Hasselblad lens pricing (CF Series)

[fdonadio]

Hello, fellows!

After missing a sweet deal yesterday on a Zeiss Sonnar 5.6/250mm, I went to eBay to check on what’s available. I did find some great deals on this lens, but then I saw ads for Zeiss Planars 2.8/80mm for double the price of the 250mm!

Why is that? Is the 250mm underrated/undervalued or is the 80mm such a great lens? I mean, technically, it is a great lens, but this can be said about pretty much all Hasselblad lenses. Being a “normal”, I thought the 80mm should be one of the “cheapest” lenses, but it seems I’m wrong.

Cheers,
Flavio

 

[BrianShaw]

I’d guess that it’s reflective of the market - normal lens is generally more useful than long lenses. So higher demand.

In order of use for me: 80 and 150, about equally. 250 so seldom I often wonder why I carry it around. But when needed it’s a good lens.

 

[Arklatexian]

Hello, fellows!

After missing a sweet deal yesterday on a Zeiss Sonnar 5.6/250mm, I went to eBay to check on what’s available. I did find some great deals on this lens, but then I saw ads for Zeiss Planars 2.8/80mm for double the price of the 250mm!

Why is that? Is the 250mm underrated/undervalued or is the 80mm such a great lens? I mean, technically, it is a great lens, but this can be said about pretty much all Hasselblad lenses. Being a “normal”, I thought the 80mm should be one of the “cheapest” lenses, but it seems I’m wrong.

Cheers,
Flavio

Use and lack of use. Most people don't use the 250mm lens very much, therefore the demand of it is far less than for the 80mm. If your reasoning was correct, the 50mm lenses would sell for much less than the 80mm and that isn't so. If the 250mm lens was used more, it would sell for more. I don't consider the 250 as underrated, more undervalued, perhaps, but any of this equipment is only worth what people are actually paying for it and not more. Normal in photography doesn't mean the same thing as "cheap". Leica 50mm Summicrons are "normal" but not "cheap". Even 50+ year old ones.........Regards!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hello, fellows!

After missing a sweet deal yesterday on a Zeiss Sonnar 5.6/250mm, I went to eBay to check on what’s available. I did find some great deals on this lens, but then I saw ads for Zeiss Planars 2.8/80mm for double the price of the 250mm!

Why is that? Is the 250mm underrated/undervalued or is the 80mm such a great lens? I mean, technically, it is a great lens, but this can be said about pretty much all Hasselblad lenses. Being a “normal”, I thought the 80mm should be one of the “cheapest” lenses, but it seems I’m wrong.

Cheers,
Flavio

First of all the prices are eBay prices which has nothing to do with reality. Secondly many of the buyers are starting out and there is a high demand for the 80mm lens. The 250mm and the 50mm will be the next lenses they will buy if they ever venture beyond one lens. Actually the first lens that I bought was the 250mm CF lens because when I bought the body at Samys, it was the only CF lens they had. A week or two later they called me to come in to buy the 80mm CF lens they were holding for me.

In order of the most used to least used by me is 80mm, 50mm, SWC, 100mm, 250mm, 30mm Fisheye, 500mm and then the 150mm. Since I do not do portraits, the 150mm lens gets more use when I fire the lens ten to fifteen times at one second every three months than it does getting used for photographs.

 

[mrosenlof]

I have been using the 250 a lot recently. It fits a project I'm working on right now. It's my most used hasselblad lens of the last six months. It's a good lens, mine is the C, T* version, black.

eBay buy it now asking prices are not necessarily a good measure. Look at SOLD listings. They're a better reflection of the actual market.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have been using the 250 a lot recently. It fits a project I'm working on right now. It's my most used hasselblad lens of the last six months. It's a good lens, mine is the C, T* version, black.

eBay buy it now asking prices are not necessarily a good measure. Look at SOLD listings. They're a better reflection of the actual market.

Better yet look at the prices at KEH.

 

[fdonadio]

If your reasoning was correct, the 50mm lenses would sell for much less than the 80mm and that isn't so.

My reasoning was more like wide and long lenses, being more “specialized”, would cost more than a normal lens.

For most 35mm SLRs, normal lenses are cheap, except for the very fast ones, like f/1.4 and below up — Noctilux is a good example, but also the Nikkor f/1.2 and Canon f/0.9.

Edit: aperture sizes are bigger as the f number goes down...

 

[fdonadio]

Then, we can safely assume it’s an offer versus demand issue. Yea, it makes sense...

 

[Sirius Glass]

My reasoning was more like wide and long lenses, being more “specialized”, would cost more than a normal lens.

For most 35mm SLRs, normal lenses are cheap, except for the very fast ones, like f/1.4 and below — Noctilux is a good example, but also the Nikkor f/1.2 and Canon f/0.9.

However that has nothing to do with the price of used lenses. It is all supply and demand. When I bought the 50mm, 80mm and the 250mm lenses, the 80mm lens was around $500US and the other two were $800US each.

 

[AndyH]

Yes, it does seem a matter of supply and demand. My lenses, in order of use are: 80mm, 50mm, 150mm, and 250mm. I think quite a few photographers don't use the 250 because it almost demands the use of a tripod, even with 400 ISO film. It's a lovely lens, though, and a terrific bargain, in my opinion.

The 150 f4 is my most recent purchase, and I'm falling in love with this lens. I think that all Hasselblad lenses are increasing in price so quickly that we should be picking up bargains when we see them - even to the point of duplication. The same seems to be true for bodies and many accessories. The golden age of bargain Hasselblads has ended.

Andy

 

[jim10219]

In my experience, the larger the negative, the wider the lenses. Long lenses are great on 35mm formats. But with larger formats comes heavier cameras that are harder to hold steady. Plus, you can always take a photo with a wider lens, and crop it to mimic a longer lens, since the negative contains so much detail.

Plus, longer lenses are most often used for wildlife, sports photography and things like that. And for those genres, you usually want a smaller, lighter body, and smaller, lighter lenses. Formats larger than 35mm tend to be used mostly for landscape, architecture, and portrait. Lenses for those genres tend to top out around "medium telephoto".

I'm not saying that nobody uses longer lenses with larger formats, or that they're not useful for other genres. I'm just saying that there's less demand in those markets.

 

[Alan9940]

My CF lens use, in order of use, is: 100, 150, 50, 250. The CF 250 is a fantastic lens, when needed, but it's a rather large chunk of glass to carry around for that occasional use. That said, it's such a bargain right now so why not pick one up?

 

[AndyH]

In my experience, the larger the negative, the wider the lenses. Long lenses are great on 35mm formats. But with larger formats comes heavier cameras that are harder to hold steady. Plus, you can always take a photo with a wider lens, and crop it to mimic a longer lens, since the negative contains so much detail.

Plus, longer lenses are most often used for wildlife, sports photography and things like that. And for those genres, you usually want a smaller, lighter body, and smaller, lighter lenses. Formats larger than 35mm tend to be used mostly for landscape, architecture, and portrait. Lenses for those genres tend to top out around "medium telephoto".

I'm not saying that nobody uses longer lenses with larger formats, or that they're not useful for other genres. I'm just saying that there's less demand in those markets.

That's certainly true. But in the days when the 250mm Sonnar was developed, the 135mm telephoto was the most popular long lens for 35mm. A 250mm in 6x6 is pretty much equivalent to 150mm in 35mm terms, and that's a focal length that I really like. Put a prism finder on your Hassy, load some Portra 400, and it's a very usable lens. I find I can hand hold mine at 1/125 wide open if I brace myself properly. Not my favorite, but a lot of fun to use. IMHO all Hassy shooters should pick one up while they're still relatively affordable. The 150s have gone crazy - I just bought mine recently for a little under $200, after months of eBay, Roberts, and KEH watching. I'm finding myself shooting it a lot right now.

Andy

 

[etn]

For what it’s worth, there have been a couple used 250mm CF on display for ages (and not selling) at the local store here in Munich, each for about 300 euros.

And to add a data point to lens useage statistics : in my case 120, 180, 60, 80, 50, 100, 250, 150 (from most to least used). I place the SWC in a different category and use it in parallel to those. I rarely go out with both the V-series and the SWC, it’s a either/or for me, partly to limit weight, partly as I see them as different cameras for different purposes.

 

[etn]

The 150 f4 is my most recent purchase, and I'm falling in love with this lens. I think that all Hasselblad lenses are increasing in price so quickly that we should be picking up bargains when we see them - even to the point of duplication. The same seems to be true for bodies and many accessories. The golden age of bargain Hasselblads has ended.

Andy

Fully agree with you Andy! this is how I ended up with « all » the lenses in Hasselblad’s lineup (save for one or two, such as 30 or 350)

The item which seems in shortest supply in my opinion are the backs, therefore pick those while you can. (I’m eyeing a E12 at the moment, price has just dropped as it was not selling. No point for me for a back with electronics except that it’s the latest model, with newest mechanics, and has a dark slide holder.. )

 

[fdonadio]

Well, since everybody is talking about the lenses they use the most, here I go: 50, 80, 30 and 150. These are the ones I have and the fisheye is used often because I like to shoot skateboarding.

 

[guangong]

My most used lenses for Hasselblad are the Zeiss 80, 90 Macro Kilar and Zeiss 60. The 150 a little less so. Kilfit 150 and 400 mainly for outdoors in the woods. Around my property, if feeling especially athletic, my 180 or 300 Olympic Sonnars. The 80mm is such a versatile lens, its price meets demand if survival rate after heavy usage is considered.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now that many are listing their lenses in order of use, we can look at each list and surmise what type of photography each does. We can also see that many have bought lenses that from the start they knew that they would rarely use but bought them anyway -- the 30mm Fisheye and 500mm in my case. I find this very interesting, especially because there are no right or wrong answers.

 

[Alan Gales]

First of all the prices are eBay prices which has nothing to do with reality.

Ebay is it's own little world!

 

[AndyH]

Fully agree with you Andy! this is how I ended up with « all » the lenses in Hasselblad’s lineup (save for one or two, such as 30 or 350)

The item which seems in shortest supply in my opinion are the backs, therefore pick those while you can. (I’m eyeing a E12 at the moment, price has just dropped as it was not selling. No point for me for a back with electronics except that it’s the latest model, with newest mechanics, and has a dark slide holder.. )

I have seen this trend, even over the last six months; I would say prices on eBay and at the other used gear sites have just about doubled since the first of January. I have some modest camera repair skills, and put them to work on the original back I acquired with the camera. There are some excellent videos on YouTube, and the repairs to most of the components are pretty basic. In searching "that place" for used backs, I discovered that as A-12 backs approached $200, I noticed that A-24 backs were going for half that price, even less in ugly or as is condition. I just bought one and am going to try to renew it. Somehow people seem to forget that 220 backs are also perfectly usable for 120, and that there are many interchangeable parts between the two. Even the leatherette kits for the two seem to be interchangeable. If there's a bargain in Hassyland, it's the A-24 back, even more than the 250mm lenses. Filters are going crazy, and even the tripod mount has been increasingly pricey. I recently bought a set of three rapid-focusing handles (especially useful for the 160 and 250) for forty bucks. I've seen them going for that much or more individually since then.

I've been residing in Hassyland for less than a year, thanks to the very generous gift of an immaculate 500C with the 80mm and 250mm lenses (and many other accessories) from a kind friend. But watching eBay has been a regular part of my life for years, and I immediately noticed that prices were going up at two or three times the rate of inflation. I never close my eyes to a bargain, but I think the only things I still really need are the spirit level, tripod plate, and a couple more backs. I'm entirely content with the older silver finish lenses, and I'll only buy a new body if the old one acquires a fatal condition beyond repair. I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime.

Best built camera I've ever owned, and has been my favorite since the day it arrived.

Andy

 

[etn]

Andy: A24 backs are easily converted to A12, there are spare parts for that. If you can find nice A24-N (the newer ones with dark slide holder) and are able to change the gears yourself you can even do that for a profit. An A12-N in good condition goes for 300 - 350 euros here... crazy. I bought a couple for less than 250 a couple years ago.

 

[AndyH]

Andy: A24 backs are easily converted to A12, there are spare parts for that. If you can find nice A24-N (the newer ones with dark slide holder) and are able to change the gears yourself you can even do that for a profit. An A12-N in good condition goes for 300 - 350 euros here... crazy. I bought a couple for less than 250 a couple years ago.

Interesting. But why would I need to convert for my own use? I just use the magazine crank to go through the rest of the film after I've shot off frame number 12. Is there some other advantage to converting the back itself?

Andy

 

[Alan9940]

In searching "that place" for used backs, I discovered that as A-12 backs approached $200,

I've been watching "that place" for about a month for decent looking A12 backs; lots of backs for sale, but what many sellers call "near mint" does not fit my view of that description. Based on my research so far, that $200 will get you an A12 Type II in decent condition. Unbelievable! That's about what I paid for brand new A12 backs in the early 90's when I was acquiring my Hassey outfit. Ever look at the A12 Type IV prices? Don't...upwards of $500!

 

[etn]

Interesting. But why would I need to convert for my own use? I just use the magazine crank to go through the rest of the film after I've shot off frame number 12. Is there some other advantage to converting the back itself?

Andy

In my understanding, the spacing between frames could be a bit off and the pressure of the pressure plate somewhat different due to the different thickness of the film (no packing paper.) Not sure how that influences film flatness.
I have to say, I never used 120 film in an A24 back - if yours works without modification, obviously no need to change!

 

[Sirius Glass]

In my understanding, the spacing between frames could be a bit off and the pressure of the pressure plate somewhat different due to the different thickness of the film (no packing paper.) Not sure how that influences film flatness.
I have to say, I never used 120 film in an A24 back - if yours works without modification, obviously no need to change!

An unmodified A24 back will only expose 11 times on a 120 roll.