Hasselblad: 60 or 80 as "standard" lens

I am thinking of wading back into the Hasselblad waters after shooting a lot of MF film using folders and rangefinders. I would like something more precise.
I also shoot 35mm, and I find I enjoy the 40mm focal length a lot. It feels like a loose 50 or a slightly tight 35. So I have been thinking about using the 60mm on a Hassy as my everyday lens. I am also interested in the 100mm somewhere down the line, and I think the 60-100 combo might be a pretty good one.
My question is: am I missing something by skipping the 80mm? I realize there is a slight speed advantage, but is the 80 good wide open? (the 60 seems to be, from what I have read). Is there a significant size advantage to the 80? Is there something I am not thinking of that I will come to regret later?
Anyone with some experience here with insights to share?
Thanks!

Your not missing anything. My standard on 6x6 is 50mm. If I had a 60mm I would probably use it instead. On my old Blad system I had 50, 80 and 150 which covered everything I needed. That and some closeup rings and a 2X teleconverter. Very compact kit and weighted less than my 35mm kit.

3.5 vs 2.8

If "normal" isn't your present vision then your not missing a thing. But for me "wide" gets boring fast so I use the 80 and, more often, 150.

An 80mm lens on 6x6 is closer to the perspective of a 40mm on on 35mm than it is to a 50mm 'normal'. So if you're into 40mm, go with an 80. If you're into a 50mm, go with the 100mm, if you're into 35mm, go with the 60mm. Basically, both lenses may be wider than you expect.

Wildcard: Get a Rolleiflex.

I've got a 105mm for my Mamiya C220f. I really like it outdoors but found it a bit too long sometimes indoors for shooting people because I can't back up enough. I ended up adding an 80mm to my kit. Like you said, a 60/100 could be a good combination as is also an 80/150. It all depends upon what you shoot.

Consider AOV in this manner, rather than the flawed diagonal measure vs. FL (since aspect ratios are so very different!)

1. You like 40mm FL on 135, whose frame height is 1.67 * Frame Height
2. 1.67 * 56mm = 94mm FL on 6x6 (Hassy)

...same AOV along the frame vertical with both formats is achieved with those FL

80mm FL on 6x6 is actually very, very close to 35mm FL on 135 format, in terms of vertical AOV seen in the viewfinder.

What throws things off is if you print 6x6 to the easier to find frame size fitting 8x10 ...all of a sudden instead of using 56mm tall image, you use on 45mm of the image, so effectively you actually need to use 65mm FL on 6x6 to frame the same vertical AOV as 35mm FL on 135 format. So if you like 40mm FL on 135, you need 75mm FL on 6x6 for identical vertical AOV if both are printed to 8x10 (cropping vertically on 6x6 image, and cropping horizontally on 135 image).

BrianShaw said:

If "normal" isn't your present vision then your not missing a thing. But for me "wide" gets boring fast so I use the 80 and, more often, 150.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And I see no problems with the 80mm shot wide open. If anything, it has more character at the wide apertures.

I use a CF, but the C version of the 80mm looks significantly more compact.

A few comments from my side too - for what they are worth.

If 80mm is your thing and you don't plan to have other lenses, you're better off with a Rolleiflex. Hasselblad's strong points are interchangeable backs and (particularly) lenses.

Skipping the 80 can be a good idea, but not because of performance. Hasselblad lenses range from "very good" to "exceptional". So base your decision on the field of view, purpose (e.g. macro) and price of the lenses you intend to buy. Yes, you can replace a 80 by a 60, a 100, or (ideally) both. The 60mm and 100mm are very complementary and among the best (together with the 180mm) of the Hassy lineup. So to answer your question directly, in my opinion you will not miss anything by skipping the 80 and going directly to the 60 and/or 100. I have a 80mm which came as a kit with the body and which I now rarely use, my go-to kit consisting of 60/100/180. Be aware that all these lenses trade for higher prices than the 80, though.

About that 2/3 of a stop. It does not represent that much of a difference in practice. Depth of field (or lack thereof) is similar between 80mm at f/2.8 and, say, 100mm at f/3.5. About the extra light: If you shoot handheld you will typically load a sensitive enough film (e.g. 400 ISO) so you will not require the f/2.8. And if you use a tripod you will not use the full aperture anyway. I personally never had a problem with the wide-open performance of the 80mm. Obviously a tripod shot at f/5.6 or f/8 will be "sharper" - if that matters. A good picture is a good picture, even taken with the 80mm at f/2.8. No one will ever tell you "This picture would have been better if taken with a different lens." And if you were a pixel peeper you would post on a digital forum, not on APUG

As a side note, I realized that it never worked for me to compare 24x36 and 6x6 focal lengths. The format is just too different.

I also always say: whatever the lens you chose to start with, you will own them all eventually

Have fun, hope this helps, and thanks for reading my long post!

BrianShaw said:

If "normal" isn't your present vision then your not missing a thing. But for me "wide" gets boring fast so I use the 80 and, more often, 150.

Click to expand...

This reminds me that when choosing a lens, a slight wide angle feels somehow more 'comfortable' or usable to me. But when I review my photos (and I'm sorry to say a lot of those taken by other people) those lenses often produce very boring images. The short tele's are harder to use, but I find the results are worth the effort.

(I hesitate slightly in posting this, as the guy seems to get a lot of stick, especially regarding the way he chooses to expose his images, but anyway...)

http://www.johnnypatience.com/

According to his blog, he only shoots an 80mm on his Hasselblad, and always at f2.8. He doesn't seem to have any problems creating lovely photographs. And yes, you read that right: he only shoots his lenses wide open

FujiLove said:

And yes, you read that right: he only shoots his lenses wide open

Click to expand...

Perhaps his aperture mechanism is defective?

etn said:

Perhaps his aperture mechanism is defective?

Click to expand...

No, it's because he's an ARTIIIIIST

"ARTIIIIST" or not, I have to say I like many of his shots. Others, like this one, would have been better with more depth of field, or (if minimal DOF is mandatory for artistic reasons) a different focus point:
http://www.johnnypatience.com/project/2508/

I find that the 80mm is wide enough for most situations. If I need wide I can use the 50mm lens or the SWC. My 150mm lens is the least used. I use the 250mm lens often.
I have the SWc [38mm], 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm, 500mm, and 2XE extender.

I've got a 500CM, 500ELX, SWC 38, 40 (superfluous now), 50, 80, 150, and a 2x converter (not Hasselblad). I'm not a telephoto guy so I'm done in Hasselblad.

It was not my original plan, but over the years I ended up having then all up to the 180 (30 and 40mm excepted. The 30 is too extreme and I don't need the 40 along a SWC).

Thanks everyone for the responses, insights, and ideas. I think I will just try the 80 to start; I can always branch out if I feel I need something else. Like a SWC...

Oldwino said:

Like a SWC...

Click to expand...

Not cheap but worth every cent. (besides, SWC hardly depreciate so you can always sell it if you don't like it!)

Be prepared for a different style of shooting. The learning curve might be steep. But be prepared to be amazed at the results!

etn said:

Not cheap but worth every cent. (besides, SWC hardly depreciate so you can always sell it if you don't like it!)

Be prepared for a different style of shooting. The learning curve might be steep. But be prepared to be amazed at the results!

Click to expand...

Actually, I owned one of those several years ago, and let it go. One of my regrets, camera-wise!

One more thing about the 80mm over the 60mm lens as a normal lens. The 60mm lens, just because it is wider angle, is going to show more vertical convergence if not level than the 80mm in the same position.

With respect to 35mm film, I gravitate to a 35mm lens as my "standard".
With 6x4.5, I gravitate to a 55mm lens as my "standard".
With 6x6 and my Mamiya C330, I've settled on two lenses: a 65mm and a 135mm tandem.
With 6x7, I gravitate to a 65mm lens as my "standard" - don't even have anything between 65mm and 140mm.
So for me, it would be the 60mm.

Oldwino, I share your love of the 40mm on 135 cameras. It simply FEELS right. I could leave a 40mm (or 43mm) on my camera 90% of the time.

This definitely carried over to medium format. I have mostly shot 645, or 6x6 (which I crop to an 8x10, so same thing as 645.) On my Bronica ETR (645) the 60mm lens was exactly what I needed. I have happily shot entire vacations with just the Bronica 60mm.

There is a big difference between the 60mm and something a bit tighter. Whether that's a 75mm on the Bronica (645) or a 75mm on an older Rollei (6x6) or an 80mm on Rollei, the longer lenses FEEL too long. They feel like shooting a 50mm on a 135 camera.

Short answer: go for the 60!

Both are great lenses in their own right, I have both and it helps me to better space lens arrays in a way that favors the wide or telephoto end.

I have, 40mm FLE, 50mm FLE, 60mm CFi, 80mm CF, 100mm CFi, 120mm S-Planar, 180mm CF, 350mm CF and 1.4XE. By far my favorite combo is the 60mm and 100mm with the 180mm as a third lens add on. If I want to use the 50mm, then I sub the 60 & 100 for the 80mm and 180, a wider but very able spread.

I tried a friend's SWC for a few days and did not like the workflow at all, passed on it in favor of the 40 and have come out much better because of it.

And if I want to really be simple / light, I just grab my Rolleiflex 2.8D...;-)

I have both the 80mm and the 60mm. (and a 50mm, 120mm and 250mm).

I started with the 60mm and ended up adding an 80 when I found one for a very attractive price. I didn't expect to use it much as I have a Rolleiflex with an 80mm 2.8, but I have found I use the lens much more heavily than I expected to, for numerous reasons.

1. The 80mm is smaller and lighter than the 60mm, and if I am carrying just the camera and one lens (I often just throw it over my shoulder and forgo a bag if I am doing a lot of walking) it is the most comfortable.

2. 3.5 v 2.8 isn't a big difference... but sometimes it's the difference you need, and when you are working with a falling sun or similar being able to move to the 2.8 can help you get the shot (this is happened to me more times than I would have expected. If you always use a tripod it is of course less of an issue).

3. I like having the ability to make 'small' steps in focal length when working on a particular composition. This is rarely essential if you can just reposition your self, but for certain interiors or studio situations it can be really useful to just change your frame a little bit.

Both lenses are more than acceptable wide open, and both couple very well with extension tubes for close up work. The 60mm is technically more 'perfect' but it something I rarely or ever notice in practice. I travel internationally semi-frequently and often take a Hasselblad kit as I will end up having a few dedicated days for photography - but 75% of the time the kit stays in my room and the 80mm comes out with me.

That being said, if I only had two lenses it would absolutely be the 60mm and the 120mm.
If I could have only one lens, it would be the 120mm on the Hasselblad (and a Rolleiflex!)