Lets be honest!

[Sirius Glass]

hmmm, I have and use the Bronica S, S2 and S2a as well - it's really a nice quality camera, despite all the talk about noise. But it's also a senior citizen.

A good TH-WACK shutter noise is great. I love it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll answer the question of what are the very best MF lenses with a New Years quiz which will give you the answer, 'what is a four letter word that begins with F and ends in i ?'

As for Hasselblad the myth was briefly true, they developed the market and set a standard, but the 'quality myth was instigated by glossy magazines like Vogue requiring the studio and location shoot photographs to be made on Hasselblad cameras. It allowed the myth to grow despite it no longer being true, and photographers made it worse by becoming photo snobs because without further questioning they bought themselves a slice of the myth. It doesn't make Hasselblad's bad cameras, but come on, they aren't that great for what you pay. If a Bronica is cheap and unreliable a Hasselblad is expensive and unreliable, the difference being for less than the price of a Hasselblad service you can buy a replacement Bronica.

Hasselblads are not unreliable and please stop talking about cameras that you never handled and know nothing about.

 

[randyB]

May I add my 2 cents to the discussion. Way back in the early 80's, I believe 1981, I wanted to upgrade to a 6x? SLR system from my Rollie's. I compared the 500C, Mamiya RB67, Bronica SQ and the Mamiya 645. All with the standard lenses. B&W photos made on Plus-x film. In my opinion, the Blad was the best with the Bronica a very close 2nd, the RB 3rd. The 645 was poor compared the the others, but my sample could have been "off". I wound up buying a new 500CM in 1982 when Calumet had a big sale. I have been very happy with it and all the lenses that I've acquired since. On an aside, I do like the 6x7/6x9 format also, it would have been excellent if Victor had made a 6x7 version.

 

[rulnacco]

Having experienced my share of breakdowns with Hasselblads, I understand and agree that they are not some paragons of mechanical perfection. (Although really, given what we expect them to do, in an all-mechanical package, they're really pretty damn good at that.)

What I don't understand, frankly, is several people above saying things like Blads are somehow "cumbersome to use." Errrr, what? I mean, yeah, you take a 35mm film camera, and you *can* use that more swiftly and instinctually maybe, and probably bang it around a lot more than you can a Hasselblad and it'll keep on working. But using a 500CM out on the street or anywhere outside the studio--you actually find *that* taxing? My goodness, for a medium format camera (all of which can be at least a bit fiddly to load compared to 35mm), I'm not really sure just how much more ergonomic and easy-to-use you can make one. I *love* using my Hasselblad! It's just fun.

 

[eli griggs]

If I may speak out of my very personal situation: Hasselblad is the Zeus on the firmament of medium format camera's.
This camera (the very same!) provided my and my family's bread and butter from 1981 till a few years ago.
Yes, it is heavy, (a little-) cumbersome, very expensive, in need for permanent care, needing to be operated thoughtfully, and so many more...
But, when, after a long and exhausting day of shooting on location, you see the results, then all that negativity goes away!
And, when, after 40 years of jading that same kit of gear, you see that it is still so perfectly performing, then you realise that it was worth all the money and the hassle!
Hasselblad is hated by so many yet adored by even more...

View attachment 325382

One small part of the Hasselblad 500c/CM genius, is they are straight forward to repair, and CLA, plus able to go many years between properly done CLAs and outright repairs.

IMO.

REMEMBER, Only a few years back, good Hasselblad 500 bodies and lenses were going for cheap, and it was No because the Quality of the old equipment had fallen, just the rise of digital work had stepped hard into vogue.

Recognition of film's uniqueness, the quality of kit out there, and it's roll to many monied amateurs as a status symbol all combined to relaunch the line into the very pricey categories it now lives in.

IMO.

 

[MTGseattle]

There seems to be a continuing trend towards comparing Apples to Oranges. If all we're talking about is the general "feel" of an image from a given lens, we still need to compare lenses across 1 film format.
We cannot compare a Hasselblad 500c/m to the Fuji rangefinders in the camera handling category. I would hazard that even comparing a 500 c/m to the Mamiya RZ system is a stretch.
I don't think there is an analogue for the Hasselblad SWC within any other manufacturer unless we bend the rules to include the Mamiya 7 with the 43mm. We still land with 2 cameras that are completely different animals.
Camera body, film back, waist level finder, manual wind. Limit to those functional/use parameters then add your thoughts. I consider myself lucky in that between high school, college and now I've had the opportunity and privilege to actually try and own quite a few cameras. The absolute most important thing is that using the camera is comfortable and (after some time) intuitive to you. If you're still getting results that you find less than adequate, you need to evaluate which part of your workflow needs to change.

 

[eli griggs]

When I bought my first Hasselblad system, back in the early 1980's, it was only after looking at everything out there and finding I like the Hasselblad best for what I was doing and moving away from 135 work (a huge mistake on my part) which I viewed as redundant.

Professionally, I worked with photographers who used other medium format gear, including roll film backs on 4" x 5" cameras, in studio and the field, as well as Hasselblad.

In all of it, leaving out the Hasselblad 500 CM, I liked the C330 cameras and lenses best, except for no having interchangeable backs, in part, because of the small form factor.

After that, the 'E' Minolta Autocord and Rolliflexes in three lens selections.

I'm no in love with any of the other SLR medium formats, other a few folders.

IMO.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I read that my comment from last Saturday wasn't very clear and could be misinterpreted, so I would be glad to elucidate what I wrote about a Hasselblad being "...(a little-) cumbersome...".

I overcame me on several occasions to changed a lens while forgetting to cock the camera first and, even worse, removing the lens AND the close-up ring at the same time and by this blocking the whole set, which always happend in the heat of the fight or when I was distracted (mostly by the client or the account executive).
Needles to say how embarrassing this was, that's why I always bring a small screwdriver and a tweezer so I can dismantle the lens and the ring on the spot (which most of the time surprised those people).

It's a piece of a cake when you know how to do it as the Swedish design their stuff so there could be easily worked on (I drove Volvo's for more than 20 years)...

BTW, to my humble opinion, the only camera that could compete with the Hasselblad was the Rollei SL66...

 

[guangong]

Just an aside. As an inside joke, my friend who worked at a very well known NYC camera store as their expert for a very famous camera brand, also made him the primary salesman for Bronica, just to annoy him. He preferred Hasselblad.
My first Hassy was a 1000F. Delicate and mechanically cumbersome, what saved Hasselblad was superior ergonomics. There can be no argument about that.

 

[xya]

As said above, we are again comparing apples and oranges. Decades ago I was into portraits. All my collegues were into Hasselblads. I decided to have the C 3(30) Mamiyas because they are quiet and you see your model in the moment of shooting. The "beautiful" sound of the Hassy shutter makes more than one client and more than once close their eyes...

The Mamiya lenses are wonderful, no doubt. The Mamiyas are reliable without much service. Not having interchangeable backs is no problem, just get another body or 2.

 

[Craig]

As for Hasselblad the myth was briefly true, they developed the market and set a standard, but the 'quality myth was instigated by glossy magazines like Vogue requiring the studio and location shoot photographs to be made on Hasselblad cameras. It allowed the myth to grow despite it no longer being true, and photographers made it worse by becoming photo snobs because without further questioning they bought themselves a slice of the myth.

Sounds a lot like Cadillac. At one time it advertised itself as "The Standard of the World" and it was probably true in the 1960's. By the 1980's and onward, not so much.

 

[randyB]

I am slightly confused.....since this thread appears to be about medium format and in particular Hasselblad lenses and what makes them so unique when compared to the lenses of other medium format cameras could those of you who say "we" are comparing apples to oranges explain which are the apples and which are the oranges? Also, please explain, in detail, why "we" should not compare/test all of the lenses for all of the cameras that fall in the rather large medium format group against each other.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hasselblad lens MTF curves are available here ===> http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx
I do not know of any other lens manufacturer providing MTF curves.

 

[MTGseattle]

I may have further muddied the waters, I apologize. The OP was clearly asking if the hype surrounding Hasselblad lenses is warranted. We all slid down the slope a bit when the function/reliability/handling of Hasselblad cameras got thrown into the mix. If you enjoy shooting with a 500 series, you may not enjoy using a Pentax 67. It's the basic use characteristics of the cameras that to me are apples and oranges. Some people love a waist level viewfinder, while others love a prism finder. rangefinder or slr? Potato potaato. I think we can all agree that "best lens" is highly subjective unless we want to let very scientific lab testing results be the determining factor.

 

[MattKing]

I use black and white film only, will I see a difference using high priced, heavy equipment?

The OP was clearly asking if the hype surrounding Hasselblad lenses is warranted.

I didn't take the OP's question as being limited to the lenses only.

 

[John Will]

Hasselblad lens MTF curves are available here ===> http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx
I do not know of any other lens manufacturer providing MTF curves.

Rollei 6000 and HY6 Schneider and Zeiss lens MTF can be found here :-- http://www.rolleiflexpages.com/lenscharts.html

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rollei 6000 and HY6 Schneider and Zeiss lens MTF can be found here :-- http://www.rolleiflexpages.com/lenscharts.html

Thank you.

 

[250swb]

Hasselblads are not unreliable and please stop talking about cameras that you never handled and know nothing about.

Thank you, my first Hasselblad 500CM was bought new in 1980, it came from a professional shop in Leeds (who's name I can't remember) and it came with an additional free film back (whoopie!). In those days arts grants were more open and easily available and I secured a grant to buy it from the Yorkshire Arts Association (an affiliate of the Arts Council of Great Britain) on the flimsy basis that I had a project to complete and I'd been using a Hasselblad at college before graduating with my BA Hons in Fine Art (Photography). So I ask you to update the information you are keeping on me, spooky as it is, but at least make it accurate.

 

[CJG]

OK, I'm a sucker for five star rated optics.
Years ago I compared a Nikon 105mm f2.5 to a Mamiya 135mm F2.8 , on black and white film, on a stationary object and could see no difference in print quality.
Other Nikon lenses that 'seemed' to be very good were a 55mm f2.8 Micro , a Nikkor 180 f2.8 ed and a Nikon 300 f4.5 IFED.
With medium format it's been a little more difficult.
With the Bronica SQA I had the 80mm f2.8 was so so, the 50mm pretty good but no better than an ancient Yashica TLR with it's 80mm lens.
SO; what's the big deal with Hasselblad and it's lenses
I use black and white film only, will I see a difference using high priced, heavy equipment?

TB

In MHO you won't see a difference. Especially in B/W. At one point I got tired of CLAing my Hasselblad kit every year. In hindsight did I need to do it every year? Probably not. But that's what everyone did and I shot thousands and thousands of rolls through the Blads and never had a malfunction. But I was tired of spending what was a fair amount of money every year servicing 6 lenses, 4 backs, 2 cameras.

So at one point I traded it all in for RZ67's. I always (still do!) used a stand or tripod, so the size difference didn't matter. The lenses had different looks. I shot chromes so it was easy to see. For me the Mamiya lenses were contrastier. Didn't notice a difference in sharpness. With B/W you could easily make them match in the darkroom. Or post.

As far as haptics the Blad felt great. Like it was hewn out of unobtanium. The RZ felt plasticky. BUT worked great, and I shot thousands and thousands of rolls through the RZ and never had a malfunction. And never serviced it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In MHO you won't see a difference. Especially in B/W. At one point I got tired of CLAing my Hasselblad kit every year. In hindsight did I need to do it every year? Probably not. But that's what everyone did and I shot thousands and thousands of rolls through the Blads and never had a malfunction. But I was tired of spending what was a fair amount of money every year servicing 6 lenses, 4 backs, 2 cameras.

So at one point I traded it all in for RZ67's. I always (still do!) used a stand or tripod, so the size difference didn't matter. The lenses had different looks. I shot chromes so it was easy to see. For me the Mamiya lenses were contrastier. Didn't notice a difference in sharpness. With B/W you could easily make them match in the darkroom. Or post.

As far as haptics the Blad felt great. Like it was hewn out of unobtanium. The RZ felt plasticky. BUT worked great, and I shot thousands and thousands of rolls through the RZ and never had a malfunction. And never serviced it.

My Hasselblad repair man at Samy's Camera, told me to fire every Hasselblad lenses [the same goes for any camera] every three months 10 to 15 times at 1 second. Also he recommends CLAs for Hasselblads and other cameras only when they need it.

 

[CJG]

My Hasselblad repair man at Samy's Camera, told me to fire every Hasselblad lenses [the same goes for any camera] every three months 10 to 15 times at 1 second. Also he recommends CLAs for Hasselblads and other cameras only when they need it.

Siriusly...I used the cameras every week. Didn't need to dry fire them. Samy's is good advice for an avid amateur. Myself and every pro I know serviced them yearly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Siriusly...I used the cameras every week. Didn't need to dry fire them. Samy's is good advice for an avid amateur. Myself and every pro I know serviced them yearly.

Exactly. I am an amateur. I post that for amateurs. When I was still in school, I was told by National Geographic photographers that they CLA their cameras before every expedition. For many years after that I CLA's my Minoltas every two years so that I would not have a shutter problem when photographing while skiing.

 

[Pieter12]

just the rise of digital work had stepped hard into vogue.

More like, at that time most Hasselblads were owned by professionals and camera rental companies. Digital now occupies that realm, so photographers, etc were unloading film cameras at unprecedented rates. It is not a question of fashion or trend, but the hard reality of what works best in a professional environment with clients, deadlines and ease of retouching.

 

[Sirius Glass]

More like, at that time most Hasselblads were owned by professionals and camera rental companies. Digital now occupies that realm, so photographers, etc were unloading film cameras at unprecedented rates. It is not a question of fashion or trend, but the hard reality of what works best in a professional environment with clients, deadlines and ease of retouching.

And encouraged by APUG members in 2007 I started buy a Hasselblad camera and lenses as fast as I could afford to. I do not have GAS for Hasselblad equipment any longer because I have what I use and I have no need for any more Hasselblad equipment.

 

[CJG]

Exactly. I am an amateur. I post that for amateurs. When I was still in school, I was told by National Geographic photographers that they CLA their cameras before every expedition. For many years after that I CLA's my Minoltas every two years so that I would not have a shutter problem when photographing while skiing.

Sure. I'm an amateur now too and CLA doesn't cross my mind. I wanted to explain that I had extensive experience with Hasselblad, trading them for something else I had extensive experience with, and why I traded them. I stand by my opinion making B/W images you won't see any pertinent difference in prints between the Blad and other pro level MF cameras of the time. That said I'm a long term Zeiss fan and have a couple Zeiss lenses for my Rollei