Hasselblad lenses -- and a happy experience thanks in part to this forum

[Halford]

Hi all,

Greetings again after a long hiatus while I was focused on completing my PhD.

I recently got my first Hasselblad 500 series -- and it very quickly became my 'main' still camera.
Of course like every new user in an extensive and storied system, I found myself a little anxious about what lenses to pick up to augment the 'kit' 80. Ideally I was looking for a 'holy trinity plus macro' to be assembled over time. And I was quite startled at the price differences between various choices -- particularly in the wider angle space. I fretted about the difference between the 40 and 50mm lenses ... yes by all accounts the 40mm is superb and would give those few degrees more angle of view. But the price difference. Yikes.
So of course I searched this forum and was reassured that even the 'cheap' Hasselblad lenses (50 / 80 / 150) are excellent lenses even if not the stellar quality of say, the 40 and 60.

So I faced financial reality and bought the relatively inexpensive 50mm CF before a trip and ... wow ... I am so delighted with the way that lens captures and renders space -- to the extent that the is (a little) distortion and softening in the corners, it feels natural to the scene. I think I'm in love!

In short, thanks to everyone who contributes here to build up an amazing archival resource. You never know which anonymous future searcher you are helping beyond measure!

Take care all - and more posts soon now that I have my life back.

 

[GLS]

Congrats on completing the PhD, and enjoy the lens.

 

[eli griggs]

Life is Good; enjoy it all.

 

[etn]

Congrats on your PhD! Which topic did you write on?

And congrats on the Hasselblad too! Indeed every lens ranges from good to absolute great. It is a matter of what works best for you, your vision, your photographic goals, and your taste.

Now if you look all the 1000-ish posts I wrote over the years (note: don't do it, it would be boring), you'll see that more than half of them just say, "Don't worry, you'll end up owning all Hasselblad lenses eventually"

 

[Arthurwg]

I have found that the 50mm is a bit wide for most pictures, resulting in too much empty foreground. My favorite lens is the 60mm, and I also carry the 120mm. I find these two are all I need for most work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hi all,

Greetings again after a long hiatus while I was focused on completing my PhD.

I recently got my first Hasselblad 500 series -- and it very quickly became my 'main' still camera.
Of course like every new user in an extensive and storied system, I found myself a little anxious about what lenses to pick up to augment the 'kit' 80. Ideally I was looking for a 'holy trinity plus macro' to be assembled over time. And I was quite startled at the price differences between various choices -- particularly in the wider angle space. I fretted about the difference between the 40 and 50mm lenses ... yes by all accounts the 40mm is superb and would give those few degrees more angle of view. But the price difference. Yikes.
So of course I searched this forum and was reassured that even the 'cheap' Hasselblad lenses (50 / 80 / 150) are excellent lenses even if not the stellar quality of say, the 40 and 60.

So I faced financial reality and bought the relatively inexpensive 50mm CF before a trip and ... wow ... I am so delighted with the way that lens captures and renders space -- to the extent that the is (a little) distortion and softening in the corners, it feels natural to the scene. I think I'm in love!

In short, thanks to everyone who contributes here to build up an amazing archival resource. You never know which anonymous future searcher you are helping beyond measure!

Take care all - and more posts soon now that I have my life back.

Now go out and by the 250mm lens and the Hasselblad 903 SWC. Then you will be a very happy camper indeed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi all,

Greetings again after a long hiatus while I was focused on completing my PhD.

I recently got my first Hasselblad 500 series -- and it very quickly became my 'main' still camera.
Of course like every new user in an extensive and storied system, I found myself a little anxious about what lenses to pick up to augment the 'kit' 80. Ideally I was looking for a 'holy trinity plus macro' to be assembled over time. And I was quite startled at the price differences between various choices -- particularly in the wider angle space. I fretted about the difference between the 40 and 50mm lenses ... yes by all accounts the 40mm is superb and would give those few degrees more angle of view. But the price difference. Yikes.
So of course I searched this forum and was reassured that even the 'cheap' Hasselblad lenses (50 / 80 / 150) are excellent lenses even if not the stellar quality of say, the 40 and 60.

So I faced financial reality and bought the relatively inexpensive 50mm CF before a trip and ... wow ... I am so delighted with the way that lens captures and renders space -- to the extent that the is (a little) distortion and softening in the corners, it feels natural to the scene. I think I'm in love!

In short, thanks to everyone who contributes here to build up an amazing archival resource. You never know which anonymous future searcher you are helping beyond measure!

Take care all - and more posts soon now that I have my life back.

the FLE version of the 50mmCF takes care of the soft corners!

 

[Eff64]

Ditto on the 60, and the comment about the FLE 50.

I own and use both. For me the 80 is a little too confining for general use, and I prefer the 60 in that case. Even though only a bit wider, the 50 is for when I really need a wide angle.

I’ve never used a 40, but suspect the weight of it would put me off. The 50 has been wide enough for my use.

 

[GLS]

I have the 40 FLE, 50 FLE and the 60. All have their uses. There's very little difference in weight between the 40 FLE and the 50 FLE.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I have a 50mm CF and 150mm CF and 80mm C, happy to answer questions.

 

[Eff64]

I see that now. (40 vs 50 weight) Looks like only 5oz heavier. May have to look into getting one.

 

[skahde]

Stop the 50 mm CF non-FLE down to at least f11 to recover the corners. The old distagons suffer from field curvature and to get the corners in focus, just stop them down like there is no tomorrow. That's what I did with my 50 CT* and the results were just lovely. Same is true for many distagon-like retrofocus lenses from that era: Stop them down, they are made like that.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Good decision! I own the 50/4 Distagon for my SL66. This lens is hard to beat if you want an affordable wide angle for the Hasselblad system. Very sharp if stopped down and used for distant objects. It has some drawbacks when used in the close range wide open. The later FLE-version improved on that. If you want an inexpensive tele-lens, go for the 150/4. Very good lens too. I prefer the 180/4, which offers a bit more compression, but is heavier and more expensive.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

I see that now. (40 vs 50 weight) Looks like only 5oz heavier. May have to look into getting one.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

My 40 FLE is the "Oh, my goodness, this composition is crying out for me" lens. I've had an SWC (a surprise from my wife after she saved nickels and dimes for years), 40, 50, and 60. Even had a 30 for a few months. Although the SWC was superb, my 40 allows me to look through the right-side-up and non-reversed image, and get an approximate meter reading with the PME-51. You will fall in love with your 40 FLE! I would avoid the 40 C version because of its bulk, but I believe the lens formula is virtually the same. Please show the forum some images from your 40 when you get it.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

My 40 FLE is the "Oh, my goodness, this composition is crying out for me" lens. I've had an SWC (a surprise from my wife after she saved nickels and dimes for years), 40, 50, and 60. Even had a 30 for a few months. Although the SWC was superb, my 40 allows me to look through the right-side-up and non-reversed image, and get an approximate meter reading with the PME-51. You will fall in love with your 40 FLE! I would avoid the 40 C version because of its bulk, but I believe the lens formula is virtually the same. Please show the forum some images from your 40 when you get it.

YES! It is the crying out for me lens. I'm still learning to use mine effectively.

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2024/07/danger-gas-and-review-of-zeiss-40mm-4.html

The c lens is a much different optical formula with a larger front element.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

I found the following on Ken Rockwell's site, "For this 40mm, it's best to use an 86x1.0mm to 95x1.0mm step-up ring in place of the two-peice Hasselblad 93/40 adapter ring, and use regular 95mm screw-in filters.
'The 86 -> 95mm adapter rings sold on eBay from China typically use an incorrect 0.75mm thread pitch for the 86mm threads, so be careful since they won't fully attach to the lens. Don't force it and these rings will work well, too."
I found a PolarPro 86 to 95 adapter ring on eBay, and it has the proper thread pitch. Delighted when it effortlessly screwed on to my 40 CF FLE . Thank you, Mr. Rockwell!

 

[eli griggs]

I found the following on Ken Rockwell's site, "For this 40mm, it's best to use an 86x1.0mm to 95x1.0mm step-up ring in place of the two-peice Hasselblad 93/40 adapter ring, and use regular 95mm screw-in filters.
'The 86 -> 95mm adapter rings sold on eBay from China typically use an incorrect 0.75mm thread pitch for the 86mm threads, so be careful since they won't fully attach to the lens. Don't force it and these rings will work well, too."
I found a PolarPro 86 to 95 adapter ring on eBay, and it has the proper thread pitch. Delighted when it effortlessly screwed on to my 40 CF FLE . Thank you, Mr. Rockwell!

Search Amazon.com for "Ludiz" brass filter rings, a good value and material.

I'd prefer a twist or two more for the filter, but they work well and are MUCH less expensive than B&W, ETC brass adapter rings.

Searching Amazon for Ludiz rings is sometimes frustrating, but it's worth the effort to list them all for a complete view of what they do have and in what mount, but a quick look shows several 95mm filter rings/adapters.