Hasselblad questions

[puketronic]

I want to get a Hasselblad.

I love my Rolleiflex 2.8E, with Maxwell screen, but for various reasons I want to add a Hasselblad 500 C/CM with an 80mm f2.8 Planar lens.

1. Is the CM body much improved over the C?
2. Likewise, are the CF lenses much improved over the C?
3. Which screen should I get? I've heard a lot about the acute matte d, but I believe those screens are split-image? I just want a plain screen without focusing aids.

If it matters, I plan on starting with a WLF and 80mm f2.8. Maybe a Proxar for close-ups.

In the future, I would add the and 60mm/120mm lenses next. Those are the only other lenses that interest me. I'm inclined to go with the CM body and the CF lenses, but if the C bodies and the C lenses are a better value, then I'll stick with those.

 

[blind_sparks]

The C/M bodies have the interchangeable screens, but thats about all they have over the original C. The C bodies have a rear curtain sync that was deleted from the C/M, but these almost never work (mine had the wire clipped by a repair technician previous to my ownership). If you can get a later C body with the regular cross-type screen, I think you will be more than happy. There was also some variance when it came to the brake mechanism for the rear curtains throughout the C-C/M's life. If you can, test before you buy. The closing of the rear curtains should be relatively quiet. My body had the brake removed (again, repair tech, the silly fool) and was very loud...that eventually caused the curtains to break at the axel because there was nothing to dampen its action. David Odess has a nice write-up about this on his site.

Many will tell you that the later CF lenses have more reliable shutters. At least, one can still supposedly source parts for the Prontor shutters, whereas the Compur shutter parts are harder to source. I never had a problem the the Compur-shuttered lenses, and they are usually a good bargain. Earlier C lenses were single-coated (usually chrome bodies, great for B&W), later ones were multi-coated (T*, usually in black bodies). In practice, it comes down to cosmetics and handling. The C lenses have metal rings that can be a pain on the hands, and interlocks related to the EV system. The CF are a bit more modern in terms of handling. Great optics in either case - get what you can afford.

Proxars are great - much more convenient than extension tubes. I will also recommend the NC-2 prism.

 

[Alan Gales]

I owned a Hasselblad/CM for a while. I had both the original focussing screen and a Beattie Intenscreen. The Beatie screen was just a pure joy to use over the original screen. I'm 53 and my eyes are not what they used to be.

Like mentioned earlier, with the CM you can change the screens. I don't know if maybe a technician can change a screen in the earlier C model. If not, being able to update the focussing screen is well worth any extra money spent on a CM to me.

 

[Brett Rogers]

Earlier C/Ms still had the socket for rear curtain sync. It was only deleted on later ones.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I would recommend a late CM with the new style waist level finder (big improvement), 500C, 500 Classic or 501CM. The 501CM is not much more expensive than a late 500CM and you don´t have to worry about the foam pads. By the way I can also highly recommend a 553ELX or 555ELD if you don´t mind the weight. However, if you only want to use an 80mm Planar or lenses in the 60-120mm range, I wonder why you can´t just stick with the Rollei? If you intend to use the camera for close up work (you mentioned the Proxar), I can also recommend the SL66 with 80mm or the great 120/5,6. Regarding screens: The acute matte D is indeed much brighter than the old screens, but I dislike the glare of the protection glass layer. Much prefer the High-D screen my SL66 has, much more comfortable to work with compared to the acute matte D and the standard SL66 screen, which is dull.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I want to get a Hasselblad.

I love my Rolleiflex 2.8E, with Maxwell screen, but for various reasons I want to add a Hasselblad 500 C/CM with an 80mm f2.8 Planar lens.

1. Is the CM body much improved over the C?
2. Likewise, are the CF lenses much improved over the C?
3. Which screen should I get? I've heard a lot about the acute matte d, but I believe those screens are split-image? I just want a plain screen without focusing aids.

If it matters, I plan on starting with a WLF and 80mm f2.8. Maybe a Proxar for close-ups.

In the future, I would add the and 60mm/120mm lenses next. Those are the only other lenses that interest me. I'm inclined to go with the CM body and the CF lenses, but if the C bodies and the C lenses are a better value, then I'll stick with those.

2. I have 503 CX which I prefer. It does not have a gliding mirror so there is a small line in the top of the view finder with the 250mm lens. Quickly one does not notice the line [the line does not show up in the negative.] Do not be concerned about the absence of the gliding mirror.

The C lenses have a spring which is getting harder to get replacements for them. Also the C lenses use the B50 bayonet filters.
I prefer the CF lenses, which are better engineered for the users; they are more ergonomic. The CF lenses are all multilayered coated. The CF use the B60 bayonet filters,so that one set of filters work for all lenses but the 40mm lens.

If one buys C and CF lenses, then one will have to buy both the B50 and the B60 filters. Buy one series or the other. Both have the same prescription but the CF and higher lenses have adjustments for closer focus.

3. I have the close up filters, but the close up tubes allow more flexibility. I have the accumatte screen without the split image, but with a horizontal and vertical crosshairs. The screen focusing works well and I did not find that the split image added anything. The crosshairs allow one to easily line up the horizon and the verticals very quickly ==> no more correcting the horizon or verticals in the darkroom.

I find that the 60mm lens is too close to the 80mm lens. I like the spacing of SWC [38mm], 50mm, 80mm, 150mm and the 250mm lenses or SWC [38mm], 50mm, 100mm, 150mm and the 250mm lenses. I have found that the 350mm and 500mm lenses not all that useful.

I want to get a Hasselblad.

Obviously you are a very wise person.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I have been shooting recently with a friend's 500c and silver 80mm c lens, the old type back, and a polaroid back. Its been a lot of fun, but it's really tight on the focusing, even with the additional focusing lever, the original screen is dim and kind of useless without the magnifier, it weighs a lot, and film loading is slow(maybe it just me). The images it makes are great though, and the polaroid back has been really fun.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Using an eye-level finder transforms the Hasselblad into a much nicer camera, IMHO. After 20 years of using waist-level finders, I picked up an old, inexpensive, RM-2 (hc-3/70), which is a 90-degree non-metered finder with adjustable diopters. It gives a 4x magnified, uncropped, unreversed image. Focusing is so easy with it!

Even though my work is slow and from a tripod, I never really liked the waist-level finders.

The older 45-degree metered or non-metered prism can be found for not too much money.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

The focus lever just makes things worse. They ruin the threads of the lens. Yes, Hasselblads are on the tight side on focus, but there comes a point where the thing needs a CLA. Sounds like your friend's is there. And yes you have to use the magnifier, but you'll have to do that with a bright screen too. Or get an eye level finder for it. They are what they are.

Yea his camera most certainly needs a cleaning and relube of the lens's focusing helical. I did not not know the lever can damage the lens but I've been going easy on it. It already has such a long throw from min to infinity.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Sorry I made a mistake in my previous post. I meant 501C, not 500C!

 

[film_man]

I want to get a Hasselblad.

I love my Rolleiflex 2.8E, with Maxwell screen, but for various reasons I want to add a Hasselblad 500 C/CM with an 80mm f2.8 Planar lens.

1. Is the CM body much improved over the C?
2. Likewise, are the CF lenses much improved over the C?
3. Which screen should I get? I've heard a lot about the acute matte d, but I believe those screens are split-image? I just want a plain screen without focusing aids.

If it matters, I plan on starting with a WLF and 80mm f2.8. Maybe a Proxar for close-ups.

In the future, I would add the and 60mm/120mm lenses next. Those are the only other lenses that interest me. I'm inclined to go with the CM body and the CF lenses, but if the C bodies and the C lenses are a better value, then I'll stick with those.

1: Yes because you can change the screen and that is a big deal as the old screens are just as nice (ie crap) as the stock Rolleiflex screen (if not worse). ie you paid $$$ for a Maxwell screen so you know why you did it.

2: The CT* lenses (not plain C) are just as "good" as the CF (or vice versa). The differences from going from a C/CT style lens to a CF or later are on the ergonomics as other explained. The difference from going C to CT is the coating, so CT lenses are a bit better at that.

3: The Acute Matte D is a plain screen and it is brilliantly bright and snappy (though you can get a split-image one, if you can find anyone that sells them). I have a Maxwell screen for my RB67 and the Acute Matte D is as good or maybe that bit better. I did try the Acute Matte screen as well which was almost as nice but the old screens are crap.

Considering that you have a Maxwell screen for your Rollei and you want a plain one I would either factor in the price of a Maxwell screen OR (better) look for a 501CM that usually comes with a Acute Matte D screen (but check before you buy!). The 501CM is pricier than an old 500CM but the price difference is less than a Maxwell screen plus you get the gliding mirror and other little improvements.

Also, as said consider the EL series. The ELX/ELD bodies (either 500/503/555) have all the improvements that you get from the 501CM/503CW and I find they balance better with a prism (I used my Hassy 90% with a PM90, 90 degree, prism). They are also cheaper but they are heavier and obviously need batteries.

 

[David Allen]

One word of warning

In the recent experience of three people I know, the most important thing is to find out how regularly the lenses have been used. Basically, if the shutter in the lens has not been regularly fired you face a potentially large bill for a CLA. A regularly used lens (even if it looks a bit scruffy on the cosmetic side) is far more preferable than one that looks mint but has not been used for years - which leads to the lubricant becoming sticky.

Only last week, a photographer approached me to diagnose some strange results she had got with her Hasselblad. All of the negatives were dense and blurred (almost a double image in fact) despite she had been using 1/125. I met up with her and the 500cm and 50mm lens looked mint - almost brand new. However, when I removed the back and locked up the mirror and fired the lens, the problem was very clear: upon firing the shutter set at f16, the blades closed to about f5.6 for a fraction of second, then slowly closed to f16 and then closed completely. I don't know where you are based but in Berlin having the lens stripped, cleaned and re-lubricated cost her 180€.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Xmas]

A blad with the standard hood and a pentaprism finder are two different cameras.
The C OEM screen is dark but easy to focus with...
I use a FSU metered prism which has only one problem it needs a fresnel screen cause it's finder eye pupil is otherwise too small. With a penta prism it is as fast handling as a 35mm SLR (almost).
The FSU meter is ok too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Using an eye-level finder transforms the Hasselblad into a much nicer camera, IMHO.

...

The older 45-degree metered or non-metered prism can be found for not too much money.

+1
I use a 45 degree metered finder and I have no problems.

 

[puketronic]

thanks all.

I'll have to review this thread more carefully but I'm leaning on a late 500cm/501cm (with acute matte d screen) + 80/2.8 CF.

The Rollei SL66 sounds nice, but I believe it's a bit more bulky. I handled one once but I'm looking for something more streamlined and slim.

 

[philipus]

I recently bought a Hasselblad (203fe in my case) with an 80/2.8 and, as someone who's used EOS for a long time, find that it is, indeed, very streamlined in use, eminently handholdable and portable. It's not very heavy and it's easy to bring anywhere. I think you'd find the 5xx series very much the same. Good luck /Philip

 

[Mark_S]

I have used TLRs in the past, but my MF camera for the past several years has been a Hasselblad - I have the 503CX body, and CF lenses - the 50, 80 and 150. I use both the WLF, and a prism metered finder (PME51?) depending upon what I am shooting. My guess is that if you are comfortable with the Rollei, the WLF will work for you. I also have both a split prism screen and one which just has a grid on the ground glass - they are very easy to swap out depending on what you are doing. I have been very happy with this camera - it has given me many years of solid performance, with little fussing. I shoot mostly LF, and I went to MF for when I wanted to hand-hold something. I did upgrade a couple of my C lenses for CF a couple of years ago - my understanding is that the parts for the C lenses are very difficult to obtain, so it is easier to maintain the CF lenses. I have a bellows that I use for close-ups, it is awkward, but I find that my close-up work tends to be done on a tripod anyways, which makes it more manageable.

David Odess does a great job on maintaining the gear.

 

[msage]

I prefer the 90 degree finders for the following reason: I shot a WWII air show with a Hasselblad, which was a mistake. I used the 45 degree finder which was a disaster. I couldn't pick up the planes in it. Neither eye was on the plane; they were pointed more towards the ground. I got rid of that finder in a hurry and got a 90 degree one. Never again. 45 degree finders are worthless.

In you opinion, I have used the 45 degree finder for 30 years and love it! I have no problem following action.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Yes, it depends on the photographer and the application. I use my Hasselblads for landscapes and they sit on a tripod at chest height. So, 45 is perfect for me although I just have my inexpensive 90-degree finder.