Hasselblad - Holy Trinity or 60-100-180?

[ic-racer]

In the Rolleiflex 6x6 SLR system I use 40, 50, 80, 120.

 

[etn]

I carry the 60 and 120 with my Hasselblad. Seems that's all I need most of the time. I found the 180 an awkward lens to use, very heavy and weighted to the front.

+1 on the first part of that message. 60mm and 120 will get you covered for a lot.

I disagree with the second part, the 180 is one of my favorite lenses and very often used. It "resonates" better with me than the 150, in the same way that I prefer the 120 to the 100 even for general photography (no, the 120 is not only for close-ups!!)

Conclusion? as usual, if you have 10 guys in a room, you'll get 20 different opinions. But in any case, 60-100-180 (or to me, 60-120-180) is a great combo with complements very well your SWC.

Is it better than 50-80-150? probably not. (Not speaking about the optical performance here, sure 60-100-180 are said to be the best but that does not mean that 50-80-150 are bad!!!) Just a matter of taste. Do you like your wide to be "wider" or just "moderately wide" ? I think it comes down to that.

You can also think of it in terms of size/weight... The 60 is smaller than the 50. The 80 is the smallest of all. 180 is heavier than 150, but much less than 250.

Bottom line, in my view there is no "holy trinity". 50-120-180, 50-80-250, 38-120-180, all combos are valid if they work for you.

Not helping much, I know... good luck with your decision and keep us posted on what you choose!

 

[etn]

HI folks,

Most immediately, I will be going to France (focus on Paris and Normandy probably) and I will be shooting lots of architectural subject matter with the film gear. A lot of the more tourist shots will be done with digital. Not having been in Paris before, I don't know what focal length is likely to be the most used, but it could easily be the 80 or 100. I tend to be more of a detail-focused photographs for architecture, but the tight quarters for shooting will likely push towards wider focal lengths and, of course, there is also the need to "capture it all" at times, so the wider lens and the SWC/M will be useful, maybe a lot.

...and now to come to the important point of your question:

My advice would be to consider 38 and 120.

The 38 for architecture, tourist shots, "everything" - the SWC is a great point and shoot and a very valid one-lens, travel camera if you are close enough to your subject.

The 120 for whenever you want detail pictures. It focuses somewhat closer than others (0.8m), combined with the longer focal length you can take detail shots and portraits without having to unpack your extension rings, which can be a pain in the field. It also excels at normal focusing distances, yes even infinity. (Sure, the 100mm might be sharper at infinity, but does it justify carrying an extra lens?)

If you want to carry one more lens, throw a 60 or 80 or a 180 into the mix. Not sure what I'd choose. Probably 60 or 80 for Paris and 180 for Normandy (nature).

You can even leave your 500 body in your hotel and go out with just the SWC if you want to go light some days.

 

[Sirius Glass]

HI folks,

I have a Hasselblad system running and I do have the Holy Trinity lenses (50-80-150) plus a few others (180 and 250, plus a 38mm-SWC/M). I started out with the 50 and 80 and then expanded from there when I saw bargains...

Anyway, I got the 180 about 6 months ago far a few reasons and clearly there isn't a huge focal length difference between it and the 150, but it does cause me to think a bit more about what lenses I'd prefer and the spacing of the optics for good coverage.

When I got into the Hasselblad, I chose focal lengths that matched what I had used in the past, which was the Mamiya 6 system, so I chose the 50-80-(75 in the Mamiya)-150 because that is what I was familiar with. However, in the Hasselblad, there are many more lens options and I can't help think that it might have been premature to go that route. (And before you go there, I'm not trying to justify purchasing more gear; I already can't carry all this crap around with me in a single bag and I'd never want to have to deal with the weight of it!).

I see a few considerations... I have the SWC-M (38mm) so the spacing of that to the next lens up feels a bit close to me. That is possibly a push towards the 60mm, and that then means the 80mm is probably too close, which pushes towards the 100mm and then the 180mm.

However, some of those lenses are larger than the step down focal length (the 100 is larger than the 80, and the 180 is larger than the 150). Individually, that isn't a huge issue, but when combined, it is a factor in bulk and weight of about a pound and a bit of bulk (the 180 is a lot heavier than the 150).

One other factor is the lens performance... supposedly, the 100 and 180 are two of the best that Zeiss ever produced. The 60 is supposedly better than the 50 (and even, I think, the 50 FLE, which is what I have). I'm not an uber-sharpness person, but all things created equal, I'd go with a sharper lens for this system.

I'm basically trying to think through a 3-lens system (well, 4, I guess, including the SWC/M) for "lighter" overseas travel and just need some feedback on what may make the most sense.

Most immediately, I will be going to France (focus on Paris and Normandy probably) and I will be shooting lots of architectural subject matter with the film gear. A lot of the more tourist shots will be done with digital. Not having been in Paris before, I don't know what focal length is likely to be the most used, but it could easily be the 80 or 100. I tend to be more of a detail-focused photographs for architecture, but the tight quarters for shooting will likely push towards wider focal lengths and, of course, there is also the need to "capture it all" at times, so the wider lens and the SWC/M will be useful, maybe a lot.

I'm looking for opinions on lens choice for this kit... or maybe a hybrid of the two (50-80-180 maybe...) for a 3-lens kit focused mostly on architecture and travel subject matters (but not tourist topics).

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:

• 50mm, 80mm and 250mm the 80mm to 150mm is not enough of a change OR
• 60mm, 100mm and 250mm

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.

 

[eli griggs]

"I have found little use a long lens on a vacation, especially in Europe."

I will suggest that in such a picturesque mountain and valley rich region, that a long lens is just as valuable as it would be in Paris, where it would isolate and bring in so much of the higher elevation viewing opportunities.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"I have found little use a long lens on a vacation, especially in Europe."

I will suggest that in such a picturesque mountain and valley rich region, that a long lens is just as valuable as it would be in Paris, where it would isolate and bring in so much of the higher elevation viewing opportunities.

If I am carrying 35mm cameras instead of my Hasselblad, I have a Tameron 28mm to 300mm lens which covers that prospect. I just have not found carrying the 250mm lens for the Hasselblad worth the extra volume and weight.

 

[Light Capture]

60mm and 100mm are optically significant improvement over 50 and 80.
60 has better distortion characteristics than 50. In my experience it's perfectly good wide open and reaches near peak at f4.

100mm is the same with great performance wide open and basically peak/near peak at f4. 80mm will come close well stopped down.
I've never personally warmed up to 100mm since it's bit narrow for my taste when it comes to general photography. Same thing with 60mm. It's bit too narrow for me personally compared to 50mm.

This is in my experience changing over time. My favorite focal lengths were 28mm and 50mm in 35mm terms. I'm warming up to 35mm recently and that might change my preferences. If I would get used to 35mm equivalent for general use, 60mm would probably became my standard lens and 100mm would complement it.

180mm focuses quite close and has advantages compared to 180mm. Whether it's good travel option, that depends on situation. If you're traveling with others and would like to take some portraits as well, it would be useful. 120mm would probably be useful since it can do some close-ups. 250mm is too big to carry for general use. There isn't much use for it. At least for majority of people. Some people see good compositions with tele lenses and if that's the case it's a must.

 

[Sirius Glass]

60mm and 100mm are optically significant improvement over 50 and 80.
60 has better distortion characteristics than 50. In my experience it's perfectly good wide open and reaches near peak at f4.

100mm is the same with great performance wide open and basically peak/near peak at f4. 80mm will come close well stopped down.
I've never personally warmed up to 100mm since it's bit narrow for my taste when it comes to general photography. Same thing with 60mm. It's bit too narrow for me personally compared to 50mm.

This is in my experience changing over time. My favorite focal lengths were 28mm and 50mm in 35mm terms. I'm warming up to 35mm recently and that might change my preferences. If I would get used to 35mm equivalent for general use, 60mm would probably became my standard lens and 100mm would complement it.

180mm focuses quite close and has advantages compared to 180mm. Whether it's good travel option, that depends on situation. If you're traveling with others and would like to take some portraits as well, it would be useful. 120mm would probably be useful since it can do some close-ups. 250mm is too big to carry for general use. There isn't much use for it. At least for majority of people. Some people see good compositions with tele lenses and if that's the case it's a must.

While the 100mm is a much sharper lens than the 80mm, you captured my feelings in the Bolded section, but other feel the second set I listed is better for them.

 

[polka]

I am not a hassleblader, but I explained my own MF holy trinity here

my Bronica lenses

POLKa

 

[GLS]

I own the 50 FLE, 80, 100, 120 MP, 180 and 250 Superachromat (this latter only a very recent acquisition).

I use the 100 the most, probably followed by the 180 and then the 50. I would like to get the 60 at some point.

Bottom line is you can't really go wrong with any of them.

 

[bdial]

My kit is a 60, 80 and the 150.
If I were forced to have only one, it would likely be the 150, but the 60 would be a close second.

 

[Eff64]

I have three V series bodies. Lenses=50, 60, 80, 120, 180, 250.

Personally I hate to carry a heavy kit when traveling. I would go with the 60 all by itself, with 2 film backs, done. Love that lens and focal length!

 

[Steven Lee]

Bottom line is you can't really go wrong with any of them.

Easy! When you get back to your hotel with an aching back/knees/hips, open the backpack and realize that you haven't taken a single photo today with that 1kg lens. That is what going terribly wrong means for me when I think about lenses.

 

[GLS]

Easy! When you get back to your hotel with an aching back/knees/hips, open the backpack and realize that you haven't taken a single photo today with that 1kg lens. That is what going terribly wrong means for me when I think about lenses.

I almost never carry them all. Most commonly I take the 50, 100 and 180, although I've been swapping out the 180 for the 250 SA since I got it in order to test it as much as possible.

Sometimes it can be fun to take a single lens to push your creative vision. Usually though those occasions are when you will see a perfect subject for one of the lenses you didn't bring

 

[faberryman]

I almost never carry them all. Most commonly I take the 50, 100 and 180, although I've been swapping out the 180 for the 250 SA since I got it in order to test it as much as possible.

What are you testing about the lens?

 

[GLS]

What are you testing about the lens?

The technical aspects and behaviour of the lens; resolution, colour reproduction, qualities of the bokeh, contrast, flaring etc.

Also it's just natural to focus on using the latest addition for a time

 

[faberryman]

Any indication so far that the technical aspects and behavior of the lens are off?

 

[GLS]

Any indication so far that the technical aspects and behavior of the lens are off?

None. With a lens this expensive I'm going to make doubly sure though.

I've only got early results from a roll of Acros so far. I have some E6 and C41 colours shots from it, but they haven't been to the lab yet. Currently I'm working through a roll of Agfa Copex Rapid, which should come close to recording the maximum resolution possible from this lens. To really hit it would probably require CMS20 II though, but still waiting on Adox to make it in 120.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

What I learned when visiting an (large-)city is to minimise the amount of gear to lug around.
Mostly it's the SWC + filmback and the 500C/M + 80mm + filmback (and a lightmeter and a few rolls).
Back n°1 is loaded with 400ASA and back n°2 with 1600ASA (indoors), all B&W.
I have 6 lenses for my Hasselblad (and a lot of accessories), due to GAS, and bring only two lenses, because I am not a mule and want to enjoy the visit without my back hurting...

 

[etn]

Sometimes it can be fun to take a single lens to push your creative vision. Usually though those occasions are when you will see a perfect subject for one of the lenses you didn't bring

This is exactly what I am doing when going on photo walks. It's real fun with "extreme" lenses such as the 30mm fisheye or the 250... although I almost never take the 250 as, in my opinion, its slow aperture and high weight require a tripod. And I come another day with that other lens if I see the perfect subject for it.

When traveling, though, I take something more "neutral" such as 80mm... or in the last few years, one Leica M or Nikon F with just one lens due to additional kid's gear to carry

 

[eli griggs]

If only one or two lenses, adding an extension tube, doubler and close up filter set will really give you some flexibility for little weight/bulk gain.

IMO.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

This is exactly what I am doing when going on photo walks. It's real fun with "extreme" lenses such as the 30mm fisheye or the 250... although I almost never take the 250 as, in my opinion, its slow aperture and high weight require a tripod. And I come another day with that other lens if I see the perfect subject for it.

When traveling, though, I take something more "neutral" such as 80mm... or in the last few years, one Leica M or Nikon F with just one lens due to additional kid's gear to carry

Perhaps a Rolleiflex TLR could do...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

HI folks,

I have a Hasselblad system running and I do have the Holy Trinity lenses (50-80-150) plus a few others (180 and 250, plus a 38mm-SWC/M). I started out with the 50 and 80 and then expanded from there when I saw bargains...

Anyway, I got the 180 about 6 months ago far a few reasons and clearly there isn't a huge focal length difference between it and the 150, but it does cause me to think a bit more about what lenses I'd prefer and the spacing of the optics for good coverage.

When I got into the Hasselblad, I chose focal lengths that matched what I had used in the past, which was the Mamiya 6 system, so I chose the 50-80-(75 in the Mamiya)-150 because that is what I was familiar with. However, in the Hasselblad, there are many more lens options and I can't help think that it might have been premature to go that route. (And before you go there, I'm not trying to justify purchasing more gear; I already can't carry all this crap around with me in a single bag and I'd never want to have to deal with the weight of it!).

I see a few considerations... I have the SWC-M (38mm) so the spacing of that to the next lens up feels a bit close to me. That is possibly a push towards the 60mm, and that then means the 80mm is probably too close, which pushes towards the 100mm and then the 180mm.

However, some of those lenses are larger than the step down focal length (the 100 is larger than the 80, and the 180 is larger than the 150). Individually, that isn't a huge issue, but when combined, it is a factor in bulk and weight of about a pound and a bit of bulk (the 180 is a lot heavier than the 150).

One other factor is the lens performance... supposedly, the 100 and 180 are two of the best that Zeiss ever produced. The 60 is supposedly better than the 50 (and even, I think, the 50 FLE, which is what I have). I'm not an uber-sharpness person, but all things created equal, I'd go with a sharper lens for this system.

I'm basically trying to think through a 3-lens system (well, 4, I guess, including the SWC/M) for "lighter" overseas travel and just need some feedback on what may make the most sense.

Most immediately, I will be going to France (focus on Paris and Normandy probably) and I will be shooting lots of architectural subject matter with the film gear. A lot of the more tourist shots will be done with digital. Not having been in Paris before, I don't know what focal length is likely to be the most used, but it could easily be the 80 or 100. I tend to be more of a detail-focused photographs for architecture, but the tight quarters for shooting will likely push towards wider focal lengths and, of course, there is also the need to "capture it all" at times, so the wider lens and the SWC/M will be useful, maybe a lot.

I'm looking for opinions on lens choice for this kit... or maybe a hybrid of the two (50-80-180 maybe...) for a 3-lens kit focused mostly on architecture and travel subject matters (but not tourist topics).

I went with the holy Trinity I never regretted it. But I later got the 180 because it is an exceptionally sharp lens, and then the 250 because of the reach. Somewhere along the lines, I also acquired a 40 mm and enjoyed the look.

 

[etn]

Perhaps a Rolleiflex TLR could do...

As a matter of fact, I exclusively used a Rolleiflex for over 10 years and she went everywhere with me! I traveled a lot for work (and vacation) during that time, all over Europe, USA, and several countries in Asia.

Here early morning during a road trip through France:

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is exactly what I am doing when going on photo walks. It's real fun with "extreme" lenses such as the 30mm fisheye or the 250... although I almost never take the 250 as, in my opinion, its slow aperture and high weight require a tripod. And I come another day with that other lens if I see the perfect subject for it.

When traveling, though, I take something more "neutral" such as 80mm... or in the last few years, one Leica M or Nikon F with just one lens due to additional kid's gear to carry

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.