Is The Hasselblad 100mm f/3.5 Worth Owning?

[Sirius Glass]

I find that when I have the 80mm and 100mm lenses with me, which is often, I consider which to use often and most of the time I am not thinking about focal length but what each lens can bring to the composition.

 

[john_s]

I use a Rolleiflex SL66 and I have the Rollei versions of most of the older Zeiss lenses available for Hasselblad. There was never, as far as I know, a 100mm lens in the SL66 lineup. I use the 120mm and I'm reasonably happy with that, but 100mm would be my dream focal length.

(There was a wide aperture 110mm lens, I think. The last one I saw for sale was $18,000, but I didn't buy it)

 

[Kodachromeguy]

(There was a wide aperture 110mm lens, I think. The last one I saw for sale was $18,000, but I didn't buy it)

Are you thinking of the 110mm ƒ/2 Planar lens for the Hasselblad 2000 and 200 focal plane cameras? Did someone adapt it for SL66?

 

[john_s]

Are you thinking of the 110mm ƒ/2 Planar lens for the Hasselblad 2000 and 200 focal plane cameras? Did someone adapt it for SL66?

Yes, Zeiss/Rollei did make a SL66 version. I suppose the SL66 versions of those Zeiss lenses were easy to make since they don't have shutters, like the focal plane Hasselblads. In fact, I was tempted to go with the focal plane Hasselblad so I could use the f/2 lens, but the feeling passed.

 

[chuckroast]

Now you're on the hook to share the maiden voyage pics when you get it. Congrats!

Well I finally got the lens after a brief delay-of-game to have the guy who did the CLA do a small bit of rework on a patch of oil left on the aperture blades. Apparently, someone had worked on it before he got to it and way over lubricated it. He just missed a bit of the overflow No cost to me and all is well.

The first set of negatives are hung and drying and look absolutely .... like Hasselblad: Sharp and contrasty.

Hopefully I will soon have scans of prints to share here.

Shoutouts to:

marcmiller29 - Great eBay seller, very knowledgeable, and super honest A+++ - lots of Hassy from what I can see.

Barn Owl Cameras - I believe they took over David Oddess' repair business. Barn Owl did the CLA on this lens as well as that slight bit of rework. Great turnaround time and very high quality work. I checked shutter speeds and they were all within 0.1-0.2 stops.

​

 

[chuckroast]

100mm f/3.5 Planar CF T* maiden voyage.

It's a bit hard to tell because I was hand holding, but this lens seems to do better at distance than closer in. It also does not focus as closely as the 80mm f/2.8 Planar CF T*.

Tri-X @ ASA 400, Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:250, EMA developed for 60 min. Scans of silver prints:

 

[Sirius Glass]

100mm f/3.5 Planar CF T* maiden voyage.

It's a bit hard to tell because I was hand holding, but this lens seems to do better at distance than closer in. It also does not focus as closely as the 80mm f/2.8 Planar CF T*.

Tri-X @ ASA 400, Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:250, EMA developed for 60 min. Scans of silver prints:

View attachment 396154

View attachment 396155

View attachment 396156

View attachment 396157

These subjects will not be offended that the lens shows every detail and imperfections.

 

[warden]

100mm f/3.5 Planar CF T* maiden voyage.

It's a bit hard to tell because I was hand holding, but this lens seems to do better at distance than closer in. It also does not focus as closely as the 80mm f/2.8 Planar CF T*.

Tri-X @ ASA 400, Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:250, EMA developed for 60 min. Scans of silver prints:

View attachment 396154

View attachment 396155

View attachment 396156

View attachment 396157

Looks great! The lens is a keeper.

 

[chuckroast]

Looks great! The lens is a keeper.

Yeah, I think so too. It's just that now my 'Blad bag is REALLY heavy. Oh well, they say old people should lift weights so ...

 

[wiltw]

Past rule-of-thumb about FL difference to make it 'worth while to own' was 1.2x

A different measure of 'worth while' is what FL pleases YOU to use. Employing (FL/ frame height) as the measure (to negate differences of frame aspect ratio) 100mm FL/ 56mm frame height means that its vertical frame is similar to using 45mm / 24mm on 135 format frame camera, which many photojournalists preferred to use as their 'normal' lens (in lieu of 50-55mm 'normal' that became popularized on 135 format SLRs in order to easily clear the reflex mirror).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Past rule-of-thumb about FL difference to make it 'worth while to own' was 1.2x

A different measure of 'worth while' is what FL pleases YOU to use. Employing (FL/ frame height) as the measure (to negate differences of frame aspect ratio) 100mm FL/ 56mm frame height means that its vertical frame is similar to using 45mm / 24mm on 135 format frame camera, which many photojournalists preferred to use as their 'normal' lens (in lieu of 50-55mm 'normal' that became popularized on 135 format SLRs in order to easily clear the reflex mirror).

I prefer a factor of 2 instead, however that is set aside to allow for having the 100mm lens. But then again I almost never use the 150mm lens so it balances out.

 

[chuckroast]

Past rule-of-thumb about FL difference to make it 'worth while to own' was 1.2x

A different measure of 'worth while' is what FL pleases YOU to use. Employing (FL/ frame height) as the measure (to negate differences of frame aspect ratio) 100mm FL/ 56mm frame height means that its vertical frame is similar to using 45mm / 24mm on 135 format frame camera, which many photojournalists preferred to use as their 'normal' lens (in lieu of 50-55mm 'normal' that became popularized on 135 format SLRs in order to easily clear the reflex mirror).

For people/journalistic purposes, I think the 80mm or 60mm suits me better. But I think this 100mm is going to be my landscape/building goto. More testing needed, but that seems to be it's happy place.

 

[Eff64]

I have a 50, 60, 80, 120, 180, and two 250’s(one each with and without shutter). Yeah, the bag is heavy but every time I think about parting with one, I second guess it and decide to keep.

Re: weight, I almost never carry more than two at a time so that works fine.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a 50, 60, 80, 120, 180, and two 250’s(one each with and without shutter). Yeah, the bag is heavy but every time I think about parting with one, I second guess it and decide to keep.

Re: weight, I almost never carry more than two at a time so that works fine.

I will typically carry the 50, 80, 100 and SWC unless I have a reason to use another lens such as the 30mm Fisheye, 250mm or 500mm. The 150mm never gets out much any more; I do not usually take portraits.

 

[chuckroast]

I will typically carry the 50, 80, 100 and SWC unless I have a reason to use another lens such as the 30mm Fisheye, 250mm or 500mm. The 150mm never gets out much any more; I do not usually take portraits.

Ones I always carry: 60mm, 120mm
Ones I sometimes carry: 40mm, 80mm, and now the 100mm
Ones I rarely carry: 180mm, 250mm

Well that's not actually true. I always carry all the above in the bag designated for Hasselblad bodies, lenses, backs, filters, and miscellanea . But if I am going wander about, I select from that bag once on location, with lenses going into pockets or a smaller secondary bag.

 

[jlirola]

im super interested in the 100mm, I'm a Hasselblad 50m, guy .... bu tdont care for the 80, nor the 150, so figured id dig on the 100mm. shooting film only with it ... any one have a CF or CFI they'd sell? I only care of the glass is great, barrel whatever ....

 

[jlirola]

actually - if someone has any sample photos at minimum focus - and some at mid range ... is there a sweet spot for bokeh past minimum ofcus?

 

[chuckroast]

actually - if someone has any sample photos at minimum focus - and some at mid range ... is there a sweet spot for bokeh past minimum ofcus?

Here are some I did to test my new 100mm. These were handheld. I guess these could be even sharper had I used a tripod and prereleased the mirror, but it will give you some sense of the lens.

Scans of prints:

 

[Alexander6x6]

In terms of resolution, the 80mm and 100mm are quite similar in the center.
The 100mm is way ahead in term of corner resolution and distortion though.

The 120mm is not a terribly high resolution lens, but it has lovely rendering and focuses much closer.

For me the difference between 80mm and 100mm in terms of field of view/perspective is quite significant (same with 50mm vs 60mm etc), so I find it very useful (although costly) to own lenses with similar focal length.

The truth is hidden in the details:

 

[Slixtiesix]

actually - if someone has any sample photos at minimum focus - and some at mid range ... is there a sweet spot for bokeh past minimum ofcus?

Actually, the 100/3,5 Planar is not famous for its bokeh. It is nothing peculiarly spectacular and under certain circumstances, it can be quite harsh. Please mind this lens was designed for aerial photography, landscape, architecture and industrial work, where out-of-focus areas are unimportant. If you want to have great bokeh, rather look for a 2000 body with the 110 Planar. If you want to stay with the 500 system, both the 80mm and 120mm have smoother bokeh than the 100mm.

 

[dokko]

The truth is hidden in the details:

Truth is a dangerous word.

My comments were on the basis of using the Hasselblad 120mm as a general purpose lens, but even on closer distances it is not a very high resolution lens.

It has good sharpness up to the corners, quite low distortion and as mentioned a nice rendering, but in terms of resolution it can’t match the best lenses.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Truth is a dangerous word.

My comments were on the basis of using the Hasselblad 120mm as a general purpose lens, but even on closer distances it is not a very high resolution lens.

The Makro-Planar 120 is often used incorrectly as a general-purpose lens. Besides macro photography, this lens is ideal for still life and studio work. Its design, which is intended to produce sharp images from corner to corner at close-up and macro distances, is not ideal for images at infinity. However, starting from f/11, it becomes acceptable.

It has good sharpness up to the corners, quite low distortion and as mentioned a nice rendering, but in terms of resolution it can’t match the best lenses.

Which lenses do you think are the best in terms of resolution?

I have a totally different experience with the Makro Planar than you do. This lens performs just fine with both 50 MP and 100 MP medium format sensors. It has perfect color saturation, microcontrast, and sharpness. I can provide examples if you like.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, Zeiss states that, for higher resolution in reproduction work, the Planar 100 can be used instead. The Planar 100 is known as the sharpest lens in the Hasselblad system.

 

[dokko]

I have a totally different experience with the Makro Planar than you do. This lens performs just fine with both 50 MP and 100 MP medium format sensors. It has perfect color saturation, microcontrast, and sharpness. I can provide examples if you like.

I never said it performs poorly, I said „It has good sharpness up to the corners, quite low distortion and as mentioned a nice rendering, but in terms of resolution it can’t match the best lenses.“

The Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7 lenses are noticeably higher resolution, unfortunately they do not work on a Hasselblad and are not macro lenses

The Contax 645 120mm macro also is higher resolution than the Hasselblad 120mm macro.

For digital medium format sensors, there are quite a few modern lenses with significantly higher resolution on macro distances.

I think we agree that the Hasselblad 120mm is the best lens for macro photography on a 500 series body though.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Not quite macro, but the minimum focus distance with the 80mm ƒ/2.8 Planar-CB lens (hand held, Tri-X 400 film). This is one of the instruments at the historic Plutonium Reactor B at the Hanford site in Washington state. I scanned the negatives with a Minolta ScanMulti film scanner.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Not quite macro, but the minimum focus distance with the 80mm ƒ/2.8 Planar-CB lens (hand held, Tri-X 400 film). This is one of the instruments at the historic Plutonium Reactor B at the Hanford site in Washington state. I scanned the negatives with a Minolta ScanMulti film scanner.

View attachment 399918

Ah heck, my Kodak Instamatic X-15 could do that good. Snicker, snicker! Hard to beat Zeiss glass and 120 film format.