as missing the key characteristic defining 'fisheye'

A Fisheye photograph of a scene or subject that does not have parallel lines, right angles, regular shapes such as polygons or circles will not appear to have distortion. Example: a view of the Grand Canyon when the lens is held level so the horizon does not curve, or a close up of rocks or vegetation. Looking and expecting distortion to be apparent to the eye is not always a good criteria to use to determine whether or not a fisheye lens was used.

Nokton48 · Feb 17, 2022

30 Dist 4x5 Norma Monocular Viewer by Nokton48, on Flickr

30mm Zeiss T* Distagon grafted to Norma Flat Board. No room for a shutter between the standards, Norma Standards may be made to touch, can confirm that. So front lenscap shutter stopped down to optimum stop. You see the entire image circle 180+ around including the lenshood fins intruding, which I think looks kind of cool. Easily focuses from infinity to super close. It will be interesting to see what goes on with this. Will work good for very long exposures. Fun Ahead.

Donald Qualls · Feb 17, 2022

That's sick. In a current generation way, what us old folks would have called "cool."

abruzzi · Feb 18, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
6x7 is not all that much bigger than 6x6.

One thing that one must be aware of with a Fisheye is the location of the photographer's feet. I always check before taking the photograph.

More than that, when I go out with my Bronica fisheye, I can either get my shadow in the shot or the sun in the shot.

Nokton48 · Feb 18, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
That's sick. In a current generation way, what us old folks would have called "cool."

Thanks Donald

30 Dist Hasselblad Rear Mount K2 Filter by Nokton48, on Flickr

The Norma board shown is a real early one, has clips to directly clip 4x5 Bellows for shading.

Hasselblad offered their rear mount as a "Blank" so any Hasselblad lens can be mounted onto any enlarger, camera, or whatever? An obscure accessory for sure found in a parts box for cheap. I'll wager the 40mm Distagon looks good through this? Like a Superwide 500 body, but with full perspective control! And 4x5/9x12 sheet film. On longer focal lengths hopefully the Norma Shutter will fit between the standards. Norma shutter holds 4x4cm ND gels no prob Or their Norma glass discs

Hasselblad Blank Rear Mount from rear Norma Board by Nokton48, on Flickr

Back side of Sinar Norma board, custom fitted with Hasselblad Rear Mount with click mount release. A tight fit to this old board I have been waiting to utilize. So any Hasselblad mount lens can be used on the Normas

coa_lund · Feb 18, 2022

Maris said:
Definitely recommend the Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye.

There are far more interesting rectangular pictures in the world than square ones like the Hasselblad delivers. Sure, the Hasselblad user does not have to accept being straight-jacketed into a square, they can crop, but then the Hasselblad becomes a big, heavy, expensive, 645 camera. The Mamiya, on the other hand, remains a big, heavy, cheap 67 format camera offering a significantly larger usable negative.

The Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye is sharp.

Island, Lake Cootharaba
Gelatin-silver photograph on Freestyle Premium Reserve VC FB, image area 16,4cm X 21.2cm, from an Ilford 120 format SFX 200 negative exposed in a Mamiya RB 67 camera fitted with a 37mm f4.5 fisheye lens and #25 red filter.

coa_lund · Feb 18, 2022

A hasselblad neg is approx. 55x55mm, if you crop to 4:5 you get 44x55mm. A 6x7 neg is usually ca 56x70mm and has 4:5 aspect ratio. The linear dimensions are thus ca 25% bigger than a Hasselblad neg cropped to 4:5

Sirius Glass · Feb 18, 2022

abruzzi said:
More than that, when I go out with my Bronica fisheye, I can either get my shadow in the shot or the sun in the shot.

Great point. I watch and avoid both. Pax

Hasselblad 30mm vs Mamiya 37mm

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency