Do you see differences between the RB67 C and KL lenses?
Do you see differences between the RB67 C and KL lenses?
No, I couldn't.
Could it also be that medium format starts with larger emulsions and less enlargements than 35mm?
You didn't say anything about the RB67.
Lighter also gets it fairly close to "flimsy", shoot cannot believe I said that, it's Hasselblad.
When I first heard of Hass body getting out of shape and needed to be corrected again, I thought it was a joke. Then I acquired a skeleton of one, never used for further assembly. It's quite obvious it can indeed be stressed beyond design strength and I would imagine some of the long lenses are probably capable, if not properly supported.
Now I am getting the Sonnar 250, and even if that is not the heaviest, I am not sure if it can be safely mounted without lens support when shooting from tripod, a requirement for the most part. To my knowledge they never made any lens specific support except for the Variogon.
whether it is mainly a hand held lens or a tripod lens
One needs a truss to carry the RB67 around all day.
I find that a tripod is needed for a MF SLR with any lens longer than 50mm and medium-speed film. You can really see the difference upon careful examination. An 80mm will give acceptable results, but still benefits from a tripod or monopod. Obviously, higher speed film, bright light or strobes are a different situation.
I use mostly ISO 400 films. Hand holdability will be influenced by film speed. What speed films do you use?
80 and 160.
When I got into medium format, I had a similar realization but I came up with a different explanation. What I have noticed right away is that in the world of medium format cameras, there is far less disparity in quality among contemporary lenses than between 35mm format lenses. I think this is mostly because medium format has largely been a medium for professionals, and all pro-grade gear is made to a higher standard. Even if there is tangible difference between Hasselblad and Mamiya lenses, it is often eaten away by focus errors, film flatness, or grain.
The most recent example is Mamiya 135mm Sekor TLR lens which I just acquired. Supposedly it was considered to be the worst lens for C-series Mamiya TLRs. Yet, I just developed and scanned my first roll, mostly exposed at the widest aperture and I fail to see any faults in these images.
The reason I prefer Zeiss lenses and the Hasselblad system in general is their supreme build quality, simplicity in operation, heavy and slow focusing, and consistency: same coatings, same filter diameter, same ergonomics and almost the same maximum aperture for common focal lengths.
Yes, in that case the tripod is your best friend.
The point about the tripod is a good one. Using a tripod may make as much of difference in sharpness as the difference between the best lenses and merely good lenses. There may be more bang for the buck for sharpness in investing in a good tripod than buying uber fancy lenses.
I have had one Hasselblad body adjusted once. It was slightly out of alignment. The repair people as Samys said that is more common with the other MF SLRs. I have never needed a tripod to use the 250mm lens, however the swing weight and the weight of the 500mm lens is such that a tripod is needed for most people. I have not used the 350mm lens so I have no opinion about whether it is mainly a hand held lens or a tripod lens. I disagree with the comments about the Hasselblad being flimsy, but if you handle some of the Bronicas you would find them flimsy.
The Sonnar type 105's (especially on rangefinders) have pretty nice bokeh. This is in Contax mount (and somewhat closed down, maybe f5.6 to 8)....I once owned a number of those Nikon 105 2.5 lenses, and can say w/ absolute certainty that they are certainly sharp. Wonderful for documentary type things and many other uses.
But generally speaking, Nikon lenses don't have very good bokeh...
The point about the tripod is a good one. Using a tripod may make as much of difference in sharpness as the difference between the best lenses and merely good lenses. There may be more bang for the buck for sharpness in investing in a good tripod than buying uber fancy lenses.
Re: Hasselblad and Tripods:
View attachment 330604
Here he is before establishing the Hasselblad as we know it now.
And the 1st camera he made was definitely made to be hand held (HK7)
But most pictures you see of him using the V cameras are on tripods, because he was usually trying to optimize image quality with a long lens. From the ergonomics, it was clearly made for both cases, depending on your use.
Hasselblads look great and are a real part of film photography history. I'll probably never own one and can say I have never used one. But why all Anti-Hassy vibes? What is not to like about this...
View attachment 330607
Hasselblads look great and are a real part of film photography history. I'll probably never own one and can say I have never used one. But why all Anti-Hassy vibes? What is not to like about this...
View attachment 330607
Some of us own most MF brands, so direct comparison is easy. Biased? Perhaps in some cases, but being part of history is kind of a moot point, since same can be easily ... easily said about Bronica, among others. Going to the Moon makes a marketing difference for sure, but Hasselblad is not what a lot of people make it out to be. I won't go into my points of all the what and why did they do it, as I find it just as moot.Hasselblads look great and are a real part of film photography history. I'll probably never own one and can say I have never used one. But why all Anti-Hassy vibes? What is not to like about this...
View attachment 330607
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?