Hasselblad telephoto lenses

Paul Goutiere · Aug 24, 2009

I am considering a telephoto lens for my 501CM. At this point I have a 80mm and 150mm but perhaps I may add something longer. Maybe a 350mm or even a 500mm. Does anyone have any experience with a Hasselblad telephoto they would like to share?

Morry Katz · Aug 24, 2009

I have a 250mm Sonnar for my Rollei SL66 and around here, it can only be use on calm days. With a little too much wind, the whole thing vibrates like crazy - even on a heavy tripod. I do like the lens and the focal length but there are days when I can't use it.

Morry Katz - Lethbridge, Alberta

Q.G. · Aug 24, 2009

Which focal length to get is a matter of personal taste.

If you do want to get a 500 mm, and funds permit, try to get the Tele-Apotessar (the CF lens), and not the Tele-Tessar (the C lens). The Tele-Apotessar is decidedly better than the older Tele-Tessar. And it has internal focusing, keeping the shift in balance during focusing very small.

The Tele-Apotessar comes in two versions, differing only in minimum focussing distance (8 m vs 5 m).

The other two telephoto focal lengths (250 mm and 350 mm) both offer a choice between a 'regular' lens and a Superachromat (the non plus ultra in colour correction).
The Superachromat versions are, of course, better, but also much more expensive. The 'regular' ones are quite good also.
So a choice depending on the content of your bank account. But not one that leaves you lumbered with a bad lens should your bank account not allow a Superachromat.

All (!) lenses should be used on a tripod if you want to know what they are capable of.
But while you could get away using the 250 mm handheld (a waste, though, of the money you spent, if it was spent buying a Superachromat), you absolutely must use a tripod with the other two.

Sirius Glass · Aug 24, 2009

To echo what QG said, I have the 250mm lens, it is about a long a lens on the Hasselblad that can be handheld. I have a 2x extender that I have used with it and the two were useable, but a little hard to use handheld.

Steve

photobum · Aug 24, 2009

A number of years ago I took a photo of my father flyfishing with the 350 CF on a 500CM mounted to a 320 series Gitzo tripod. It was the last photo I took of him before he died. While the print hangs in my living room, in my darkroom is the negative. Under a 6X loupe it shows that I took the photograph at 1:20 PM. Considering that I was not all that close, to be able to read his watch just about says it all for the lens quality.

jeffreyg · Aug 24, 2009

I have the 250 and a 2x as well as the 150, 80 & 50fle. The Hasselblad 2x works well. A couple of years ago I was able to buy a 30 year old 350 for $750 and could not resist the bargin although it had a view camera type shutter it is in mint condition but also takes larger filters and definitely requires a tripod ( I try to use one routinely regardless of the lens ). For traveling I generally take the 50, 150 and 2x. If you can find one at a good price - why not? But a 2x and the 150 other than the loss of f stops is a good combo and consider the 50fle. That would give you many combos plus the 50 can get pretty close-up.

Paul Goutiere · Aug 24, 2009

Well, thank you: Morry, Q.G., Sirius, photobum, jeffreyg, this makes my decision much easier. I have my eye on a 350mm at the moment.
Paul

Sirius Glass · Aug 24, 2009

Paul Goutiere said:
Well, thank you: Morry, Q.G., Sirius, photobum, jeffreyg, this makes my decision much easier. I have my eye on a 350mm at the moment.
Paul

Do not leave your eye on it too long. It will dry out and be hard to put back into the socket so that it operates correctly. Also, remember to put it back in right side up.

Steve

Sirius Glass · Aug 24, 2009

Paul Goutiere said:
Well, thank you: Morry, Q.G., Sirius, photobum, jeffreyg, this makes my decision much easier. I have my eye on a 350mm at the moment.
Paul

Do not leave your eye on it too long. It will dry out and be hard to put back into the socket so that it operates correctly. Also, remember to put it back in right side up.

Or is it a glass eye that fell on a bargain?

Steve

Nokton48 · Aug 30, 2009

I have a black (non-T*) 350mm f5.6 and I really like it alot. I have been carrying it, and using it handheld, without any issues whatsoever. Now I have ordered the old black/chrome shutter 500mm F8, for the price I am willing to give it a shot. T* does not make much difference with long lenses.

Here's a recent Polaroid test, that's my Son playing the Electric Bass:

stealthman_1 · Aug 31, 2009

I have a CF T* 350 f5.6. If you go to my flickr site linked below and search the photostream for "350mm f5.6" you'll see a around a dozen shots with it. It's a lovely compressed landscape lens, performs uniquely with extension tubes, and is just a touch short as a wildlife lens. Most of the wildlife shots were shot with Fuji 400h in poor light (rainy). I will aquire a 500 f8 in the future for Yellowstone trips...If you want the 600 f4 crowd to doubt their skill, carry a Hassy with a telephoto...

Sirius Glass · Sep 1, 2009

stealthman_1 said:
I will aquire a 500 f8 in the future for Yellowstone trips...If you want the 600 f4 crowd to doubt their skill, carry a Hassy with a telephoto...

It is also good for building upper body strength.

Steve

abstraxion · Sep 1, 2009

What a great shot, stealthman. I bet that would look incredible as a silver print. I had never thought of using perspective compression as a technique for landscape photography.

CBG · Sep 1, 2009

Morry Katz said:
I have a 250mm Sonnar for my Rollei SL66 and around here, it can only be use on calm days. With a little too much wind, the whole thing vibrates like crazy - even on a heavy tripod. I do like the lens and the focal length but there are days when I can't use it.
Morry Katz - Lethbridge, Alberta

From your mention of vibrating like crazy, it sounds like your camera and tripod are possibly vibrating at a resonant frequency. That can't help you get sharp results.

Maybe you need a better tripod or just a different one, or a different kind of connection to the tripod - the 250 doesn't have all that much magnification, perhaps 3x normal, so steadying it should not be impossible. There are heavy tripods and there are heavy tripods. You may need a heavy tripod or just a stiffer one.

stealthman_1 · Sep 1, 2009

abstraxion...Thank you very much. I've been meaning to print it, but haven't gotten to it yet...I've got a few 6x6 I need to print...better go to Freestyle and get some 20x24 paper....

alex gard · Jan 5, 2014

Sorry to dig up an older thread...

would it be a wiser decision to get a 350mm lens and a 2x extender (does the 350mm lens on 2x become equivalent to 700mm?)

I am only asking because essentially you are getting two usable and practical focal lengths where as 1000mm from a 500mm on a 2x extender is a bit extreme for (my) practical use...?

what would be the wiser option?

RalphLambrecht · Jan 5, 2014

Paul Goutiere said:
I am considering a telephoto lens for my 501CM. At this point I have a 80mm and 150mm but perhaps I may add something longer. Maybe a 350mm or even a 500mm. Does anyone have any experience with a Hasselblad telephoto they would like to share?

after working with what you alsohave, I bought a used 350mm CF,which only costs me $50 for Zeiss to give it a CLA. it is now excellent and ideal for close-up portraits. Just look at the MTFsof Zeiss tele photo lenses. You cannot get any better. the one issue I had were some focusing problemsbut,that turned out to be my mistake.I had the DOF button pushed and was trying to focus with the working aperture;how dumb of me.

Dr Croubie · Jan 5, 2014

Depends on the definition of 'wiser'. Easier to answer are the questions involving 'cheaper', 'heavier', and 'sharper'.
Firstly, yes, 350mm f/5.6 x 2 T/C = 700mm f/11.
Teleconverters *always* reduce image quality, as a) you're adding in extra glass elements, and b) they double the aberrations of the bare lens.
Whether or not you can actually see the difference depends on so many variables like how good the lenses are to begin with, film choice/speed, colour/b+w, size of enlargement/scan, how good your tripod is and even shutter/mirror shake, plus of course what you consider 'good' and 'good enough'.

If you're going to be shooting things fairly distant, don't forget that even atmospheric haze can blur out the difference between a good long prime and a T/Ced shorter lens.

jeffreyg · Jan 5, 2014

My Mutar 2X coupled with my 150, 250 and 350 produce excellent sharpness. I don't use it with the 80 because I have a 150. I have enlarged to 16x20 the maximum I do. To my eye I can't tell any difference. I use a heavy tripod and generally shoot stopped down.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Hassasin · Dec 25, 2023

Might be worth it to revive this thread as not much is being discussed about Hasselblad long lenses.

I now have the CF 350 and APO Tessar 500, and considering the Variogon 140-280.

There is no way I would recommend skipping the 500 over with a 2x + 350. This is not to say the latter has issues (even if it does). But the 500 with its tripod mount is superbly better on a tripod.

Conversely, the 2x + 350 with NO tripod mount is basically a hope-and-prey nothing will crack when tripod mounted on cameras plate. I’ll set aside any talk about reduced IQ, as in many cases this is not an issue, except how it handles and how that directly affects effective end sharpness.

Neither lens is hand-holdable, even the 350. The long focus throw alone makes it nearly impossible to get the intended sharpness point, as even for far away subjects the small movement of the kit in one’s hand will indeed shift it sufficiently to see a difference, be disappointed, throw the lens away, and start drinking again.

Philippe-Georges · Dec 25, 2023

The Sonnar-C 250mm non T*, handheld, full open aperture at 1/500 sec on Tri-X at 1600ASA in XTOL 1+1, scanned negatives.

The Virginie Loveling buiding, Gent, Belgium

Hassasin · Dec 25, 2023

Philippe-Georges said:
The Sonnar-C 250mm non T*, handheld, full open aperture at 1/500 sec on Tri-X at 1600ASA in XTOL 1+1, scanned negatives.
View attachment 357746
View attachment 357748
View attachment 357747
The Virginie Loveling buiding, Gent, Belgium

Very convincing shots, the beauty of compressed perspective. Of course I was referring to 350-500 as hand held "machines". 250 Sonnar is fine.

Nokton48 · Dec 25, 2023

500mm Oberkochen 500ELM CFV16 EI 200 EV 14.5 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is the first test of the 500mm F8 Oberkochen Opton Hasselblad lens. EL/M Body with Olde Hasselblad CDS Meter Prism indicated EV14.5. Set that on the lens, this is the result. Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back set to Ei 200, camera/lens mounted on a Plaubel Peco 2 Way Head, attached to sturdy Manfrotto legs. The pretty new Magnolia tree is our yard was blowing visibly, the 500mm shutter seems to have frozen it, there was a lot of leaf movment in the breeze. It is fun to play with the new digital back and I am loving the saturated colors I'm getting. Hasselblad says it's the fat pixels, but also how much space is around each pixel. Anyways I'm loving the color right out of the camera. Shooting distance was 28 feet, the absolute minimum focus distance on the lens. So I will add extension tubes if needed.

Hassasin · Dec 25, 2023

Nokton48 said:
500mm Oberkochen 500ELM CFV16 EI 200 EV 14.5 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is the first test of the 500mm F8 Oberkochen Opton Hasselblad lens. EL/M Body with Olde Hasselblad CDS Meter Prism indicated EV14.5. Set that on the lens, this is the result. Hasselblad CFV16 Digital Back set to Ei 200, camera/lens mounted on a Plaubel Peco 2 Way Head, attached to sturdy Manfrotto legs. The pretty new Magnolia tree is our yard was blowing visibly, the 500mm shutter seems to have frozen it, there was a lot of leaf movment in the breeze. It is fun to play with the new digital back and I am loving the saturated colors I'm getting. Hasselblad says it's the fat pixels, but also how much space is around each pixel. Anyways I'm loving the color right out of the camera. Shooting distance was 28 feet, the absolute minimum focus distance on the lens. So I will add extension tubes if needed.

Would it be possible to get a full file from you? I'm exploring digital back options as that would make life a lot easier for some work.

I've just ordered the Variogon 140-280 as price was good enough to give it a go. It's a CF version so tripod mount provided from factory (unlike C version that had an afterthought mount, although still a Hasselblad branded, except I never liked that thin steel band wrapped around the lens barrel).

Sirius Glass · Dec 25, 2023

Hassasin said:
Might be worth it to revive this thread as not much is being discussed about Hasselblad long lenses.

I now have the CF 350 and APO Tessar 500, and considering the Variogon 140-280.

There is no way I would recommend skipping the 500 over with a 2x + 350. This is not to say the latter has issues (even if it does). But the 500 with its tripod mount is superbly better on a tripod.

Conversely, the 2x + 350 with NO tripod mount is basically a hope-and-prey nothing will crack when tripod mounted on cameras plate. I’ll set aside any talk about reduced IQ, as in many cases this is not an issue, except how it handles and how that directly affects effective end sharpness.

Neither lens is hand-holdable, even the 350. The long focus throw alone makes it nearly impossible to get the intended sharpness point, as even for far away subjects the small movement of the kit in one’s hand will indeed shift it sufficiently to see a difference, be disappointed, throw the lens away, and start drinking again.

The swing weight to the 500mm lens is too great for me to use hand held and even more so with the 2XE extender. It is one lens that I only use on a tripod. I thought about buying Variogon 140-280 but I never had the opportunity to buy one, much less hold in my hands.

Hasselblad telephoto lenses

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency