Hasselblad lens pricing (CF Series)

[AndyH]

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!

I don't see how the film spacing would begin to be affected until at least the second half of the roll. The backing paper isn't that thick. There's always another inch or so of film left on my exposed 120 rolls anyway, so a little "crawl" wouldn't knock my last exposure off the edge. As to film flatness, I know that my Rollei has two settings for the pressure plate, but the Hasselblad backs seem identically constructed to me. The little side channel seems to aid in this. I do remember reading on one discussion board that no adaptations were necessary.

When I get this one working, I'll report back. At $200 per back, as opposed to about $50, it's worth the experiment.

Andy

 

[AndyH]

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

Even if that's true, I'll take it. I would suppose it depends a bit on the specific length of the film you're using. Kodak films seem to run a bit longer than others, judging from the negatives I've got after processing. What has your experience been?

Andy

 

[Grim Tuesday]

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

Sirius, you say this in every thread about Hasselblad backs but it is not completely correct. The correct part about your statement is that you get 11 exposures if you load the film as you would load a 220 film. The incorrect part about it is that it is possible to get 12 exposures in an A24 back without modifying the back. Here is a guide to doing it:

https://mraggett.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/120-film-in-hasselblad-220-magazine/

 

[AndyH]

Sirius, you say this in every thread about Hasselblad backs but it is not completely correct. The correct part about your statement is that you get 11 exposures if you load the film as you would load a 220 film. The incorrect part about it is that it is possible to get 12 exposures in an A24 back without modifying the back. Here is a guide to doing it:

https://mraggett.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/120-film-in-hasselblad-220-magazine/

Helpful advice. Thanks!
Andy

 

[Ariston]

Sirius, you say this in every thread about Hasselblad backs but it is not completely correct. The correct part about your statement is that you get 11 exposures if you load the film as you would load a 220 film. The incorrect part about it is that it is possible to get 12 exposures in an A24 back without modifying the back. Here is a guide to doing it:

https://mraggett.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/120-film-in-hasselblad-220-magazine/

I can confirm this. I bought an A24 back, and you just have to stop the film a quarter turn before it gets to the arrow to get twelve exposures. I loaded a dummy roll and confirmed it myself with my eyes.

Don't forget to stop taking pictures after 12, though, because the back will keep on rolling as though you have twelve more.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is good that there is a work around to get twelve exposures from 120 film using an A24. I only have A12 backs.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It is good that there is a work around to get twelve exposures from 120 film using an A24. I only have A12 backs.

Let's keep it our secret around here then! Wouldn't want everyone catching on and letting the A24 backs go up to the price of A12s. As it is I can get them for $30-40

 

[AndyH]

Let's keep it our secret around here then! Wouldn't want everyone catching on and letting the A24 backs go up to the price of A12s. As it is I can get them for $30-40

Indeed. But secrets get out, and those of us who need them and know the secret will inevitably start snapping them up. <sigh> I just hope I get a few before they start skyrocketing like everything else Hasselblad.

I guess this is where I should make a statement that they are really, really difficult to repair. And repeat it until my pants catch fire.

Andy

 

[Ariston]

Indeed. But secrets get out, and those of us who need them and know the secret will inevitably start snapping them up. <sigh> I just hope I get a few before they start skyrocketing like everything else Hasselblad.

I guess this is where I should make a statement that they are really, really difficult to repair. And repeat it until my pants catch fire.

Andy

Hmmm.... I've heard lots of terrible things about the A24 back! The spacing is wrong, the pressure plate doesn't work right because it is designed for film without a paper backing, it keeps winding even after twelve shots...

This is what I've heard, anyway. And let's not forget the terrible resale value!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am sticking with my A12 backs.

 

[GLS]

An A12-N in good condition goes for 300 - 350 euros here... crazy

Yes I have felt this sting. In the UK they go for between £250-350, depending on condition, and I bought them all at the latter end of that scale.

As to the OP's question, I think it is largely a matter of appeal. 250mm is not a generally useful focal length for many people, and is only an f5.6 compared with the f2.8 of the 80mm. The regular 250 Sonnar is also one of the weaker performers in the Hassy lens stable, which probably also contributes to the lower price. The Superachromat version is another story

As to ranking my own lens use, it's hard to say exactly, but it would probably be: 100mm > 50mm > 180mm > 120mm > 80mm.

 

[fdonadio]

Thanks, everybody. I always thought I needed a longer lens for my Hassy... I mean, longer than my 150mm. I didn't even had a use for it, I just thought it would be cool to have one.

Now I see it was only GAS!

Thanks for making me think about it and decide to use the money for film.

Cheers,
Flavio

 

[BrianShaw]

Let me talk you out of that conclusion. I had no real need for a 250 until I saw one in the condition and price I couldn't refuse. I then found out how useful it could be and now can’t live without it even though it is my least used lens.

... if only I could find s 50 in condition and price I can’t refuse, but honestly I have no need for one.

 

[fdonadio]

Let me talk you out of that conclusion.

No, I said it's GAS. I know it's GAS!

 

[BrianShaw]

No, I said it's GAS. I know it's GAS!

Submit. Willingly submit!

 

[Alan9940]

Now I see it was only GAS!

No, it's GLASS...always need more GLASS!!

 

[etn]

No, it's GLASS...always need more GLASS!!

Sirius will surely agree with that one

In any case, given that Hasselblad prices are going up, what's wrong with GAS? Buy it, try it, if you don't like it sell it. You'll probably not lose any money if you didn't overpay in the first place (takes a bit of research).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks, everybody. I always thought I needed a longer lens for my Hassy... I mean, longer than my 150mm. I didn't even had a use for it, I just thought it would be cool to have one.

Now I see it was only GAS!

Thanks for making me think about it and decide to use the money for film.

Cheers,
Flavio

Sirius will surely agree with that one

In any case, given that Hasselblad prices are going up, what's wrong with GAS? Buy it, try it, if you don't like it sell it. You'll probably not lose any money if you didn't overpay in the first place (takes a bit of research).

First of all as my signature proclaims, "Nothing beats a good piece of glass".

Once you have the 250mm lens in your hands you will find that you will use it much more than you think you will. Beside you will use the 250mm lens more than the 350mm lens or the 500mm lens.

Remember that Yoda said, "The force of gas resist you cannot." Star Wars XXXVIII.

 

[AndyH]

First of all as my signature proclaims, "Nothing beats a good piece of glass".

Once you have the 250mm lens in your hands you will find that you will use it much more than you think you will. Beside you will use the 250mm lens more than the 350mm lens or the 500mm lens.

Remember that Yoda said, "The force of gas resist you cannot." Star Wars XXXVIII.

View attachment 233761

With this, agree I must.

Not my favorite, or even my favorite tele (that's the 150 f4), but it's a lens I use a lot more than I expected I would. If only it were f4, it sould be much higher on my use list. Think of it as a little longer than a 135mm in 35mm terms. It's a very nice length.

Andy

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yes I have felt this sting. In the UK they go for between £250-350, depending on condition, and I bought them all at the latter end of that scale.

As to the OP's question, I think it is largely a matter of appeal. 250mm is not a generally useful focal length for many people, and is only an f5.6 compared with the f2.8 of the 80mm. The regular 250 Sonnar is also one of the weaker performers in the Hassy lens stable, which probably also contributes to the lower price. The Superachromat version is another story

As to ranking my own lens use, it's hard to say exactly, but it would probably be: 100mm > 50mm > 180mm > 120mm > 80mm.

Just as an alternative perspective, my usage is 60 >> 150 > 50 > 250 > 80. I sold my 100 and 120 -- just not worth the price imo. I also let a 40mm pass through my hands, and I kinda regret letting it go because it is a very good and unique lens but it makes the camera impossible to handle (C T* version). Also, I think the 80 is actually a very good lens, but I use it less because I have fixed lens cameras at that focal length. I take out the 'Blad when I want focal lengths my Rollei can't do.

 

[Arthurwg]

Not that anyone's asking, but I think most users will be happy with two lenses: The 60mm and the120mm. I have many more but rarely use them, except for the SWC of course. Sometimes that's all that I travel with. And BTW, I have an A24 back that I'm keeping in case of a miracle-- the return of 220 film.

 

[pressureworld]

I only use the 80mm and the 50mm primarily for landscapes. I have to admit it seems I'm always on the fence about the 60mm or 150mm, but I'm only trying to buy what I know I will use. It's hard because prices seem to be through the roof for all the major medium format cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I only use the 80mm and the 50mm primarily for landscapes. I have to admit it seems I'm always on the fence about the 60mm or 150mm, but I'm only trying to buy what I know I will use. It's hard because prices seem to be through the roof for all the major medium format cameras.

I have the 30mm [Fisheye], 38mm [SWC], 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm and 500mm and the 2XE extender. I do not shoot portraits so I do not use the 150mm very often and prefer the 250mm lens. If I were to do portrait work I would use the 180mm over the 150mm lens.

 

[pressureworld]

That's a lot of lenses Sirius which ones do you use the most? and how do you like the SWC?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have the 30mm [Fisheye], 38mm [SWC], 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm and 500mm and the 2XE extender. I do not shoot portraits so I do not use the 150mm very often and prefer the 250mm lens. If I were to do portrait work I would use the 180mm over the 150mm lens.

That's a lot of lenses Sirius which ones do you use the most? and how do you like the SWC?

Favorites, for the right situation 30mm Fisheye, 38mm SWC and 100mm.
Most used: 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, followed by SWC and 250mm and SWC.
Least used 150mm because I do not take portraits.