Very true.On my recent week long trip to San Francisco, I took my 30mm Fisheye and the 903 SWC only for walking around the city. After a while the Fisheye got to be really HEAVY.
Very true.
Kudos on your lenses choice by the way, both at one extreme of the "focal length rainbow." The 30mm and SWC are so different indeed, it makes a lot of sense.
I find that the SWC is a perfect "one camera kit" for travel. I like to take mine on trips, particularly in cities.
One of the major numerous advantages of the SWC, besides the superior optical system, is the small, light and easy to handle mirrorless (so avant-garde) concept.
It allows handheld shooting, full open aperture, at very low exposure speeds in poor ambient lightning conditions with lots of atmosphere...
Congratulations. You will love it I am sure. Please let us know what you think about it. Some say "it's neither fish nor meat", not wide enough for a wide and too wide for a standard. I disagree with this statement- to me it is a very versatile focal length on the Hasselblad. And the lens is quite small (much smaller than my 50mm CFi in any case!) So I, for one, am interested to hear what you think of itI now have the 60mm lens and it looks to be a keeper. I'll be working with it to decide that I'm going to go with it instead of the 50mm, but since I'll definitely be bringing the SWC/M, I think the 60mm will fit better in the kit.
I now just need to figure out the long lens to go along for the city shooting.
Plus, it is the perfect standard lens if you ever decide to complement your Hassy kit with a d*g*t*l back. (I know, the D word is forbidden here)
I now have the 60mm lens and it looks to be a keeper. I'll be working with it to decide that I'm going to go with it instead of the 50mm, but since I'll definitely be bringing the SWC/M, I think the 60mm will fit better in the kit.
I now just need to figure out the long lens to go along for the city shooting.
Yes, the 60mm works very well with a digi back and offers a great, versatile field of view on a crop-factor sensor such as the 33x44mm used in the recent backs. Also, Hasselblad's idea of standard lenses for X1D/X2D are the 65mm and the newly introduced 55mm. 60mm is right in the middle!were *amazing*. He pretty much used a 50mm as his standard, but personally I'd probably prefer that 60mm, it's just a bit more compact while not becoming too "long" on digital.
I now have the 60mm lens and it looks to be a keeper. I'll be working with it to decide that I'm going to go with it instead of the 50mm, but since I'll definitely be bringing the SWC/M, I think the 60mm will fit better in the kit.
I now just need to figure out the long lens to go along for the city shooting.
Yes, the 60mm works very well with a digi back and offers a great, versatile field of view on a crop-factor sensor such as the 33x44mm used in the recent backs. Also, Hasselblad's idea of standard lenses for X1D/X2D are the 65mm and the newly introduced 55mm. 60mm is right in the middle!
This has been done with the 60mm CF, CFV 50c ii back and very little post processing, mainly a bit of cropping and reducing the dynamic range to push the background into black like a slide film would. The most difficult part was to hold the camera vertically...
View attachment 330234
You have come to the right place. I own the 30mm Fisheye, 38mm 903 SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm and 500mm lenses and the 2XE extender. I have heard that the 180mm is somewhat better than the 150mm. The 500mm lens is a tripod only shooting lens.
I recommend:
I have found little use a long lens on a vacation, especially in Europe. For travelling I would talk the 50mm and 80mm lenses OR SWC, 50mm and 80mm lenses. <=== that is what I used for Paris, Normandy and the Loire Valley. For me I think the 100mm is a bit long.
- 50mm, 80mm and 250mm the 80mm to 150mm is not enough of a change OR
- 60mm, 100mm and 250mm
My friend, only 5 more to go - 30, 38, (40 is not needed if you have a 38), 100, 135, 350.Now i have 50, 60, 80, 120, 150, 180, 250 (all CF except the 50)
Life was easier with no choice
Agree, this will work well. If you decide for your SWC you can probably leave the 50 at home.good advise! take he 50 and 80 andbe done with it! You won't miss much.
All this talk about 60/100/180 made me think about it too.
I already have the 180 which is great, it usually replaces the 150 and 250.
The 100mm Planar is certainly something i long for, but i decided against it at the moment as i would need a 200 series body for the kind of stuff i want to do with it.
So the 60 Distagon moved into my focus. I have the old C 50 Distagon and CF 80 Planar.
For photo trips in the mountains, i would love to carry only two lenses, but a wide angle will be needed. 50 + 180 is a bit too far spaced for me and the C 50 is a heavy beast.
With the additional 80 in between, the kit becomes too heavy.
That's why i decided to get the 60 CF Distagon.
Advantages for me:
- It is lighter than the 50
- has B60 filter mount instead of VII series like the C50, so i can use the same filters on everything
- wide angle but not too much, so i can use it instead of the 80
- far more movements on the Flexbody than the 50
We will see how i fare with the 60+180 combination. Has not arrived yet, but i will try it as soon as possible.
Now i have 50, 60, 80, 120, 150, 180, 250 (all CF except the 50)
Life was easier with no choice
@etn: funny enough, i usually have a companion who is able to carry excess gear if necessary, altough he doesn't look as donkey-ish as the one on your picture
The 350mm Superachromat is the lens i want to buy in case i win the lottery. I like depth-compression.
Just for information, as i do not want to divert the thread: Ladislav Kamarad also used this Lens, but he said that the film flatness of non-vacuum backs is
not enough in every case and he explained his view in an blog entry on his page. https://www.horolezec.cz/blog-photography/hasselblad-vacuum-backs-magazines-for-roll-films-220
@Alex Varas: This is what i also expect. There will be a situation someteimes where i wish i had the 50mm at hand but being able to travel lightweight and fast is of higher importance to me.
The most difficult settings will be the ones that do not require much hiking, but offer a lot of geological structures as this stuff calls for the Flexbody and ideally the 120 Makro Planar, so i have to
carry even more stuff.
The 100mm Planar will have to wait until i have to funds to also get a 200 F body.
This has been done with the 60mm CF, CFV 50c ii back and very little post processing, mainly a bit of cropping and reducing the dynamic range to push the background into black like a slide film would. The most difficult part was to hold the camera vertically...
If you shot 6x6 instead of 645 you would not have to roll the camera over to shoot vertically. Shoot square.
Ahhh. Nice shot, but you've pointed out one of the reasons I'll probably never buy a Hasselblad digital back--you can't rotate the back itself to get vertical shots. With my Sinarback and with Phase One backs, you can just take the back off and rotate it to do that. It's not as convenient as an RB or RZ, but it certainly works better than flipping a Hasselblad V series 90 degrees, whether handheld or on a tripod.
Alas, if someone made a square digital back, particularly a full 6x6, I'm sure he--and I certainly--would be very happy to use one, assuming we could afford it. Unfortunately, digital back manufacturers have settled on the 3x4 ratio for their medium format sensors. For good enough reason, really. I suppose you could just crop the image to the square--but why do that and throw away the extra, perfectly good pixels?
Let us know when someone comes out with a square sensor digital back (which even Hasselblad hasn't done for the backs designed for use on V series cameras). Until then we'll have to kludge it whenever shooting digital with a Hasselblad V series camera. And there's no reason not to do that--digital is just as fun and spectacular on a 'Blad as film is.
If the digital technology had advanced faster so that they could make a big 6x6 sensor in a cost effective manner before all the old film bodies disappeared, it may have happened, because there was a market of existing bodies that it could have been employed on easily, but now, I don't see it happening
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?