Hasselblad 500C

[eli griggs]

Nothing in wanting to find out if others know of a scant, no well known possible feature is "stridently wanting that", just a bit of bristling that rather than a authoritative answer, the question elicits negitive reactions that the question is somehow no worth questioning.

I come to Photrio.com and other knowledgeable sites to learn new things and discover old ones as well.

Perhaps Zeiss is the right place to ask questions, but, if anyone else knows for certain, Photrio has members that should be able to share answers too the question, in question.

 

[Axelwik]

Many of the changes (or apparent changes) that lens and camera manufacturers made were/are based on marketing and competition. Nothing wrong with that, but oftentimes the end result is no different. For example, by the 1980s (and certainly earlier) most newer design high end lenses were well corrected for chromatic aberration; a natural evolution of lens design, but they didn't use it as a marketing tool - they simply made a better product. But then the marketing people at one or two manufacturers had to come up with something to increase sales (and increase prices), so they started calling those high end lenses "apochromatic." Then when unwitting photographers clamored to buy this instead of that because it was "A" or "APO" the other manufacturers had to jump on the bandwagon and start stamping "APO" on the side of their lenses without having to do much, if anything, to the design.

When Zeiss and Hasselblad went from C lenses to CF most of the lens formulas didn't change - it was appearance and ergonomics that changed to make them more "modern" to increase sales. A large proportion of the buying public just has to have the "latest and greatest" if only in appearance.

Lens coatings went the same way - there's always been a progression in the quality of lens coatings through the years, but when some manufacturers started using "multicoating" or EBC etc. the other manufacturers had to come up with something similar. Sure, it's easier to make a comparison between the earliest single coated lenses from the 1940s and 1950s and current state of the art multi coatings, but there's probably not much difference between coatings made just before they started using it as a marketing gimmick and just after.

When buying used, lens condition is far more important than if it's T* or not.

 

[BrianShaw]

Nothing in wanting to find out if others know of a scant, no well known possible feature is "stridently wanting that", just a bit of bristling that rather than a authoritative answer, the question elicits negitive reactions that the question is somehow no worth questioning.

I come to Photrio.com and other knowledgeable sites to learn new things and discover old ones as well.

Perhaps Zeiss is the right place to ask questions, but, if anyone else knows for certain, Photrio has members that should be able to share answers too the question, in question.

Rather than ask Zeiss, it might be easier to ask someone who is a professional Hasselblad mechanic, like David Odess. It would be interesting to hear what he thinks.

 

[itsdoable]

EV lock & C vs CF:
The CF lenses were an improvement on the C lenses, in that you could adjust the exposure, or change the shutter/F-stop combo with EV locked easily. The C lenses were just mildly fiddlier, but also worked well. I thought it was a better implementation than Rolleiflex. In the studio, you just learned to use the equipment and got on with it. The CF lenses were easier to service.

APO:
APO was short for apochromatic, which implies an optical correction where where 3 wavelengths focused on the same plane. Most lenses (ie: all those that were not labelled apochromat) are achromats, where 2 wavelengths focused on the same plane. It is an optical term with a very specific meaning. A well designed achromat can be sharper than a poorly designed apochromat. Most of the Zeiss lenses were achromats, unless specified in the name. It is questionable if the modern lenses with the APO label mare actually apochromats, but most optics firms are sticklers about using the correct definitions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

EV lock & C vs CF:
The CF lenses were an improvement on the C lenses, in that you could adjust the exposure, or change the shutter/F-stop combo with EV locked easily. The C lenses were just mildly fiddlier, but also worked well. I thought it was a better implementation than Rolleiflex. In the studio, you just learned to use the equipment and got on with it. The CF lenses were easier to service.

√

APO:
APO was short for apochromatic, which implies an optical correction where where 3 wavelengths focused on the same plane. Most lenses (ie: all those that were not labelled apochromat) are IR820 rolls, where 2 wavelengths focused on the same plane. It is an optical term with a very specific meaning. A well designed achromat can be sharper than a poorly designed apochromat. Most of the Zeiss lenses were achromats, unless specified in the name. It is questionable if the modern lenses with the APO label mare actually apochromats, but most optics firms are sticklers about using the correct definitions.

I have never had a need for an APO and I am happy with my Zeiss non APO lenses.

 

[Axelwik]

√



I have never had a need for an APO and I am happy with my Zeiss non APO lenses.

By most measures your Zeiss lenses are all apochromatic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

By most measures your Zeiss lenses are all apochromatic.

But some are labeled APO.

 

[itsdoable]

By most measures your Zeiss lenses are all apochromatic.

This was the point I was trying to make about the use of "APO", by any measure, most of your Zeiss lenses are NOT apochromats.

Zeiss is very specific,

• Achromat: a lens which corrects light so that two colours lie in the image plane together (two LCA zeroes),
• Apochromat: a lens with correction such that three colours lie together in the image plane (three LCA zeroes)

They specify that this must be true for both Lateral and Longitudinal CA (ie: 3x TCA=0 and 3x LCA=0).

In addition, the lens must perform well in photography before they will put the APO label on it - because meeting the above requirements (which is the definition of the apochromat) does not necessarily guarantee a good lens.

Zeiss only lists one lens for Hasselblad as APO (Tele-ApoTessar 8/500). Except for the 3 SuperAchromats (which have 4 colours on the same plane, but are corrected into the UV and IR), the rest are achromats.

Now Zeiss does say that all Batis lenses are all apochromats, and thus do not need to be labelled such.


But we should get back on topic. A 500c is a worthy piece of equipment, but may need a service to work properly after all those years.

 

[Sean Mac]

But we should get back on topic. A 500c is a worthy piece of equipment, but may need a service to work properly after all those years.

I just bought a 500c body and A12 from 1963

Apparently it was recently serviced and works well. The seller accepts returns.

It's to use with a 80mm f2.8 CF I picked up locally a few weeks ago.

There are a few portraits I want to make on medium format and since I have a nice old Rolleiflex 2.8F for the last twenty or more years the Hasselblad system seems the logical step to take.

I will track down a 150mm Sonnar before the summer is over.

Hopefully I will get along with it....

 

[Sirius Glass]

This was the point I was trying to make about the use of "APO", by any measure, most of your Zeiss lenses are NOT apochromats.

Zeiss is very specific,

• Achromat: a lens which corrects light so that two colours lie in the image plane together (two LCA zeroes),
• Apochromat: a lens with correction such that three colours lie together in the image plane (three LCA zeroes)

They specify that this must be true for both Lateral and Longitudinal CA (ie: 3x TCA=0 and 3x LCA=0).

In addition, the lens must perform well in photography before they will put the APO label on it - because meeting the above requirements (which is the definition of the apochromat) does not necessarily guarantee a good lens.

Zeiss only lists one lens for Hasselblad as APO (Tele-ApoTessar 8/500). Except for the 3 SuperAchromats (which have 4 colours on the same plane, but are corrected into the UV and IR), the rest are achromats.

Now Zeiss does say that all Batis lenses are all apochromats, and thus do not need to be labelled such.


But we should get back on topic. A 500c is a worthy piece of equipment, but may need a service to work properly after all those years.

I just bought a 500c body and A12 from 1963

Apparently it was recently serviced and works well. The seller accepts returns.

It's to use with a 80mm f2.8 CF I picked up locally a few weeks ago.

There are a few portraits I want to make on medium format and since I have a nice old Rolleiflex 2.8F for the last twenty or more years the Hasselblad system seems the logical step to take.

I will track down a 150mm Sonnar before the summer is over.

Hopefully I will get along with it....

I bought my 500mm C from KEH for a special price, since they know me by name and recognize my voice. I put the lens on the camera, both properly cocked. When I pressed the shutter button the camera was jammed by the lens. I took it to Sammy's where they got the lens off the camera. I returned the lens to KEH for a CLA. Because of the design of the lens all the optics has to be removed to CLA the shutter. Then the lens had to be reassembled and collimated. Shipping both ways was paid by KEH. If I had Hasselblad [then] New Jersey do the CLA the cost would have been several times what I paid for the lens.

 

[cliveh]

A Hasselblad is the Rolls Royce of cameras, which is also a systems camera. That means it gives you complete flexibility to switch film backs, lenses and viewfinders. Probably more of a studio camera, but it's Zeiss Planar lenses are the dogs bollocks.

 

[BrianShaw]

Clive, I understand the words but not the idiom. That’s a good thing, I hope?

 

[cliveh]

Clive, I understand the words but not the idiom. That’s a good thing, I hope?

the dog's bollocks

1. a rude phrase for something or someone that you think is extremely good 2. a…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Hasselblad is the Rolls Royce of cameras, which is also a systems camera. That means it gives you complete flexibility to switch film backs, lenses and viewfinders. Probably more of a studio camera, but it's Zeiss Planar lenses are the dogs bollocks.

I use my Hasselblad hand held for every lens except the 500mm lens which is to heavy to hold still at 1/500 second so that lens always goes on the tripod with or without the 2XE extender.

 

[BrianShaw]

I was about to appropriate Clive’s expression but think it might be more appropriate to use with things rather than people, no matter what Cambridge states.

 

[Axelwik]

This was the point I was trying to make about the use of "APO", by any measure, most of your Zeiss lenses are NOT apochromats.

Zeiss is very specific,

• Achromat: a lens which corrects light so that two colours lie in the image plane together (two LCA zeroes),
• Apochromat: a lens with correction such that three colours lie together in the image plane (three LCA zeroes)

They specify that this must be true for both Lateral and Longitudinal CA (ie: 3x TCA=0 and 3x LCA=0).

In addition, the lens must perform well in photography before they will put the APO label on it - because meeting the above requirements (which is the definition of the apochromat) does not necessarily guarantee a good lens.

Zeiss only lists one lens for Hasselblad as APO (Tele-ApoTessar 8/500). Except for the 3 SuperAchromats (which have 4 colours on the same plane, but are corrected into the UV and IR), the rest are achromats.

Now Zeiss does say that all Batis lenses are all apochromats, and thus do not need to be labelled such.


But we should get back on topic. A 500c is a worthy piece of equipment, but may need a service to work properly after all those years.

Every lens manufacturer has different standards.

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, I've wanted one but have resisted. Great design concept but difficult to service or repair, not to mention rather expensive.

Did Hasselblad make a right-hand grip? I haven't seen one.

UPDATE;

I do no know about a R hand Hasselblad grip, but just now, I watched a review of the Vivitar 283 flash gun and it has an indepth review of a Vivitar flash and camera grip which is ambidextrous.

It lacks the quality feel of the Hasselblad tool, I had forgotten I had one at some point, but for a Hasselblad or other camera, it gives you options other makers do no.

The YouTube video is at



Cheers!

 

[Thomas71]

I just bought a 500c body and A12 from 1963

Apparently it was recently serviced and works well. The seller accepts returns.

It's to use with a 80mm f2.8 CF I picked up locally a few weeks ago.

There are a few portraits I want to make on medium format and since I have a nice old Rolleiflex 2.8F for the last twenty or more years the Hasselblad system seems the logical step to take.

I will track down a 150mm Sonnar before the summer is over.

Hopefully I will get along with it....

Sonnar 150 is a beatiful lens, pariculary suitable for portrait: not too sharp and a creamy bokeh. For head portraits I use it with a 8mm extension tube in order to reduce the minimum distance focus.
I have both CT* with Synchro Compur Shutter and CF version.
IMHO CT* version is the best value for money now; the focus ring is harder to turn compared to that of CF, but the CT* overall built quality and handling is better. Even one of the best repair technician confirms that from a mechanical point of view the CT* is better than CF (more plastic here). CT* are priced around 200 eur, very fair price for that glass

 

[bags27]

HB is a wonderful, wonderful camera. I love just about everything about it. But my Mamiya 7 is a true shark: it is streamlined to do only one thing well--take perfectly exposed, sharp-as-a-tack photos. I think I like my HB more 'cause it's a lot cooler and the Zeiss glass is a bit warmer. But no denying that the Mamiya 7 has evolved into the perfect killing machine. And Rolleiflexes are fantastic, too, cause they share the same glass with HB but are streamlined, sort of like the Mamiya but different.

To wit: they and a bunch of other MF film cameras are all just absolutely wonderful.

 

[campy51]

I sold my Hasselblad in favor of my Mamiya 6. Like the 7 the exposures are perfect.

 

[Sean Mac]

Sonnar 150 is a beatiful lens, pariculary suitable for portrait: not too sharp and a creamy bokeh. For head portraits I use it with a 8mm extension tube in order to reduce the minimum distance focus.
I have both CT* with Synchro Compur Shutter and CF version.
IMHO CT* version is the best value for money now; the focus ring is harder to turn compared to that of CF, but the CT* overall built quality and handling is better. Even one of the best repair technician confirms that from a mechanical point of view the CT* is better than CF (more plastic here). CT* are priced around 200 eur, very fair price for that glass

Hi Thomas, thanks for taking the time to share your advice. It will be a few more weeks before I start looking for a Sonnar 150. I didn't really plan to buy a Hasselblad until next year so my bank balance needs a little time to recover.

For now I'm enjoying the experience of using the camera with the 80mm lens and gathering a few of the little accessories like filter adapters, lens hoods, straps and a comfortable way to carry it.

Best wishes...

 

[Thomas71]

Hi Thomas, thanks for taking the time to share your advice. It will be a few more weeks before I start looking for a Sonnar 150. I didn't really plan to buy a Hasselblad until next year so my bank balance needs a little time to recover.

For now I'm enjoying the experience of using the camera with the 80mm lens and gathering a few of the little accessories like filter adapters, lens hoods, straps and a comfortable way to carry it.

Best wishes...

Hi Sean enjoy your Hassie. It's a beauty, versatile complete system.
In the future you can integrate it with a Sonnar 150 (as I said CT* version is not expensive compared to MF standard) and an additional A12 back

Cheers

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sonnar 150 is a beatiful lens, pariculary suitable for portrait: not too sharp and a creamy bokeh. For head portraits I use it with a 8mm extension tube in order to reduce the minimum distance focus.
I have both CT* with Synchro Compur Shutter and CF version.
IMHO CT* version is the best value for money now; the focus ring is harder to turn compared to that of CF, but the CT* overall built quality and handling is better. Even one of the best repair technician confirms that from a mechanical point of view the CT* is better than CF (more plastic here). CT* are priced around 200 eur, very fair price for that glass

My 150mm CF is my least used lens, but then I do not take portraits. I use the 38mm[SWC], 50mm and 80mm the most and the 250mm when I need a long lens.

 

[Axelwik]

I had a 150, but got rid of it in favor of a 120. My Hasselblad lenses are now 38 (SWC), 60, 120, 250, and 500.

 

[Edgy01]

Find someone with one and go try it out. Not everyone likes them.

I have one of each model—503CW, 500EL/M, and the 903SW. With several lenses and work for me, but find one before you spend $2200. Try to get the CF lenses as the older C lenses with the older shutters are more prone to wear.