Hasselblad mirror release issues.

Greetings Everyone
I’m relatively new to medium format photography, and could use some help with a mirror release issue I’m having on my Hasselblad 500/C, which by the way is confined to only one of my four Carl Zeiss lenses. A brief background of my gear, my 500/C is a 1966 model, it’s in excellent to near mint condition and functions as it should, i.e. mirror operates properly and the rear auxiliary shutter opens & closes as it should & when it should. My lense inventory includes a Distagon 1:4 f=50mm T*, Planar 1:2.8 f=80mm T*, Sonnar 1:4 f=150mm and a Sonnar 1:5.6 f=250mm. The 50mm, 80mm & 150mm lenses function flawlessly when mounted directly to my camera body, it’s only the 250mm lens that has the problem. When I mount my 250mm directly to my camera body, it malfunctions, i.e. won’t fire the lenses shutter when the shutter release button in depressed. When I depress the cameras shutter, there’s a internal kicks as if the mirror release mechanism is being activated. The problem is the mirror stays in it’s down position and doesn’t move. Now if I jiggle the lens clockwise, the mirror retracts, and at that point I can depress the shutter button a second time and the rear auxiliary shutter opens, the lens shutter fires and upon releasing the camera shutter button, the rear auxiliary shutter closes. Oddly enough, with this lens mounted directly to the camera body, even the mirror quick release button on the camera body when depressed has the same effect, i.e. the mirror is stuck in the down position until I jiggle the lens. The problem is the mirror release delay causes me to loose my composition for that shot. The odd thing is this, that same 250mm lens plugged onto my 21-macro tube, my 55-macro tube and my 2x-teleconverter works perfectly. The only other symptom is this, the 250mm lens when mounted directly to the camera body, has the slightest amount of play in it, microns if that, difficult to see but you can feel it by moving the lens backward and forward. I originally suspectd the lens mounting ring on the back of the lens was defective because of the movement, but that wouldn’t explain why this lens works properly when mounted on my macro tubes and teleconverter. If anyone cares to comment on what the possible culprit may be, I’m all ears.

Thanks
Sonny

There's a "screw" on the camera body that mates with the slotted release on the lens. I suspect the slotted release on the lens is misaligned. Compare it with your other lenses.

Theo Sulphate said:

There's a "screw" on the camera body that mates with the slotted release on the lens. I suspect the slotted release on the lens is misaligned. Compare it with your other lenses.

Click to expand...

Thanks for you comment, I’ve looked at that and all four lenses appear to be properly aligned. The thing is, it works properly when plugged into the macro tubes and teleconverter, if it were misaligned it wouldn’t work there either.

The 250mm lens is on the edge of needing a CLA [Clean, Lubricate, and Adjust]. If I were you, I would send the lens in for the CLA and not attach it to the camera until it has been serviced.

Thanks,that’s good advice and I can see the benefit of a CLA, I’m still puzzled over the slight movement when it’s attached directly to the camera body. Whatever it is, it’s keeping the mirror quick release button and the shutter button on the camera body from releasing the mirror from its down position.

Out of curiosity are there screws holding the lens mount to the lens and it there are; are they tight?

They appear to be flush with the top of the mounting ring itself, I haven’t actually tried tightening them with a screwdriver, as I don’t have the correct size screwdriver, but I did try to move the mounting ring and it appears to be tight agains the lens body. It seem like maybe the lens locking lever ( the little arm that is on the camera body ) that operated by the lens release button is possibly slipping instead of grabbing that 45degree bevel on the mounting ring itself. This would account for the slight back and forth movement when I mount the lens to the camera body, furthermore this may explain why this lens operates properly when mounted to my macro Extention tubes and teleconverter. I think I’ll try to file ever so lightly the bottom of the notch where the locking lever arms should be resting when the lens is in its locked position, hopefully if it is in fact slipping a little, which is exactly what could cause the back and forth movement, I will have fixed the problem. Hopefully I won’t need to remove the mounting ring from the lens body to do the actual filing.

Thanks for you response.
Sonny

It may be that the 250mm lens is one of those that interferes with the mirror, which would explain why it works as expected with an extension tube. The gliding mirror system introduced with, I think, the 501c/m corrected this, as well as some viewfinder vignetting.

drmoss_ca said:

It may be that the 250mm lens is one of those that interferes with the mirror, which would explain why it works as expected with an extension tube. The gliding mirror system introduced with, I think, the 501c/m corrected this, as well as some viewfinder vignetting.

Click to expand...

The gliding mirror was introduced to correct the top edge of the image from disappearing with the longer lenses but it does not correct the problem of the 250mm lens interfering with the mirror that is a lens problem which needs to be corrected before the mirror is damaged. I have the 503 CX which does not have the gliding mirror and I can use the 150mm, 250mm and 500mm lenses without any mirror interference. I do not ever notice the top of the image being cut off.

The 250mm lens can be used with the original 500C and any later Hasselblad (well, that's all of them) without interfering with the mirror. I'm not aware of any Hasselblad lens that interferes with the mirror's operation.

There is the issue of viewfinder image cutoff (but not cutoff on the negative) when long lenses were used on older bodies.

Any 250mm C lens is at least 30+ years old now and, if it hasn't had a CLA, it's due for one as Sirius suggests. If the slow speeds aren't smooth (e.g. the 1 second speed), that's a sign of needing a CLA.

I'm still puzzled why it would work with tubes and not on the body properly, which is why I thought the alignment was off.

The beauty of Hasselblad is there are plenty of experts that can do a CLA, fix shutters you name it. If none of its been touched maybe send in the body, back and 80 have it tidied up, then pick a lens every quarter for it's turn at the shop. Those cameras better than any other are truly a industrial design masterpiece. So handsome .
I have a 501cm and a 503cw ,love them . I have an urge to find a super clean early superwide c or a 500 needs to be chrome, chrome lenses etc.

Especially if you would shoot reversal film you want all your shutters to time right.

I've got grips and prisms, nothing beats holding the camera in your left hand, no grip, wlf, focusing with your left thumb and first finger, trip the shutter with the the same left forefinger. Let your right take care of speeds, f stops, winding. Such perfect ergonomics

My appreciation and gratitude to all those who posted a response to my mirror issues. The great thing about a forum such as this, is we all get the benefit of the combined experience and knowledge of those who participate in the conversation. My 1966 500/C even though quite old, performs flawlessly with my three other lenses as well as my extension tubes and teleconverter. This is a total of six devices that marry up perfectly to my 500/C, 3-lenses and 3-accessories. The slow shutter speeds on the 250mm appear to operate normally as well as the various apperature settings. The slight play you get when the lenses is attached to the body, is at a minimum part of the issue if not the issue. My long term plan is to buy a Chrome 500/CM or 501/CM Body to use as my primary shooter and use the 500/C as a backup or secondary.

I’m using the original WLF and a chimney stack for focusing, without any issues with vignette. In either scenario regardless of the viewfinder used, my focusing screen is always at 100%. The rear auxiliary shutter retracts all the way up with or without lenses attached to the body. This is the same with the 250mm as well, the culprit here is not due to a hanging shutter or mirror. Befor I give up on the 250mm altogether, or spend money to have it serviced, I’m on a mission to eliminate the movement between the lens and camera body. It’s difficult for me to fault the camera body, especially when it works so flawlessly with all my other gear. At any rate, thanks to everyone for responding, I’ll make sure I post the results, if I resolve this issue and can get the thing to work. The first chance I get, I’m hoping to plug all my lenses and attachments onto another Hasselbkad Body. This could possibly eliminate the body as the culprit, and point to the lens itself as the problem.

Regards
Sonny

Sirius Glass said:

I do not ever notice the top of the image being cut off.

Click to expand...

On my 503CX the top of the image seems to be fuzzy with the longer lenses. Not so on my 503CW

Hi Sonny,

Hasselblads can be addicting. I recall somewhere, somebody said that


Watch out for the Hasselblad SWC (or the later 903 SWC). I'm normally not fond of wide angle imagery, but the SWC is total magic and if you ever get a chance to use one, you'll be hooked for life.

Arthurwg said:

On my 503CX the top of the image seems to be fuzzy with the longer lenses. Not so on my 503CW

Click to expand...

Honestly I’m not sure how much use the 250mm would get anyway, as I’m in a medium format Hasselblad discovery mode at present. Being a novice to the Hasselblad and medium format, there’s plenty for me to learn as I go through this get acquainted phase. With all the uncertainties I’m facing at the moment, deciding what gear to use, there’s one thing I’m 100% sure of. Shooting MF film in a fully manual mode in natural light without flash, is going to be one of the most rewarding hobbies I’ve undertaken to date.

Thanks for commenting.
Sonny

Sirius and Theo - thanks for the correction. I was going by something I had read on the web, and having only a 500c + 500cm, I have no personal experience of the gliding mirror.