Hasselblad 500 cm + 100mm Planar, for me?

[Mewael]

I love my Rolleiflex but I want a slightly different camera. I've shoot with Rolleiflex mostly for years and I'm slightly bored of the 80mm focal length - I want something slightly longer. Well a Hasselblad with a 100mm lens came to mind.

Questions,

1. How is using this camera compared to a Rolleiflex, for hand-held use? Is it moderately ergonomic. I believe that the Rolleiflex is generally regarded as a superior camera to use without a tripod, and I can understand why.
2. How is the manual focusing. What is the best all-matte screen? I don't like split-image. I've tried numerous Rolleiflex's and I don't find any of the screens that difficult to focus with.
3. How is the flare control for the 100mm planar?

 

[Douglas Fairbank]

I am biased but I think the ergonomics of the Hasselblad are better, no need to change hands to focus. The Hasselblad has a moving mirror of course so the Rolleiflex wins in the hand held category.
Focussing is easy, the Acutte Matte D screen is considered the best by many people but there are lots to choose from.
The 100mm lens is one of Hasselblad's very best.

 

[bdial]

The ergonmics of either camera are fine, just different, On the Hasselblad you're focusing with a ring on the lens rather than a knob on the body.

I prefer a 45 degree prism finder to the Hasselblad WLF, but when I used a Rollei I was fine with just the WLF. I think the prism improves the Hasselblad's ergonomics a little. Part of that comes from the fact that I like to use a Rollei's sports finder though.
Either one is fine to hand-hold

I hate the standard screen, and prefer either a micro-prism or split image screen, but if the plain screen is what you like the standard one should be fine. The Accute Matte's are brighter, but I've never used one.

I've never used the 100, but all other things being equal (which they are not) it would be my preference to an 80. Flare should be fine, especially if you get one of the newer T* copies.

 

[mike c]

Used the Hasselblad hand held and more recently tripod mounted,it is heavier than my Rolliecord which I use more these days and is lighter. The Hasselblad has a natural feel in my hands hand held and the Rollie feels a little more ackward hand held. Have a Accute matt screen in the Hasselblad that works very nice but would not pay more than a $100.00 for one, got mine for $60.00.

Never used the 100mm, I would buy one for $60.00 .

 

[Alan Gales]

There is really not that much difference in focal length between an 80mm and a 100mm lens on 6x6. If you are bored with the 80mm then I would think that you would be just as bored with the 100mm.

Now if you owned a Hasselblad with the 100mm, 180mm and maybe a 60mm I don't think you would get bored at all.

 

[pgomena]

I find the 80mm lens on either my Hasselblad or my Rollei a little too wide in many circumstances. I find the 120 Macro-Planar often best suits my vision. As for hand-holding, I wouldn't do it with either camera at less than 1/250 sec. (I almost never hand hold either camera.)

 

[jspillane]

I haven't got a Hasselblad 100mm, but I can say the obvious about my shooting experiences with both cameras:

Rolleiflex: Light, quiet, lovely, great handheld but awkward on a tripod
Hasselblad: Heavier but manageable, versatile, good handheld but better on a tripod

Negatives won't know the difference, both are capable of more than 99% of photographers, I'd guess.
If you want a 'longer' feeling, I would suggest looking at the 120mm Makro(or S)Planar. It provides the most "wow" factor of any lens I have used. If you want a true MF telephoto experience but can't cough up for an 180mm, the 250mm's are plentiful and quite cheap (esp. in C variant).

If you aren't attached to 6x6/Zeiss, I'd look at the Pentax 67 and 165mm 2.8 and/or 105 2.4.

 

[Xmas]

The 100 is a nice lens, better MTF

If you domain is portraits or scenes it is a better lens for perspective and isolation.

If you need different lenses or large apertures and are not in a warm studio a Mamiya C330 TLR is a better option, than rolli or blad for film kink/flatness.

The Blad is noisy compared with your flex. If you threat it as a portable in a gbag with a few backs and lenses the weight increases a lot.

 

[tony lockerbie]

They are really different beasts but both are wonderful in their own right. I tend to bolt the Hasselblad on a tripod, but rarely the Rollei, and like you I tend to get bored with the 80. Agree about the 120 S-planar, great lens, and I really like the 150mm Sonnar, the lens I use most on the Hassy.
I have heard nothing but glowing reports about the 100mm, but it is close to the 80.

 

[GarageBoy]

150 Sonnars and 250 Sonnars are cheap these days
The 100 Planar still commands a premium (it's Zeiss's most "technically perfect" lens in the Hasseblad line up, along with the superachromats)

 

[Slixtiesix]

I think it all depends on the purpose. If you want to do architectural shots, get the 100mm. If you want to do portraiture, I would rather recommend the 120mm lens or even longer, though it is possible with the 100mm if you don´t get too close. 100mm is not so much a difference compared to 80mm. It is good as an allround lens though, because it is more compact than the 120mm.

 

[Xmas]

I think it all depends on the purpose. If you want to do architectural shots, get the 100mm. If you want to do portraiture, I would rather recommend the 120mm lens or even longer, though it is possible with the 100mm if you don´t get too close. 100mm is not so much a difference compared to 80mm. It is good as an allround lens though, because it is more compact than the 120mm.

The disadvantages of the 100 mm

- larger than 80mm
- slower
- little heavier

might be more difficult to get one easier to sell.

You might need a 60mm more...