Hasselblad lens for enlarging?

Apparently,Hasselblad "V" s\Series lenses can be used as enlarging lenses.

Has anyone here done this and if so, what were your likes or dislikes about the matter?

Eli

eli griggs said:

Apparently,Hasselblad "V" s\Series lenses can be used as enlarging lenses.

Has anyone here done this and if so, what were your likes or dislikes about the matter?

Eli

Click to expand...

aren't they too big and heavy for that task?

eli griggs said:

Apparently,Hasselblad "V" s\Series lenses can be used as enlarging lenses.

Has anyone here done this and if so, what were your likes or dislikes about the matter?

Eli

Click to expand...

I see no advantage. Would be impossible to mount without a skilled machinist. Enlarging lenses are dirt cheap.

Hasselblad made a machinable mount that could be used for mounting the lens, though it doesn’t have 39mm threads. But, as mentioned, good purpose-made enlarging lenses are easily available.

Not practical nor cost efficient I have found plenty of good inexpensive enlarging lenses in Photrio's Classified section.

I am simply curious about using these, as Leica lenses also are also used for this dual purpose.

In Wildi's Second Edition, page 170, there is a one paragraph statement, which includes the fact of the flange device.

There's has ways been those, whom believe using the same lens that was used to take the negitive will best reproduce that image on the enlarger.

It may be that there are folks here that have thus used their C, CF, etc Hasselblad lenses on larger enlargers and I'd like to hear from them, and their opinions on the results and methods they've tried.

It would need to be a macro lens to be within the magnification range that the lens is designed for.

Perhaps but Wildi makes no mention of that in his refering of the practice or the need of a specific lens type.

Maybe someone should make a Hasselblad enlarger back... like a Graflarger!

eli griggs said:

Perhaps but Wildi makes no mention of that in his refering of the practice or the need of a specific lens type.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but it wouldn't seem to make sense to use a Hasselblad lens outside its designed for magnification range in preference to a high quality enlarging lens within its designed for magnification range.
It sounds like a remnant from the times where people would have one single lens for both purposes because their budget wouldn't stretch to having two. I'm not sure that situation was particularly common for Hasselblad owners in the early 1980s.

Not Hasselblad, but the only enlarging lens I have for 6x6 is an 80mm Anastar that someone "liberated" from a Kodak Reflex II. Haven't had any complaints...

Both Leitz and Zeiss (with special adapter) promoted their 50 mm lenses for enlarging. But this was in early days when cameras and lenses were already rather expensive. Using taking lens was economically welcome. I own, but never used, the Zeiss adapter. As conditions changed and lenses computed specifically for enlarging became readily available, the practice became obsolete.

There are plenty of excellent 80/90/105mm 6-element enlarging lenses - all of which will do a better job at normal enlarging sizes than the camera lens. And given how cheap first rate enlarging lenses are, don't try and make silly/ pointless compromises.

Lachlan Young said:

And given how cheap first rate enlarging lenses are, don't try and make silly/ pointless compromises.

Click to expand...

Cheap is relative. If my enlargements from 6x6 are sharp and not vignetted, what difference does it make if I use a camera lens? I don't expect anyone to go over my, say, 10x10 prints with a loupe anyway.

Oh, BTW, IIRC I paid about ten bucks for the Anastar I use, and it came with a flange to mount on an unthreaded board.

I use enlarging lenses to take pictures but wouldn't use camera lenses for enlarging. I see no advantages in doing so.

Donald Qualls said:

Cheap is relative. If my enlargements from 6x6 are sharp and not vignetted, what difference does it make if I use a camera lens? I don't expect anyone to go over my, say, 10x10 prints with a loupe anyway.

Oh, BTW, IIRC I paid about ten bucks for the Anastar I use, and it came with a flange to mount on an unthreaded board.

Click to expand...

I don't think you would get a sharper print using the Hasselblad lens than using a good enlarging lens.

Donald Qualls said:

Cheap is relative. If my enlargements from 6x6 are sharp and not vignetted, what difference does it make if I use a camera lens? I don't expect anyone to go over my, say, 10x10 prints with a loupe anyway.

Oh, BTW, IIRC I paid about ten bucks for the Anastar I use, and it came with a flange to mount on an unthreaded board.

Click to expand...

Sharpness can be a relative concept - if you don't have visual/ calibrated comparators to check against. It's the balance between how deeply into diffraction you'll need to stop a taking lens to counteract field curvature vs the near flat field performance of most 80-105 enlarging lenses barely a stop down from wide open. I have few doubts that the 120mm S-Planar is probably an extraordinary enlarging lens - but there are plenty of much lighter options that will be just as good. And while the 135 S-Planar is designed for bellows use, it may be too long a focal length for many people working with 6x6 to contemplate.

eli griggs said:

Apparently,Hasselblad "V" s\Series lenses can be used as enlarging lenses.
Has anyone here done this and if so, what were your likes or dislikes about the matter?
Eli

Click to expand...

I've not used hassie lenses to enlarge, but I've used taking lenses to enlarge, when starting LF printing, in particular a Sironar N LF lens in a DIY "CAMBO-Larger".

A mint Nikkor EL 80 costs 70€, adapter for the taking lens to fit in the enlarger may cost more, or it would be time consuming DIY.

Taking lenses had been used for enlarging for decades before specialized enlarging lenses were popular.

It the past it was recommended that (in general) the same lens used for the particular shot was also used for enlarging, as distortion and fall-off was to be mostly cancelled when the rays do the path back from the film to the other side of the glass...

The graflarger illuminator-carrier was intended to use the camera as an enlarger, suposedly using the taking lens.




In modern times enlarger lenses had been quite specialized to shine in the enlarging work, optimized for close work, delivering an extra flat focus plane, and cancelling distortion. A taking lens used for enlarging may not be well corrected for such a close work, if it is not a macro lens. As you stop the taking lens you will see less any curvature flaw in the focus "plane", but probably an enlarger lens is able to work with a larger aperture to deliver better performance, still this would be harder to notice if the taking lens is used optimally and is a bit long for the format.

When enlarging the most critical is nailing focus, ensuring film flatness and alignment, then selecting the optimal focal and aperture... using a bit longer focal (if having the room) than usual allows to work more with the center of the image circle so some performance issues can be avoided.

Using a taking lens for enlarging ? why not ? But one has to be prepared to make the adapter and to find the way to make an optimal job, sure that using a bit "longer than usual" focal will help.

This sort of reminds me of when I was in the army in the early/mid 70s and stationed in Germany. On my off days I'd hang out at the Special Services photo lab where they had complete darkrooms to use, just bring your film and paper. There was one guy who'd show up that would let everyone know that he used a Hasselblad, everyone. We all got lectured on how it was the superior hardware and whatever we were using was junk. Not wanting to use the enlarging lenses provided he rigged up something that let him mount his 80mm camera lens to the Omega enlarger and couldn't understand why his images were fuzzy at the edges compared to the 80mm Schneider I'd bought and brought with me. I think the guy who ran the lab suggested it was something to do with “curvature of field" and suggested that stop his lens down, way down. We were printing color using Agfacolor paper, filters in the filter drawer, and open tray processing. By the time he'd put in his filter pack and stop that lens down it would be 30 minutes or so to get one test strip out. I think he ended up abandoning that idea and bought a Schneider.

VinceInMT said:

There was one guy who'd show up that would let everyone know that he used a Hasselblad, everyone. We all got lectured on how it was the superior hardware and whatever we were using was junk.

Click to expand...

I think he is now a [big blue letters; strikeout] APUG [un-big-blue-letters; un-strikeout] Photrio member and is very prolific.

I believe the 50mm C, C T* which can focus as close as 19" or 48.26cm, may have been a 1st choice of the Hasselblad line, before there was a macro 120mm and perhaps, the 135mm, with its back protrusion.

Ralph, while these are 6x6cm format lenses, I would no be surprised to see them on a 5x7" or 8x10' enlarger, and I might just tru to make a plate to try the 5cm out on my 5x7 Omega enlarger, in the near future.

If I do, I'll post results.

I'm still working on my 50mm, other things have gotten first priority, here at home, and while the back plate is off, at the least I can make a two piece templet,that can be used to create a brass plate for the enlarger.

Once I have the several replacement screws I need, I can finish the work, it does have nice glass, and give it a go.

Once a plate is made or or made available to me, I could also see if there is any joy in the 15.cm lens, etc.

I'd still like to hear more on this topic, particularly is anyone yet to speak-up, whom has experience in the matter.

Godspeed to all, BE HAPPY!

eli griggs said:

I believe the 50mm C, C T* which can focus as close as 19" or 48.26cm, may have been a 1st choice of the Hasselblad line, before there was a macro 120mm and perhaps, the 135mm, with its back protrusion.

Click to expand...

Not likely. The 50/4 is later than the earliest 60/5.6 retrofocus lens. The 135 was intended for bellows use. The 120/5.6 is pretty early too - and seems to have already existed in Zeiss' range of optics for technical purposes. Many non-macro medium format lenses have a minimum focus around 10x their focal length - eg 50mm to 50cm, 80mm to 80cm etc.

eli griggs said:

while these are 6x6cm format lenses, I would no be surprised to see them on a 5x7" or 8x10' enlarger, and I might just tru to make a plate to try the 5cm out on my 5x7 Omega enlarger, in the near future.

Click to expand...

People who could afford 5x7/ 8x10 enlargers tended to put the proper enlarging lenses on them, especially by the time the Hasselblad was becoming widespread. That Wildi makes a statement that was anachronistic even by the standards of the time he was writing is neither here nor there - for extreme enlargements (10-15x +) some camera lenses may be better corrected than enlarging lenses, but even there, more modern specialist glass is available. What you can get away with at 1.1-2x in large format is going to be different to what even 3-5x demands in 6x6.

eli griggs said:

I am simply curious about using these, as Leica lenses also are also used for this dual purpose.

In Wildi's Second Edition, page 170, there is a one paragraph statement, which includes the fact of the flange device.

There's has ways been those, whom believe using the same lens that was used to take the negitive will best reproduce that image on the enlarger.

It may be that there are folks here that have thus used their C, CF, etc Hasselblad lenses on larger enlargers and I'd like to hear from them, and their opinions on the results and methods they've tried.

Click to expand...

Go for it!!

I once used a Minolta 50mm f1.7 camera lens on my enlarger. Worked great! Nice sharp enlargements.

The only advantage of using the same lens that took an image to enlarge it is that distortion would cancel out. Could be relevant for some things. But for most uses optical deficiencies outweight this by far.