Hasselblad - Holy Trinity or 60-100-180?

[rulnacco]

I'm perfectly happy to have the conversation drift. These things help me understand how others view and use their own systems and their lens choices...

Sorry to have taken it a bit off-topic. But if you ever do go digital, it looks like your 60 will still be very useful in terms of focal length--and should still deliver plenty of sharpness and image quality. But yes, based on what you said, I think you will find that your decision to use the SWC, the 60, and the 150 (or 180--although the 150 is more "field-ready") is a very good choice in terms of range of coverage, lens quality (under field conditions), and ergonomics. I'm not sure you'd *need* to add any other lenses to your carry-around kit. The 100 does fit rather neatly in the middle, and of course has the legendary reputation--but I'm not sure how often you'd use it versus just carrying the 60 and 150 and zooming with your feet. (Personally, I think if I had the 60, I'd hardly ever use the 80, so that would rule that lens out, too.)

As for the 250? I'm not sure that's one I'd carry along if you're looking to travel light; not only is the lens pretty big, but I'd think you'd almost have to use it on a tripod given its length and limited maximum shutter speed. I know common wisdom says you're okay shooting at 1/focal length, but I'm betting that at 1/250 or even 1/500, there are going to be times you're going to notice a bit of blur shooting that one hand-held.

Right now, you've got a great kit with 38-60-150. Time to hit the streets and use that gear--and show us what you get!

 

[Sirius Glass]

First they need to figure how to align sensor plane with that of film, or so I hear (when looking into putting current digital back on 503CW), too scary to try given several reports of sharpness isuues.

First they have to be able to consistently make cost effective 6x6 sensors. The technology is still not there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry to have taken it a bit off-topic. But if you ever do go digital, it looks like your 60 will still be very useful in terms of focal length--and should still deliver plenty of sharpness and image quality. But yes, based on what you said, I think you will find that your decision to use the SWC, the 60, and the 150 (or 180--although the 150 is more "field-ready") is a very good choice in terms of range of coverage, lens quality (under field conditions), and ergonomics. I'm not sure you'd *need* to add any other lenses to your carry-around kit. The 100 does fit rather neatly in the middle, and of course has the legendary reputation--but I'm not sure how often you'd use it versus just carrying the 60 and 150 and zooming with your feet. (Personally, I think if I had the 60, I'd hardly ever use the 80, so that would rule that lens out, too.)

As for the 250? I'm not sure that's one I'd carry along if you're looking to travel light; not only is the lens pretty big, but I'd think you'd almost have to use it on a tripod given its length and limited maximum shutter speed. I know common wisdom says you're okay shooting at 1/focal length, but I'm betting that at 1/250 or even 1/500, there are going to be times you're going to notice a bit of blur shooting that one hand-held.

Right now, you've got a great kit with 38-60-150. Time to hit the streets and use that gear--and show us what you get!

I have the 80mm lens and if I was given the 60mm lens I would hardly if ever use it since it is too close to the 80mm lens. I often used the 50mm, 80mm and 250mm lens at home and travelling, depending on where and what I was seeing.

 

[Photomultiplier]

@GLS: yes, only shutter speed. at least 1/1000 for aerial photography.

Link: https://www.horolezec.cz/ and then on "EN" -> "Blog photography" -> "Hasselblad vacuum backs..."

 

[Photomultiplier]

First they need to figure how to align sensor plane with that of film, or so I hear (when looking into putting current digital back on 503CW), too scary to try given several reports of sharpness isuues.

My technician told me that he had to align several bodies much more carefully when they were to be used for digibacks, but it didn't sound like that big of a deal.

 

[rulnacco]

I have the 80mm lens and if I was given the 60mm lens I would hardly if ever use it since it is too close to the 80mm lens. I often used the 50mm, 80mm and 250mm lens at home and travelling, depending on where and what I was seeing.

I've got the 50 and 80 and use both, personally. However, I'm very tempted to get a 60, if I can find one I can afford, because if I had one I think it would replace both lenses for walking around. I'd probably pair the 60 with either my 120 or my 150 for walking around, and figure I had everything covered with that two-lens combination. Medium-wide + short tele, you're good to go for practically everything.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

I believe the 80mm Will be long enough alone for most things.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've got the 50 and 80 and use both, personally. However, I'm very tempted to get a 60, if I can find one I can afford, because if I had one I think it would replace both lenses for walking around. I'd probably pair the 60 with either my 120 or my 150 for walking around, and figure I had everything covered with that two-lens combination. Medium-wide + short tele, you're good to go for practically everything.

I believe the 80mm Will be long enough alone for most things.

Both Ralph and I have used Hasselblads for decades and what Ralph posted is what most Hasselblad and other medium format users have found to be true. Save your money the 60mm lens is too close to the 80mm lens and just not wide enough to justify the expense.

 

[dave olson]

I'll second what many have said, 50, 80, 150. The 6x6 transparency or negative allows for various cropping scenarios. I find that for most of my work I use my 80.

 

[MattKing]

My 65mm is my most used lens with my Mamiya C330, and comes closest to the 35mm lens that I prefer for my 35mm cameras.
80mm is a useful focal length. It may or may not be most useful for you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My 65mm is my most used lens with my Mamiya C330, and comes closest to the 35mm lens that I prefer for my 35mm cameras.
80mm is a useful focal length. It may or may not be most useful for you.

Would you use the 55mm lens? If so, more or less than the 65mm lens. I had the 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses for my Mamiya C330 and I kept finding the 65mm lens not wide enough. That led me to buying the 50mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses for the Hasselblad.

 

[MattKing]

Would you use the 55mm lens? If so, more or less than the 65mm lens.

With the C330, the 55mm lens is an f/4.5 lens, which I found harder to use due to the relatively dim viewfinder and built in depth of field - nailing focus was more challenging, but it still served me well as an option at weddings. The 65mm lens is my standard lens with that camera. I have pared that kit down to a 65mm and 135mm pair, and it suits me well.
I get a lot of use of the 45mm and 55mm lenses with my Mamiya 645. The 55mm serves as a standard lens for me there. The 110mm lens complements them. With the 645, the 80mm macro and 210mm lenses get less use.

 

[GLS]

Currently I'm working through a roll of Agfa Copex Rapid, which should come close to recording the maximum resolution possible from this lens.

So I got around to developing this roll, and all I'll say is: the reputation of the 250 SA is not hyperbole. Truly incredible.

 

[etn]

My technician told me that he had to align several bodies much more carefully when they were to be used for digibacks, but it didn't sound like that big of a deal.

I concur, not a big deal in my experience too.

First they need to figure how to align sensor plane with that of film, or so I hear (when looking into putting current digital back on 503CW), too scary to try given several reports of sharpness isuues.

...and besides, 503CW being the most recent and not prone to mirror foam issues, it's the best body to have if you want to use a digital back.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

So I got around to developing this roll, and all I'll say is: the reputation of the 250 SA is not hyperbole. Truly incredible.

Do you have a normal 250mm to compare? I have a 250mm Sonnar CFi that I use but I've wondered whether there is an appreciable step up to get the SA version.

 

[GLS]

Do you have a normal 250mm to compare?

Sadly no. Would be interesting to see the differences though.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

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

This is an intriguing idea. As far as I know, no medium format camera ever had a vacuum back. Linhof's Aero Technika had a 24-volt vacuum back for 126mm film. But for 70mm, they tensioned the film via the sprockets and had a regular pressure plate. Possibly Mr. Salomon can update us if he still participates here. Some other companies made vacuum backs for 4x5" and larger cameras.

Rollei tried a glass plate across the film gate to prevent any bowing and ripples in the film. As I recall, users complained of scratches and dust. But a European company makes new glass plates if your Rolleiflex has the right back.

The Contax RTSIII had a vacuum device for its 35mm film. I remember magazine articles at the time testing the camera and reporting that they could not detect that it improved the results over normal 35mm cameras. Mike Eckman wrote a detailed review of the RTSIII.

 

[Steven Lee]

Crap... this thread is on top again. Last time it happened I ended up buying a lens on eBay. It's still in transit and due to extremely low temperatures I worry about my utilities bill this month. Need your help steering the convo away from Mamiya TLR and Hasselblad gear. Can't we just do some personal insults and politics instead?

 

[Hassasin]

The Contax RTSIII had a vacuum device for its 35mm film. I remember magazine articles at the time testing the camera and reporting that they could not detect that it improved the results over normal 35mm cameras

Yeah, that was pure dumb engineering there, PR stunt and nothing else, but bragging rights for sure.

Vacuum back on larger formats, especially past MF, makes sense as things clearly don’t stay flat across the frame. Still, at what point does that start to matter? Highly critical technical work for microscopic inspection?

 

[Photomultiplier]

As far as i know, the reason why Ladislav stopped using his 6x6 equipment was the discontinuing of 220 film by Fuji, as the vacuum backs only work without backing paper.
He clearly is technically inclined and knows what he is doing. For sure he did extensive testing and comparing of the slides, so i fully believe that this modification paid off. Especially
with the 350mm SA.
The thing in his article with the higher focal plane error tolerance with normal lens designs due to the higher edge contrast by color fringes creating kind of a "fake sharpness" i found very interesting.
Plus i simply adore his photography... His work was the reason in 2007 for me to pursue landscape and nature photography.

@Steven Lee: Avoid looking at his gear in the "Technique" section!

I totally agree, for 35mm vacuum backs are pretty useless as the film has near perfect flatness due to the small film gate.

 

[etn]

Crap... this thread is on top again. Last time it happened I ended up buying a lens on eBay. It's still in transit and due to extremely low temperatures I worry about my utilities bill this month. Need your help steering the convo away from Mamiya TLR and Hasselblad gear. Can't we just do some personal insults and politics instead?

Steven, please no... this forum has been relatively free of insults and politics, contrarily to pretty much every other forum (photography or not) out there... let's keep it that way. The price to pay is the cost of a few lenses, and the joy of using them.

So instead of insulting you, I'll congratulate you on your new lens What is it?

And I have to confess... I did the same as you... a comment above triggered my interest in the 160 CB, I had to order one (with return policy!) to give it a try. So if you get insulted for buying a lens, I think I deserve insults too

That said, I hear you on utilities bill... not any better here. All the best to you. Enjoy your new lens and see it as an investment you can always resell!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This is an intriguing idea. As far as I know, no medium format camera ever had a vacuum back. Linhof's Aero Technika had a 24-volt vacuum back for 126mm film. But for 70mm, they tensioned the film via the sprockets and had a regular pressure plate. Possibly Mr. Salomon can update us if he still participates here. Some other companies made vacuum backs for 4x5" and larger cameras.

Rollei tried a glass plate across the film gate to prevent any bowing and ripples in the film. As I recall, users complained of scratches and dust. But a European company makes new glass plates if your Rolleiflex has the right back.

The Contax RTSIII had a vacuum device for its 35mm film. I remember magazine articles at the time testing the camera and reporting that they could not detect that it improved the results over normal 35mm cameras. Mike Eckman wrote a detailed review of the RTSIII.

There was a vacuum back for the Contax 645. It only worked with 220 film, so if you can find one today, they're about useless.

I have an RTS III with its vacuum back. It probably doesn't make a measurable improvement, because 35mm film isn't so large that any curling would sufficiently displace the plane of focus across the entire image, but there is a certain je-ne-sais-quoi about photos from that camera that I FEEL makes a difference. Don't ask me to prove it; I can't. I can show you images from it and let you decide for yourself - it's kinda like the "leica glow" that way. Is it a good enough reason to buy that camera over one that doesn't have it? If the price is the same, sure why not, but if you're having to spend extra money to get it, that's a judgement call only you can make. I have the RTS III because I also have Contax 35mm lenses and like using them. The camera also has great ergonomics (to me) and while heavy, isn't excessively so. It just feels solid and well-built.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I have recolleciton of some Linhof sheet film holders for the areographic cameras that were vaccum holders as well? I just looked and couldn't see any images, but I think they made a 4x5 version. Not sure if any larger ones were made.

As for buying gear, I did mention I did buy a CB 60mm lens and I (gulp!) have a line on a 100mm CF as well... we'll see if I decide to get that, but it may be a great deal. Damn you enablers... Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

 

[Photomultiplier]

I got my 60mm CF Distagon today! Complete with original box, user manual, lens pouch and lens shade! Near mint condition i'd say.

At the first try i thought: What? Looks a lot like the 80mm... Then i compared the two and it was, of course, as anticipated: Wider FOV but without the distinct wideangle characteristics.
Looks very promising to me. I bet the shorter focal length will come in handy in the mountains. At least i hope that the selection of two focal lengths works fine, but we will see.

 

[etn]

As for buying gear, I did mention I did buy a CB 60mm lens and I (gulp!) have a line on a 100mm CF as well... we'll see if I decide to get that, but it may be a great deal.

Congrats on the 60 CB. It is "optically and haptically" identical to the 60 CFi, The only thing you are giving up is the possibility to use it on a focal plane body. And you certainly paid much less.

Damn you enablers... Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Now this is the kind of insult I like