Hasselblad 60mm or 80mm

[ishutteratthethought]

Hello folks,
I have a question regarding a Hasselblad purchase I will be making this week. I regrettably sold my last blad to move to large format. I do not regret going to large format, just selling the blad to get there.
The gentleman I am purchasing from has a real clean 501C/M kit and has offered me the choice of a 60mm lens or a 80mm lens with the kit.
I have neither and cannot afford both at the moment.
Question is which one would you choose? The kit will be the same price either way. I would really like the 60mm however I feel I would use the 80 more…..such a dilemma.
I believe they are both CFT lenses.
Thanks for your input.
Steve

 

[archphoto]

I would go for the 60mm anytime.
As you know it is more wide and more expensive. The 80 can be bought later for less money.

I am in more or less the same position: getting a RB67 together with little money.
I made a list what I want with the RB and buy what can be bought, the complete set will come eventualy.

Good luck !

Peter

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would recommend getting the 80mm lens first.

While is 60mm lens is good, I do not feel that it has wide enough angle from the 80mm to make it worth the money. Hold off until you can afford the 50mm lens. You will be happier. Thus the 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm selection.

However, as archphoto points out, the 60mm lens is more expensive. The 100mm lens is the sharpest of the Hasselblad lenses. Thus the 60mm, 100mm, 250mm selection.

Steve

 

[Willie Jan]

I sold my 80mm and kept the 60.
When on location i often found the 80 to tele, where elements just were outside the picture.
The 60 helped me here. Because when traveling i could not take all the lenses, this was a good comprimise.
Besides that i like to double the lenses, i own the 60,120 macro and the 250.

When you shoot interiors or something i would get the 40...

 

[archphoto]

It is actualy allways the same problem we all face at one time or an other:
For 4x5 inch I have the 58XL, 72XL, 75, 115, 150, 210W and a Imagon,
For my SL 66 I have the 50, 80 and 150 (and use the 80 hardly)
For the RB I want the 50, 90, 127 and 180, the 127 I have, the rest is still to come.....

It is a lot easier when you can use zoomlenses: I have a range from 14-300mm on 35mm with 3 lenses

 

[mgb74]

I'm with archphoto on this one. All things equal (price and condition), I'd preserve your options and go with the 60mm. You should have no trouble later selling the 60 and getting the 80 if you so desire. You might find the 60 works well for you. The only drawback is the 60mm is not seriously wide on 6x6.

Not sure how you intend to use the Hasselblad but, as I look at your APUG portfolio, it seems that you tend to "go wide".

 

[outwest]

I have the 50, 60, 80, 100, 150 and 250. The 50 is the least used. With its extra width comes extra height making the foreground overly critical. I prefer the 60 to the 80 as an all round lens.

 

[pgomena]

Take a look at your own work and see how you "see." I tend to be a normal-to-short-tele lens guy, and I find the 80mm a bit wide on many occasions. I find use my 120 a lot.

I also have a 50mm, and it is the perfect answer sometimes. Other times, I wish I had a 40mm. Or a 60. Oh, hell, I want them all. You might consider building a 50/100/150 kit. So many decisions, so little money.

As others have said, the 60mm is the more expensive lens. If you have any doubts, you will not lose any money on it.

Peter Gomena

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have the 50, 60, 80, 100, 150 and 250. The 50 is the least used. With its extra width comes extra height making the foreground overly critical. I prefer the 60 to the 80 as an all round lens.

You must be in really good shape!

I carry my 500 CX, two A12 backs, film, filters, 2x extender, PME, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm and 250mm lenses in a top loading backpack. That is enough to constitute my fitness program. I only strap on my tripod [very heavy in its own right] when I am absolutely sure that I will need it.

Didn't Edward Weston say that there was nothing worth photographing more than 100 yards away? Or was that someone else?

Steve

 

[jordanstarr]

If you're getting them for the same price, go 60 and you can get the 80 later for a couple hundred bucks as opposed to $500 that the 60 usually sells for. That being said, I have the 40, 60, 80, 150 combo for my Hassey and I use the 60mm 55% of the time, the 80mm 30% of the time. It really comes down to style of shooting though.

 

[Q.G.]

I would go for the 60 mm lens too.

For the same financial reason that was given a couple of times already.

And because it is such a nice focal length.
It's the ideal walk-about all-purpose lens, able to take on a wider variety of 'situations' the also very versatile 80 mm lens can tackle. I often pair it with the 150 mm lens in my lightweight-kit, and hardly ever feel the need for a different lens then.

 

[arigram]

You don't say what you will be shooting.
If you continue with the same subject matter of landscapes, maybe the slight wide angle lens could be more up your alley, as wider is usually preferred by landscapists. A "normal" lens will always appear more formal and structured than any other lens that changes the viewing angles and often gives an exaggerated perspective.
Often photographers will pair the "austerity" of the square with the normal lens to enhance those qualities.
But that is up to the aesthetics and philosophy of the photographer and only you can make the decision.
Sure, you can look up the charts and compare the technical differences, but that is secondary to your vision coupled with the right lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You don't say what you will be shooting.
If you continue with the same subject matter of landscapes, maybe the slight wide angle lens could be more up your alley, as wider is usually preferred by landscapists. A "normal" lens will always appear more formal and structured than any other lens that changes the viewing angles and often gives an exaggerated perspective.
Often photographers will pair the "austerity" of the square with the normal lens to enhance those qualities.
But that is up to the aesthetics and philosophy of the photographer and only you can make the decision.
Sure, you can look up the charts and compare the technical differences, but that is secondary to your vision coupled with the right lens.

Good points. The 80mm lenses some consider to be somewhat unflattering for portraits and therefore the 100mm lenses is better for portraits.

Steve

 

[ishutteratthethought]

I do shoot a lot of landscapes as seen posted here on APUG however I do shoot a lot of other images as well that are not posted but are exhibited in my shows. To ask what I will be shooting in the future? I do not have that answer, depends on the day. I do like the square format I have had in the past which was a Hasselblad 501c. I had this camera for many years before selling it. Whatever format I am shooting at the time determines how I approach framing and capturing shot. I am leaning towards the 60 right now.

Thanks to all for your input. Much appreciated!!
Steve

 

[arigram]

As I final note, I would like to add that I personally use the 80 for most of my work (I also have a 120, a 180 and the 40). Its the lens that I will use when I am not interested in a close up or an exaggerated perspective and want to approach the subject or scene and frame it with my own viewpoint. With a wide or a telephoto you either step closer or further away from the subject or scene, visually and physically.

 

[edtbjon]

If they are both the same generation (CF T*) and have about the same mileage, the answer is definitely the 60mm. I recon the normal going-price at *bay is at least double for the 60 over the 80. There are lots of 80's to choose from at any time all over the place, while you have to look for the 60, at least at a decent price.
But what is more important is whether you like a slight wide-angle over the normal lens. While I don't have a 60, I know I like it, like I loved the 35mm on my Leicas. (Those were the days...)

//Björn

 

[Resoman]

I've got a 503CW with 80mm 2.8. Personally, I'd rather have the 60mm...

Gary,
East Snook, TX

 

[eddym]

As others have said, it really depends on what kinds of lenses you prefer to work with. With my first Hasselblad I owned a 60, 80 and 150. I did not find the 60 too close to the 80; on the contrary, it was just wide enough to use in tight situations or when I wanted more field but without any "wide angle distortion." I would rather do without the 80 than the 60. But it's really a very personal choice.
My gut feeling: don't let that 60 get away!

 

[MattKing]

Is there a significant advantage one way or the other in close-focus capabilities, and would that matter to you?

Otherwise, I would suggest the 60mm, even if they had the same market value.

You should keep in mind however that my favourite lenses are 35mm and 85mm (for my 35mm cameras) and 65mm and 135mm (for my Mamiya TLRs) and 55mm and 110mm (for my Mamiya M645s).

Matt

 

[Nokton48]

I've got the 40, 50, 60, several 80's, 100, 120, 150, 250, and 350.

I'd go for the 60mm, myself as a one-lens. But the 80 is great, as well. Does depend on your vision. 60mm does sell 2x-3x cost.

 

[TimVermont]

60mm Distagon in a heartbeat, and later I'd skip an 80 in favor of the superb 100.

 

[Q.G.]

I think i'll make it my (next) mission to redress the appreciation of the 80 mm lens relative to that of the 100 mm lens.

The 100 mm is great. But the only thing it really does better than the 80 mm is have extremely low distortion.
It is sharper than the 80 mm, but only (!) when both lenses are compared wide open while used at infinity.
The low distortion does not increase when focussing closer, but as far as sharpness is concerned, if there is a difference at closer range, the 80 mm is the one that performs best.

So unless you really abhor the minute amount of distortion the 80 mm displays, and use your lens only at infinity, and wide open exclusively ...

If the 100 mm is "superb", so is the 80 mm.

 

[ishutteratthethought]

I ended up getting the 501 c/m with Distigon 60, absolutely beautiful shape. Thanks to all for your input. The guy was kind enough to throw in a 70mm back with canisters, Hasselblad shade, bunch of film and PM5 finder.....nice!
I thought I had the A12 back but it came with the A24 - I think I can I shoot 120 on the A24 ....would this be true?
Thanks,
Steve

 

[mgb74]

I'm sure you'll be pleased with it. Sounds like a good deal - does he have any more Hasselblad "stuff"?

I'm told you can use 120 in a 220 back with a theoretical loss of sharpness due to the backing paper. (Some say they can tell the difference but most say no). I've seen the same type of response where the issue is mismatched s/n between the back and insert.

If you want to try a C12 back for comparison with your 24 back, let me know.

 

[Q.G.]

There is no (!) loss of sharpness when running 120 film through a 220 film back. Not even theroretically.
Whoever tells such things simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.
(I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but that's how it is. Can't make anything else of it.)

What you do run into, however, is spacing problems.
The spacing is regulated by assumptions about the diameter of the take-up spool, and what length is transported with every subsequent revolution of the take up spool.
120 film is thicker, so the diameter grows faster than anticipated, leading to increasingly wide gaps between frames, so much so that you may lose the 12th frame off the end of the film.

Why not get some 220 film?
Kodak Portra 160 NC is one of the best colour films available, and still readily available in 220 size. Other films are available too.
B&W choices are a bit limited, but still, you can get some B&W 220 film to run through the back.