Hasselblad vs. Hasselblad vs. my RZ pocket money

keithwms · Sep 9, 2009

Well, a 150 SF for the rb67 runs $165, Ex condition, at KEH.

The 145 SF for mamiya 645 (which should cover 6x6) costs $225, also Ex condition at KEH.

With both of these, you get three levels of 'softness', plus excellent normal operation from f/8 on.

A softar filter costs, what, ~$200 and you only get one uniform level of softness from it- everything gets softened, there's no selectivity. It's not the same thing you get from an SF lens. And if you want to tune the softness you get to buy another softar.

Say, can't you hassie guys just cross mount a Mamiya m645 145 SF on your cameras and see what results? Or are you too brand-proud to find out? I mean, just buy an entire mamiya kit and it'll be less expensive than a hassie with several softars.... and by the way, I know that Erie Patsellis has used his Rb 150 Sf for 4x5, it has sufficient coverage!!

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

I mean, just buy an entire mamiya kit and it'll be less expensive than a hassie with several softars....

..You Ain't kidding. Check ebay prices, and sometimes KEH beats those. It's just amazing, really....

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

...And by the way, I never had a problem getting soft focus with a hasselblad...LOL The viewfinders are pretty dark and I need my eyes checked...LOL again!

Q.G. · Sep 9, 2009

It's not brand-pride, no.
I already have a set of Softars, so i have no great desire to spend more to try out a Mamiya lens.
I haven't used the Softars in ages, and don't like soft focus anyway (back then, it was 'all the rage'. Luckily times have changed).
I also had (still have, as a matter of fact) a Mamiya 645 set. Yet never tried a SF lens (i believe they were not available then, but could be wrong).

I think you may have the wrong idea about Softars.
They are not diffusion filters (Hasselblad sold those as well) that lay a uniform haze over the image.
Nor are they like the Duto-type softeners, whose effect is aperture dependent.
Softars work much the same as SF lenses: the tiny lens like elements on the otherwise plane filter surface overlay the image with images that are badly undercorrected. I.e. they too work by adding spherical aberration.
The number of elements on the plane filter determine the degree of softness. While stopping down an SF lens reduces aberration, and with it softness, the effect produced by the Softars is unaffected by stopping down. Only changing the filter will change the effect.
So with three different Softars avaliable, you get 7 degrees of softness, at any aperture.

A difference though is that the lenses Softars are used on still produce a sharp image, whereas SF lenses don't. The soft image produced by the Softars is just added to the sharp one.
You can 'drown' that sharp image in softess, but need a fair degree of softening to do that with Softars.

So the thing that made Softars more desirable (to me anyway) is that their effect is independent of the aperture used. A trick SF lenses have yet not mastered.
And of course that each lens you have doubles as a SF lens, if and when desired. So a much greater choice of focal lengths too.

But they do cost a lot...

What i would like to get is a Mamiya shift lens, converted to Hasselblad mount.
If someone should have one, planning to not use it ever, i'll gladly take it for very little money.

Q.G. · Sep 9, 2009

Hold on a moment!

Softars, i see, have gone down in price too.
KEH sells big ones for way less than the $200 you say they cost, Keith! And we don't even need filters of that size (= price).

Sirius Glass · Sep 9, 2009

Q.G. said:
No, i did indeed mean that the Softars are expensive.

And that, because they are.

Really? I bought a large selection of Hasselblad B60 filters that had been for rentals from Bel Air camera at $10 each. I sat down with each type of filter and sorted through to find the best of each. That included the Softar filters. None have any scratches, nicks or dents. So one can find used Hasselblad equipment at low price.

Seriously, I would not have bought the Softar filter at $200 or even $100, at $10 yes. And I have not used them yet. Probably because a rarely take portraits. Maybe that is why I consider a SF lens a low use lens.

But this is off topic, Tom was asking about buying a Hasselblad and I think he was not asking for ten posts on SF lenses and Softars. If he want a soft focus look at post #20.

Steve

Q.G. · Sep 9, 2009

You have been lucky finding those for that little money!
But who says we can't be lucky, right?

I would say, though, that you need not worry about scratches on a soft focus filter...

Soft focus portraits are 'old'. So 'old' that you need a soft focus filter to hide the wrinkles.
I have been telling myself i should try something new with my Softars, Haven't done so yet.
But do! Why should these things only be used to make people appear fuzzy?

Sirius Glass · Sep 9, 2009

Q.G. said:
Why should these things only be used to make people appear fuzzy?

Straight whiskey will do that.

In fact straight whiskey can make the others at a bar look better, too!

Steve

Ian David · Sep 9, 2009

Q.G. said:
No, i did indeed mean that the Softars are expensive.

And that, because they are.

That's OK though... does anyone actually use softars outside of the "glamour" photo industry?

Ian David · Sep 9, 2009

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

Hi Nick. The Hasselblad is a great travel MF kit - smaller and lighter than most others. I think you would be pretty happy with a 50 and an 80. The 40 would be nice, but starting to get v pricey and less fun to lug around.

Ian

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

That's OK though... does anyone actually use softars outside of the "glamour" photo industry?

.....ask Bob Guccione.....I have a biased association between Soft focus and dated imagery...just my opinion.

I'm more interested in achieving a soft-focus effect through shallow depth of field and selective focus. I think that is a much cleaner look, even if it is achieved by using camera movements with a view camera. This could fall into cliche as well though, as could any process. I used to print images through waxed paper laid across the negative in the enlarger with an interesting result, but I haven't done that for years either. ....This could just go on, and on....everybody pick something and just do it! LOL! If you like the result you are getting, then you probably have the right gear in your bag.

Dave Dawson · Sep 9, 2009

If I can try and get this thread back on track to the original subject......

Having owned Hassy's in the past and currently use an RZ......I would not consider going back to a Hassy (for many reasons) BUT everyone to their own. I feel 60% of wanting to own a particular breed of camera is down to status and at the end of the day, stay with what works for you.

All I would say is that don't get rid of one system before you are convinced that you are 100% happy that the replacement is better for you (or better still...Borrow the intended replacement) It would make life so much easier if all cameras were the same price and then 'the glooves would be off'

Cheers Dave

Q.G. · Sep 9, 2009

Tom Nutter said:
.....ask Bob Guccione.....I have a biased association between Soft focus and dated imagery...just my opinion.

And mine too.

Tom Nutter said:
I'm more interested in achieving a soft-focus effect through shallow depth of field and selective focus. I think that is a much cleaner look, even if it is achieved by using camera movements with a view camera. This could fall into cliche as well though [...]

No "could" about it.
It already has.

Ian David · Sep 9, 2009

Dave Dawson said:
I feel 60% of wanting to own a particular breed of camera is down to status and at the end of the day, stay with what works for you.

To a large extent that may be true, Dave. But if you are interested in cameras not only as functional objects, but also as design objects, as Nick said in his original post, you cannot get around the fact that some breeds/models just look better than others...

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

But if you are interested in cameras not only as functional objects, but also as design objects, as Nick said in his original post, you cannot get around the fact that some breeds/models just look better than others...

This thread is full of truisms......Hasselblads are beautiful...that's why they use them in all of those drug commercials adveertising good quality of life for retired folks...LOL...at least here in America, I don't know about Down Under.

The other truth is that this thread is all over the place.... I propose we start another thread that discusses the merits of different techniques for getting soft focus and/or shallow depth of field in photos without finding cliche....anybody with me?

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

Here, I've done it!!!!

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(I'm not trying to tear anybody away from this thread however!)

Sirius Glass · Sep 9, 2009

Tom Nutter said:
I'm more interested in achieving a soft-focus effect through shallow depth of field and selective focus.

In that case, just use slower film in any camera that has a preview button to stop down the lens.

Steve

Tom Nutter · Sep 9, 2009

Huh????

Sirius Glass · Sep 9, 2009

nick mulder said:
I'm pretty keen for the widest rectilinear comparison to the 50mm with as I understand is the 40mm Distagon - pricey yes ?

Nick,

So that you can see what I have used, this is the lenses that I have 50mm CF, 80 mm CR, 150 mm CF, 250mm CF and a Hasselblad 903 SWC [38 mm]

The 50 mm CF makes a nice wide angle lens. The 60 mm CF is too close to the 80 mm CF for my tastes.

I could have brought the 40 mm CF for less than I paid for the Hasselblad 903 SWC, but I wanted to have a wide rectilinear lens. The 40 mm CF lens is not as rectilinear as the SWC. I have and have had very good 35 mm wide angle lenses, both prime lenses and zooms, but none can compare to the SWC.

You have to weigh you budget versus the rectilinearity.

Steve

nick mulder · Sep 10, 2009

Off topic sure ...but interesting to read anyway - now I know about softars - heh heh

I have noted that there is more of a range of available focal lengths in the Hasselblad lens range compared to the Mamiya - I was going to specifically ask about the 50mm as it is that much cheaper than the 40 - I could simply make a tape mask on my RZ finder with the 50 on it to see its field of view, but the camera is in another country to me at the moment ...

I'm thinking that if I got the 50mm I might spring for a slightly longer normal so as to spread out the range of focal lengths over the two lenses. I have noted also that the 80mm due to its relative ubiquity is quite cheap however ...

Decisions decisions!

A quick look at KEH, and I think I'm going to get a black 501C or 501CM with WLF, just one back, and start with the 'normal' lens - say the 80mm in a modern style (C/CF ?)

nick mulder · Sep 10, 2009

Dave Dawson said:
If I can try and get this thread back on track to the original subject......

Having owned Hassy's in the past and currently use an RZ......I would not consider going back to a Hassy (for many reasons) BUT everyone to their own. I feel 60% of wanting to own a particular breed of camera is down to status and at the end of the day, stay with what works for you.

All I would say is that don't get rid of one system before you are convinced that you are 100% happy that the replacement is better for you (or better still...Borrow the intended replacement) It would make life so much easier if all cameras were the same price and then 'the glooves would be off'

Cheers Dave

I'll admit I'm a slave to a few status symbols, but not all - I try to audit my vanity on occasion and look at the worth of the object, pointing out the bleedin obvious I believe that the Hassleblad is worthy of it position at the 'top' of medium format - as are say Leica, Sinar et al. in each respective format... (contentious maybe?)

Anyway, I think the real impetus behind my purchase is that I'm simply following in the footsteps of my father, he always wanted one (but made do as did his father with Pentax and Canon 35mm packages). I think his desire/respect for a blad has rubbed off on me. I understand its only come about due to the drastic drop in camera prices, but somehow I feel I'm going to take great pleasure in it regardless.

The RZ is a fine tool, but as a mantlepiece bit of kit (as it currently) its just not that inspiring

Ian David · Sep 10, 2009

nick mulder said:
A quick look at KEH, and I think I'm going to get a black 501C or 501CM with WLF, just one back, and start with the 'normal' lens - say the 80mm in a modern style (C/CF ?)

Interesting that you prefer the black to the chrome... I have always wondered how many people do. One slight downside to the black, if you are concerned with aesthetics, is that the paint does scratch revealing the silver colour underneath - something to be aware of when you are considering second hand bodies and backs, if such wear matters to you.
The modern Hasselblad lenses are not as handsome as the old chrome ones, but they do take fine photos (and would probably look better on a black body!)

Ian

BrianShaw · Sep 10, 2009

nick mulder said:
..., just one back, ...

Looking into my crystal ball I see that you will be kicking yourself for this decision and paying another shipping charge in the VERY near future.

Sirius Glass · Sep 10, 2009

nick mulder said:
I'm thinking that if I got the 50mm I might spring for a slightly longer normal so as to spread out the range of focal lengths over the two lenses. I have noted also that the 80mm due to its relative ubiquity is quite cheap however ...

I bought the 250mm first because it was the only lens available that day. I came back a week later and bought the 80mm lens. At the time the salesman suggested that I consider the 100mm instead because it is considered the best and sharpest lens that was made for the Hasselblad.

Had I bought the 50mm first, then I probably would have bought the 100mm and been just as happy as I am now. At the time I was still thinking about getting the 40mm or the 50mm so the 80mm made more sense to me.

nick mulder said:
A quick look at KEH, and I think I'm going to get a black 501C or 501CM with WLF, just one back, and start with the 'normal' lens - say the 80mm in a modern style (C/CF ?)

I prefer the CF because
1) in the long run it will be easier to service in the future,
2) it will be easier to find other CF lens in the future,
3) the use of EVs and the locking and unlocking of the aperture ring and the shutter speed ring is more user friendly with the CFs,
4) sticking with CF means that almost all the lenses with use B60 filters and hoods. While getting B50 accessories is limited and in the future will become much harder to find.
5) as any woman will tell you, you cannot go wrong in "basic black", if you really "need" chrome in a new lens you can always get the "designer" lenses that Zeiss recently came out with.

Steve

Q.G. · Sep 10, 2009

The supply of bayonet 50 accessories is quite good. And these thingies are cheaper than bayonet 60 ones.

But i agree that a CF lens is the better choice for all the other reasons.

Hasselblad vs. Hasselblad vs. my RZ pocket money

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency