Help Me Choose: A Moderate Wide Angle Lens

[Paul Howell]

Don't forget the 50mm for the mamiya press system which is nothing less than amazing. Plus it gives you the option of 6x9

+1, with a multiback you can shoot, 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X9, and with a 6X7 back can shoot almost all MF options. With a 6X9 back a 65 is moderate wide, very sharp lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Michael Kenna and the late Mary Ellen Mark would laugh heartily at that notion.

I no longer buy lenses with spacing as a consideration but rather how good they are optically and the 60 is by far and away one of Hasselblad's best. In fact, my all time favorite combo is the 60, 100 & 180. I have the aforementioned in CFi and my 80 is a CFe.

Back to the OP's inquiry, I also own and use the 40 FLE and 50 FLE and the 50 is simply superb. I had the Mamiya 6 kit that included the 50 and while I found the lens to be excellent, I found the camera's appetite for fresh batteries in cold weather to be a deal breaker. I also like very precise framing using medium format film so I replaced the Mamiya 6 with a Rolleiflex 2.8D as my super light carry. It's not as precise as using a Hasselblad but far better than the Mamiya 6.

Michael Kenna and Mary Ellen Mark can either carry my camera bag or they can shove it, with all due disrespect! They can be pack mules for me all the time. When do they start?

When I do not have a zoom I want a range of lenses to cover many situations, and spacing the focal lengths is a good way to do it.

 

[Ai Print]

Michael Kenna and Mary Ellen Mark can either carry my camera bag or they can shove it, with all due disrespect! They can be pack mules for me all the time. When do they start?

When I do not have a zoom I want a range of lenses to cover many situations, and spacing the focal lengths is a good way to do it.

Hey now, LOL!

I only said what I did because I know you treasure your Hasselblad arsenal as much as I do. The 60 belongs in your collection, it is a brilliant lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bring it on! I bought the 100mm lens which along with the SWC are my two favorites. So send me a 60mm lens for my collection. Of course there will not room for it in either of my two Photobackpacker backpacks.

 

[bdial]

The Hasselblad 60 is a nice choice for a moderate wide-angle lens, IMHO. I am very pleased with mine, though, I'm mostly not a wide-angle sort these days, so that might be the reason.
I guess Al, I and Sirius will need to just agree to disagree as to the value of the 60. If I had to choose just one lens for my Hasselblad kit it would either be the 150 or the 60, exactly which would depend on my mood that day.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree that if someone gives me a 60mm lens, I will use it. Not often, but I will use it.

 

[Ai Print]

Fine..
Be that way...

I bet when you were 60 you had an 80, but don't wait until you are 80 to get a 60....ya' dig?

I agree that if someone gives me a 60mm lens, I will use it. Not often, but I will use it.

 

[trendland]

No, for the Hasselblad, I meant a 3-lens kit; 50 + 80 + 150. All prime lenses.
As I mentioned, I would have preferred 40 + 80 + 180, 3-lens kit.
I never looked into any of the Hasselblad zooms.

For my 4x5, a 2-lens kit: 90mm and 150mm.
Here the 90mm is the widest that I could go, as I cannot use a bag bellows to use a shorter lens.

For my 35mm, my primary and long lenses are zooms.
I have a 3-lens kit there also: 24 + 35-105 + 80-200/f4.5

For my DSLR I have 1 primary lens, a zoom, an 18-140 on a DX body.
I can add a lens on the long side, if needed.

Gold idea (not to chose a hasselblatt zooms)
On the other hand : as we know - hasselblatt lenses are like the best of the
best "zeiss" inkluding the zooms, but the
"no zooms" are the very best .

with regards

 

[ruilourosa]

I liked the look of the Mamiya Press, and I like the idea of a low-distortion, non-retrofocus wide angle lens. But a big complex rangefinder with lots of midcentury-era plastic parts and an odd shape just isn't for me. In my opinion they're really cool to look at. I'd maybe be too worried about breaking it in the field. I've also heard that they're lens QC wasn't that great. You have a good one though?


yessammassey

i think you will fail before a super 23 or a universal fail... i cannot see plastic anywhere but the grip... QC: no issues with the black lenses. Service before use and adjust all lenses to the same camera(s). Cheap cameras and the 50 is amazing: i was first a bit suspicious about it´s quality but it´s really amazing and better than the 50mm distagon CF FLE in terms of distortion and resolution toward the borders (although is a bit tricky to do 6x6 vs 6x9). The 75mm outdoes a 75mm sw nikkor. The 100mm 2.8 is very very good and although not as good as the planar 100mm 3,5 that is one of the best is still very very good, in a par with the bronica 100 3,5 PG, and to be true the differences are negligible... i also own the 127mm and its a tessar... good for portraits but corners are under @4.7 but @8 they are very good.

Reminder always sevice and adjust the whole system... otherwise you might get out of alignment lenses / bodies...


Mamiya 7 and 6 excellent and yes the bodies are fragile, lenses are very good! 65mm is a blast (M/)

hasselblad: best system for everything!!!! long lasting things

Rollei 6xxx: plastic and battery dependant... no deal for me, lenses are on a par with hasselblad

Bronica GS-1: top quality and top lenses, i have the 65 and is on a par with 60mm distagon (diferent though) the best 6x7 SLR for a reasonable person, hulk might prefer RB/RZ´s

Mamiya press: heavy and strange! cheap and very good



i would advise fuji 60mm on the autofocus body also excellent lens

Cheers

 

[JOR]

You are right to seek advice on a lens, presumably with a view to selecting a suitable camera to hold the film.
I had an early 50mm f/4 T* Distagon in a Compur, mounted for Hasselblad 500. It was surprisingly poor and I looked up the published data - which agreed with my findings. So I traded it in for a 50mm f/4 T* Distagon FL in a Compur (with a second focussing ring), which was an expensive improvement, but not a patch on the 38mm f/4.5 Biogon SWC I borrowed. But I have several elements from the Hasselblad system, so I am not going to change.
The Zeiss glass for 80mm, 120mm and 150mm is world-class. But the corners of Distagons are not quite as impressive.
It has been explained to me by a satellite optic designer that allowing space for the mirror in an SLR to swing up places great constraints on the optical design - a wideangle lens for a rangefinder starts with a much better chance of success. The obvious drawback of a rangefinder is the absence of through-the-lens focussing but this is less important with short focal length lenses. With a 38mm Biogon at f/16 (in a SWC, which doesn't even have a rangefinder), everything from 2.5m (8 feet) to the horizon is (genuinely) sharp. Look it up! Its reputation is reflected in the asking price for used examples over 30 years old (production ended 2009). I read that the 38mm f/4.5 non-T* f/4.5 is prone to internal reflections and a matte-box (bellows) shade is a worthwhile investment.

 

[etn]

Gold idea (not to chose a hasselblatt zooms)
On the other hand : as we know - hasselblatt lenses are like the best of the
best "zeiss" inkluding the zooms, but the
"no zooms" are the very best .

with regards

Not much choice here, as there is only 1 zoom for the Hasselblad 6x6: a 60-120mm which works only with 200-series bodies. It is a beast of a lens! (at least as far as size is concerned - I had one in my hands at the local store but never tried it). Not sure it is much smaller than carrying a 60, a 100 and a 120!

And as far as the "ideal" Hasselblad combo goes: don't worry, you will own them all eventually (*)
Even if your bag only holds 3, you'll pick the "3 best for that day" depending on what you want to do.
The same probably goes for any system with a reasonable amount of lenses (e.g. Mamiya).

(*) perhaps with exception of the 30mm fisheye and the 500mm tele

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fine..
Be that way...

I bet when you were 60 you had an 80, but don't wait until you are 80 to get a 60....ya' dig?

I want to add forty years to my birth year and reduce my weight by 50 pounds or 25 Kgs.

 

[trendland]

Not much choice here, as there is only 1 zoom for the Hasselblad 6x6: a 60-120mm which works only with 200-series bodies. It is a beast of a lens! (at least as far as size is concerned - I had one in my hands at the local store but never tried it). Not sure it is much smaller than carrying a 60, a 100 and a 120!

And as far as the "ideal" Hasselblad combo goes: don't worry, you will own them all eventually (*)
Even if your bag only holds 3, you'll pick the "3 best for that day" depending on what you want to do.
The same probably goes for any system with a reasonable amount of lenses (e.g. Mamiya).

(*) perhaps with exception of the 30mm fisheye and the 500mm tele

Yes indeed you mentioned this - and this is the reason I love this kind of lenses.

Tippy due to some concerns - you can't have enought money to buy all the stuff
you would like at the same time - outside
of the Emirates as son of...........
But never mind

with regards

 

[moto-uno]

In a previous post reference was made to the "fragile" nature of the Mamiya 7 camera . I'll bite , what perchance
do you mean by fragile ? Mine has stood up to many motorcycle trips + hiking through the mountains of B.C with nary
a problem . (Please don't fall into the internet trap of making reference to it being plastic .
Would you call a Hasselblad plastic because it has a vulcanite covering ?) Cheers, Peter

 

[ruilourosa]

I get along really well with some camera mechanics and fragile they are, specially the 7, the 7 II is a bit better but you cannot compare hasselblads and m7 regarding durability

 

[moto-uno]

^ Could you expand upon this ? Other than the film advance , what mechanics in a M7 are we referring too ? Peter
(ps; I understand that Hasselblad owners are rather passionate about their devices .)

 

[ruilourosa]

Film advance, eletronics, shutter protector curtain... good camera though!

 

[John Layton]

Fuji/Voigtlander 667/667W combo - just do it!

 

[John Layton]

(but you do need to give us more info. about YOUR shooting style(s)/subjects, and processing scenarios/end products)

 

[c41]

I thought of the 60CF Distagon too when I read the OP. I like mine, I found the 50 didn't work for me. FWIW I have SWC, 60, 110 as a kit.

They all look like gooduns on your list, maybe take a closer look at Flickr shots with 50 v 60, I found the difference significant in a square frame. I don't use other 120 formats so couldn't comment on those.

 

[wiltw]

Just remember that a 50mm is just a bit wider on a 6x7 camera then it is on a 6x6. I'd say a true wide angle over a moderate wide. I used to own a 50mm ULD for my RZ67 and it felt like the 25mm that I used to have on my 35mm Contax camera. I also owned a 40mm Nikkor for a 6x6 Bronco EC and it felt the same.

I'd be more worried about format choice and focal length choice. Most medium format lenses are really sharp.

That comment is true only in the context of the horizontal coverage angle caused by the difference in aspect ratio! If one considers the vertical AOV, 6x6 is identical to 6x7 or 6x8 or 6x9, due to the 56mm height of the image area. And 56mm FL on medium format is just like the AOV seen with 24mm FL on 135 format. (If one crops to 8x10" print size, the shooting format does not matter unless you are willing to have wider white borders at top and bottom.)

I do agree that camera handling and format size should be the first consideration, not the selection of a specific lens and then swallowing the dislikes of the camera that fits it!

 

[Alan Gales]

That comment is true only in the context of the horizontal coverage angle caused by the difference in aspect ratio! If one considers the vertical AOV, 6x6 is identical to 6x7 or 6x8 or 6x9, due to the 56mm height of the image area. And 56mm FL on medium format is just like the AOV seen with 24mm FL on 135 format. (If one crops to 8x10" print size, the shooting format does not matter unless you are willing to have wider white borders at top and bottom.)

I do agree that camera handling and format size should be the first consideration, not the selection of a specific lens and then swallowing the dislikes of the camera that fits it!

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, aspect ratio. It can make a big difference in how wide a lens looks on the camera. Thanks for clarifying.

You are right. Camera handling and format size should be the first consideration. A buddy of mine owns the Pentax 6x7 with that wonderful 105mm lens. The lens is great but I could never get along with the Pentax 6x7. It's a fine camera but it just doesn't feel right in my hands.