Hasselblad vs. Hasselblad vs. my RZ pocket money

nick mulder · Sep 8, 2009

Hello all,

Since I started with my 8x10 I have been going studio portrait silly and have left my Mamiya RZ kit sitting idle for almost two years.

Considering this I thought I'd sell it and get myself something I've always wanted - a Hasselblad... (I just love them as design objects, and the size/weight reduction is a consideration for an inevitable return to travel/non-portrait photography)

I want to sell my RZ kit and was looking for opinions as to what Hasselblad kit I could expect to get with the proceeds.

I have:
A used but nice RZ proII body (WLF only)
Standard 50mm, 110mm and newest iteration of the 180mm lenses (all mint)
Two well used but working RB lenses a 90 and 127 if I remember (I never use them)
3 backs (one 645) & an extra that doesn't make the nicest noises(but works)
Polaroid back
Winder

Everything has the right hoods, bit'n'bobs and wotnot, I'm pretty careful and complete with my gear and would expect a blad kit in reasonable shape also.

I'm pretty keen for the widest rectilinear comparison to the 50mm with as I understand is the 40mm Distagon - pricey yes ?
Also a fast short tele/'normal' (equivalent to the RZ 110mm) - the 80mm ??
Maybe just two backs, or 2 plus a 645 (no polaroid)
Body - no idea, except that I don't want a winder model, and would prefer a black finish (I already mentioned it was partly for self gratification yes ? )

Compared to the Mamiya range there are a bewildering array of models in both the bodies and lenses - I would want to try to match the gear so that nothing was left with wasted (incompatible) functionality. If need be I'm not against putting in a little cash to make it happen

With all this in mind any suggestions at what could/should I be looking at ?

(its more of a hasselblad vs. hasselblad question - avoiding a Mamiya vs. Blad debate if we can)

BrianShaw · Sep 8, 2009

To answer your question requires a lot of information... or guesswork. I have no idea what kind of money you'll get for your current equipment (that's one of the assumptions you make) or what you intend to shoot (a total unknown in your otherwise very informative post).

I have a Hassy that I use for portraits, studio and in nature), landscape, and general photography -- meaning kids doing kiddie things -- and it works well for me. What fits me is a very basic setup: fully manual 501 C/M, 80mm "normal", 150mm "portrait", lens hoods for both, and a very versatile light meter. I won't mention the generic stuff like tripod, quick release, monopod, cable release, filters, etc.

That's it... but for some kiddie stuff I do wish at times I had a 250mm lens, and I sometimes think about a 50mm but can't figure out if I'd really get much use out of it since I'm not at all into "wide" photography unless literally pushed against a wall.

The best way to cost out such a system is to look at KEH pricing or scour the ebay completed auction prices, if you are into that source of equipment.

It's not the fastest system to use, but you know all about that. If I need to work more quickly I'll defer to a 35mm system with in-camera metering, etc, etc.

keithwms · Sep 8, 2009

I'll just point out that this is a really rotten time to be selling gear, but a very good time to buy. Let me suggest keeping the RZ kit and buying your hassie kit, and then sell the RZ kit a bit later...

BrianShaw · Sep 8, 2009

p.s. I also have two (2) backs so I can shoot both color and B&W interchangably if I want. Like you, I've thought about a 645 back but after thinking some more I always conclude, "why bother?"

archphoto · Sep 8, 2009

If you are into studio portraits: why not try to borrow a 150SF lens for the RZ for a couple of day's or weeks.....
You might like it !

Hasselblad does not have a SF lens.......

I have here in Brazil: one 500cm body with a 50mm and a 80mm (T) with 2 A12 backs, WLF, 45 prism, all well used: the owner has asked me to take it with me to sell in Europe where I will be going upcomming weekend.
In Europe I have a Rollei SL66 set and a Mamiya RB 67 set (with that 150SF lens): a bit of overkill.

Hasselblad ? So what ?

Sorry !

PS: Hasselblad made better: this one is fully stuck, I have to find a find a way to unstuck this Hasselblad.......

Peter

Venchka · Sep 8, 2009

Bodies: 500 or 501.
Lenses: 60mm & 100mm. C or CF T*.
One lens & one back to start.
Keep it simple.

Pumal · Sep 8, 2009

I wouldn't think os my Hassie withouth 3 Backs minimum; B%W, Colour, and Slides

Tom Nutter · Sep 8, 2009

A funny thing.... I had Hasselblads for years, sold them, immediately missed them, even though I was using large format regularly, and then recently discovered that people are basically giving away RZ equipment (Sorry to say--just check ebay), bought an RZ system recently, and discovered that for all of those years being dedicated to hasselblad, I should've been using RZ equipment. Lenses are just as sharp and I'm thrilled. RZ's are more versatile, simply because of the bellows, which allows you to focus so closely without adding a bunch of extension tubes....Something I will not miss about hasselblad.----Just my opinion.

Sirius Glass · Sep 8, 2009

I would recommend to start with the 80mm CF and the 150 mm CF. The 100 mm CF is more pricey and some consider it "too sharp" for portraits. I have never used the 100 mm CF so I cannot comment.

I recommend CF or newer because it is easier to use because of the linking of the EV with the shutter speed and aperture was improved over the C lens. C lenses are getting hard to find parts for, but it is still possible to find repair people for them.

The optics for all the lenses are the essentially the same with modifications made for the floating element lenses. All the lenses are coated. The C lenses have a single coating unless they have a T* and those are multicoated. CF and above lenses are coated.

Steve

BrianShaw · Sep 8, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
The 100 mm CF is more pricey and some consider it "too sharp" for portraits.

The 80 CF is too sharp for many portraits. Both lenses will get better with a Softar!

Re: the EV linkage... this is one of the few situation where Steve and I will disagree. I would rather have the old C-style EV linkage than the CF-style. But taht's just personal preference... so who really cares?

keithwms · Sep 8, 2009

archphoto said:
Hasselblad does not have a SF lens.......

Well you can put an imagon on there....

Dead Link Removed

Anyway I have the mamiya 150 SF and it is indeed very nice.

Venchka · Sep 8, 2009

Oh Dear!

BrianShaw said:
The 80 CF is too sharp for many portraits. Both lenses will get better with a Softar!

Woe is me! All these years waiting for a 50something and an 80mm Planar. One finally lands in my camera bag and I have to toss it because it's no good for portraits. Right. I don't do portraits. Not many anyway. Just the wee grand babies.

Sorry, for all of it's shortcomings real or imagined, I'm having fun.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 8, 2009

If you want to go wide on a Hasselblad, while the 40 is a very nice lens, if you can find your way to spend a little extra, get the Superwide (38mm). The superwide is absolutely rectilinear, and considered to be one of the best camera lenses ever made for medium format. 40s are rare and expensive; the superwides are just expensive.

Sirius Glass · Sep 8, 2009

Venchka said:
Woe is me! All these years waiting for a 50something and an 80mm Planar. One finally lands in my camera bag and I have to toss it because it's no good for portraits. Right. I don't do portraits. Not many anyway. Just the wee grand babies.

Sorry, for all of it's shortcomings real or imagined, I'm having fun.

Get the 8mm and the 16mm extension tubes and then the 80mm lens can get those close ups of the grand babies you want.

See Hasselblad still rocks.

Steve

Tom Nutter · Sep 8, 2009

I had a 10mm extension tube---an older item, but I got it cheap---even with that it seems you can shoot tighter with an RZ and a 180 without a tube.---Still have the same exposure loss, I suppose. To each his own, really. Hasselblads really are awesome.

BrianShaw · Sep 8, 2009

Venchka said:
Sorry, for all of it's shortcomings real or imagined, I'm having fun.

Errr... don't take me so literal, Wayne.

Do the following experiment: 1. shoot a portrait of a 60 or 70 year-old lady with your 80mm lens. Show here a print -- it can be as small as 5x5. Watch her gasp as she sees features she can't see when she looks in a mirror. 2. shoot a portrait of the same 60 or 70 year-old lady with your 80mm lens and a softar. Show here a print -- it can be as small as 5x5. Watch her gasp as she sees the beautiful mature woman she sees when she looks in a mirror.

The lenses are great, but in some situations they are just too great.

BrianShaw · Sep 8, 2009

p.s. If all you are shooting is babies... forget what I just said. They haven't been on the face of this earth long enough to get vain!

ic-racer · Sep 8, 2009

In terms of the 40, there were two styles, the older 40mm lens is reasonably priced (and a monster). Retrofocus does have an advantage in that the light falloff is less than the 38mm (and of course it is an SLR lens )
(Link points to 40mm lens for just over $500)
Dead Link Removed

nick mulder · Sep 8, 2009

Not much time to read all the responses at work this morning - its nice to see the amount of replies, very heartening

But I can see a theme in that I need to point out that I'd be getting a Blad for everything but portraits (keeping on using the Sinar for that) - the blad would replace my RZ with its 50mm and 110mm as I barely use the 180mm with it.

Put simply I'd like a wide and a normal for the blad... think landscape, travel/general stuff

I like the 50mm on the RZ as its nice and wide and rectilinear in design (hence the 40mm looks interesting) and I like the 110mm as it is fast - I have noted that in most formats the fastest lenses reside in the 'normal' focal length range for the film size, so am guessing around 80-100mm will be the same for 6x6 (and hey presto I see the 80mm is 2.8 compared to wider and longer focal lengths ...)

Another thing I wish to point out is that I shoot completely manual (I love my meter) - I shouldn't specifically need any TTL metering or anything ...

Sirius Glass · Sep 9, 2009

BrianShaw said:
Errr... don't take me so literal, Wayne.

Do the following experiment: 1. shoot a portrait of a 60 or 70 year-old lady with your 80mm lens. Show here a print -- it can be as small as 5x5. Watch her gasp as she sees features she can't see when she looks in a mirror. 2. shoot a portrait of the same 60 or 70 year-old lady with your 80mm lens and a softar. Show here a print -- it can be as small as 5x5. Watch her gasp as she sees the beautiful mature woman she sees when she looks in a mirror.

The lenses are great, but in some situations they are just too great.

Solution 1: When printing the photographs of 60 or 70 years old or older women, place a stocking which is folded over several times under the enlarger lens and move it back and forth when printing. Do not forget to use a cigarette to burn holes for the eyes.

I am so bad, but I have done this. They absolutely love the prints and they will pay a lot for it.

Solution 2: When photographing profiles of the above subjects, make a print and take an Exacto knife and cut a pattern that does not include the turkey neck. Then use the pattern to burn the turkey neck away so that the background is black or use the pattern to make the background white or the appropriate shade of gray.

Again I am so bad, but I have done this too. They absolutely love the prints and they will pay a lot for it.

Steve

Steve

Q.G. · Sep 9, 2009

Just get a set of Softars.

They turn any lens into a SF lens.
Just as good (if not better) than the SF-only lenses. Easier to control.
And providing you with a very wide choice of focal lengths.

Don't want SF? Don't use the Softars, and you have a set of sharp lenses too.
Try that with a SF lens.

Only downside: they cost an arm and a leg.

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

Q.G. said:
Just get a set of Softars.

They turn any lens into a SF lens.
Just as good (if not better) than the SF-only lenses. Easier to control.
And providing you with a very wide choice of focal lengths.

Don't want SF? Don't use the Softars, and you have a set of sharp lenses too.
Try that with a SF lens.

Only downside: they cost an arm and a leg.

I was gonna say... they cost as much as a lens, one of the drawbacks of a Hasselblad.

Sirius Glass · Sep 9, 2009

Tom Nutter said:
I was gonna say... they cost as much as a lens, one of the drawbacks of a Hasselblad.

I believe he meant that the SF lenses are expensive.

Hasselblad have sharp lenses is not a drawback. One can add a Softar filter for a lot less than as SF lens which has limited use anyway.

Steve

Q.G. · Sep 9, 2009

No, i did indeed mean that the Softars are expensive.

And that, because they are.

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

Steve:

Everything Hasselblad is expensive, Soft-focus lens or Softar. Luckily, there are knock-offs that work just as well for people on a budget, even though a B-60 to 77mm screw-in filter adaptor is nothing to sneeze at price-wise either, for a silly piece of aluminum. It's just a shame swap meets are not what they used to be. Could always try the APUG classifieds....Hey does anybody have some 8X10 film holders they'll swap for a factory original lens bag for a Hasselbled CFI 50mm distagon?.....Just Kidding!!!

Hasselblad vs. Hasselblad vs. my RZ pocket money

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency