Lets be honest!

[Melvin J Bramley]

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

 

[Eric Rose]

Millions of dollars have been made using Hasselblad lenses by professional commercial photographers. They could have used any equipment they wanted.

 

[MattKing]

I remember sitting at the reception desk for the professional studio I was working in one summer and having Uwe Meyer, the owner and main photographer, ask me if I knew of anything that he could replace his Hasselblad 500 series camera and lenses with. He asked, because although he and his other photographers got great results from them with his studio's wedding and portrait and commercial work, he was constantly having to get them serviced.
I didn't have any practical suggestions, because the cameras that were more durable/required less maintenance tended to have less flexibility or be of lower quality.
That being said, the qualities of many of the alternatives - professional level equipment, designed for demanding needs - are such that in most circumstances it will be difficult to tell the difference between the results.
I never got along well with Hasselblad equipment. The ergonomics are totally unsuitable for my needs. Even when I was selling them, they didn't particularly appeal to me. In my case, Mamiya medium format equipment gives better results.
That being said, the life size photo of a nude woman in a human size martini glass that Uwe had on the wall in the back workroom of the studio space was sharp as a tack, and he used his Hasselblad equipment for that! The skin tones were excellent as well - ABC Photocolour was/is a great lab.
If you knew Uwe, you wouldn't have been surprised to see that photo. The only thing that might have surprised you was that he hired a young guy to work in the studio, rather than a young woman!

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

What you say is quite true Eric in the sense that you say "equipment". Hasselblad lenses are great but part of the quality of the image produced is the reliable camera body and other parts. Kiev 88 lenses, for example, are quite good, but sometimes the image produced suffer from a not so good body or film back. You could say the same for other systems lenses as well. I believe the sum of the parts is better than the parts.

 

[cramej]

Let's be honest.... Hasselblads are like Macs. They are very good at what they do but they're not right for everyone. Just like computers, people buy them because that's why they think they're  supposed to buy to be a photographer.

Will you see a difference? Maybe, but only if another system limits you in a way that a Hasselblad does not.

 

[Steven Lee]

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.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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...

 

[koraks]

it was worth all the money and the hassle!

So it's a Hassleblad, really

Will you see a difference? Maybe, but only if another system limits you in a way that a Hasselblad does not.

This. Also, you'll see the difference if you want to see it. Regardless of its objective qualities, there's a lot of mystique around certain brands. Whether you like it or not, people are influenced by this.

 

[gone]

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.

This has been my experience as well. One may see a difference between scanned negatives, but making a darkroom print seems to level the playing field.

Having said that, some lenses have unique qualities. Whether or not those qualities matter is mostly a matter of personal taste, or dependent on what type of photography someone is doing. 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. This has been my actual experience w/ many of them. So when I went to using Leica R lenses w/ adapters on my Nikon cameras, holy moly, what a difference! And it showed up on the prints too. They could occasionally give a 3-D look, and the bokeh was nice and smooth. Prints from those lenses just have a different look, and I like that look.The R lenses are also built to a much higher build standard.

As for 'blads, they have great optics but are attached to a cumbersome-to use camera (unless someone is using it on a tripod). Like Matt, I found the size and ergonomics were a PITA, especially when using them on the street. I could get a lot better shots using a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord TLR. Which again brings up the question of personal taste. To me, images from the 3 element Triotar lenses are preferable to the upscale Xenars. Why that is I don't know and it doesn't matter, that's just my preference.

 

[guangong]

I find the Hasselblad camera to be very comfortable shooting hand held, and this friendly ergonomics is responsible for the cameras success.
The lenses are also superb, and as I understand, assembled by matching elements with greater care, which adds to the cost. I will explain this another way. My wife and I each had a pair of relatively expansive Leitz 6 power Trinovids through which we could watch a complete longish opera such as Tannhauser very comfortably. I was told by a friend who worked assembling Trinovids at Wetzlar that high cost was due to matching left and right sides as close as possible. Looking continuously for several hours using lesser binoculars would have produced severe eye strain due to seemingly slight differences in magnification.
My point is that for most applications lenses made with less care in assembly are just fine, but there are times when only the best will do.

 

[Paul Howell]

In terms of a print, if a lens can resolve Tmax 100 it is good enough. What a Hassy can bring to the party is perhaps a better coating. I shoot with Kowa, SL 66 and Mamiya Universal along with a few TLR, all are very capable cameras, each has it own strengths and weakness, just need to know your camera and system.

 

[ic-racer]

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

The MTF curves for most of the Zeiss lenses can be found on the internet. Those for the Mamiya 135 and Nikon 105mm might be harder to locate.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Hasselblad lenses are made by Zeiss. And yes they are worth the money.

• They are sharper than most other lenses across the film plane. Look at the MTF curves.
• They have better contrast than most lenses and equal to other Zeiss lenses.
• They are well made with steel and not plastic so while they are heavier they are sturdier and will last a long time.
• The C lenses now are beginning to have parts problems and are less ergonomic. The CF and later lenses have parts and service available are very ergonomic. See post 10.
• CF and later lenses for the most part use the B60 filters so one set of filters will work on all but the longest and widest lenses.

I have two C lenses, the 30mm Fisheye and the 500mm telephoto which I got a such a low price that I could not pass it up. The CF lenses that I have are the 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, and the 250mm lenses.

 

[itsdoable]

I started with a Rolliecord Vb in high-school - because my father had one, and over the years, I've owned and use a Hasselblad 500c, Pentax 67 & 645, Mamiya RB67, Bronica G1, Fujifilm GX680, Kiev-88, Pentacon Six, Yashica & Ricoh TLRs, and various non-SLRs (Mamiya 6 & 7s, Fujifilm GW690s and GS645, etc...). I currently use a Hasselblad 500cx and a 200fe.

What Sirius said above is correct, of the systems I've used, the Hasselblad is one of the best in multiple categories. And there are still a lot of working copies around, which speaks to their longevity and popularity.

- They were the first system MF camera with full interchangeable lenses, backs and finders.
- They were/are the smallest most compact 6x6 SLR made - idea for field use
- They had full leaf shutter synchronization for electronic flash as all speeds - something very important in the professional studio.
- They were reliable and had a professional service program
- Lenses were sharp and contrasty

Arguably, the Bronica SQ was the closest competition, as it did everything the Hasselblad did (including sharp lenses). And indeed, it was extremely popular with the Portrait/Wedding professionals as they cost less, were lighter to use hand held, and required less servicing. But even though there are still many around, they have not stood the test of time as well. If you want a square leaf shuttered MF camera system, it is one of the best deals out there now.

Some observations:

Keiv 88 lenses are noticeable inferior to Hasselblad, both in build and sharpness.

Pentacon Six Zeiss lenses are close to the quality (build ans sharpness) of the similar era Hasselblad lenses.

Mamiya 6 & 7, Bronica G1, and the Fujifilm GX680 lenses are excellent, arguably better than the Hasselblad versions. You really only see differences in rendering, which is a personal preference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I started with a Rolliecord Vb in high-school - because my father had one, and over the years, I've owned and use a Hasselblad 500c, Pentax 67 & 645, Mamiya RB67, Bronica G1, Fujifilm GX680, Kiev-88, Pentacon Six, Yashica & Ricoh TLRs, and various non-SLRs (Mamiya 6 & 7s, Fujifilm GW690s and GS645, etc...). I currently use a Hasselblad 500cx and a 200fe.

What Sirius said above is correct, of the systems I've used, the Hasselblad is one of the best in multiple categories. And there are still a lot of working copies around, which speaks to their longevity and popularity.

- They were the first system MF camera with full interchangeable lenses, backs and finders.
- They were/are the smallest most compact 6x6 SLR made - idea for field use
- They had full leaf shutter synchronization for electronic flash as all speeds - something very important in the professional studio.
- They were reliable and had a professional service program
- Lenses were sharp and contrasty

Arguably, the Bronica SQ was the closest competition, as it did everything the Hasselblad did (including sharp lenses). And indeed, it was extremely popular with the Portrait/Wedding professionals as they cost less, were lighter to use hand held, and required less servicing. But even though there are still many around, they have not stood the test of time as well. If you want a square leaf shuttered MF camera system, it is one of the best deals out there now.

Some observations:

Keiv 88 lenses are noticeable inferior to Hasselblad, both in build and sharpness.

Pentacon Six Zeiss lenses are close to the quality (build ans sharpness) of the similar era Hasselblad lenses.

Mamiya 6 & 7, Bronica G1, and the Fujifilm GX680 lenses are excellent, arguably better than the Hasselblad versions. You really only see differences in rendering, which is a personal preference.

In high school I wanted the Bronica S in the worst way. I went into Samy's Camera planning on buy the Rollei SLR or the Hasselblad and they convinced me that the parts, service [they have a Hasselblad trained repairman on site], bodies and lenses were more available for the Hasselblad than the Rollei. They also had a regular supply of Hasselblad lenses coming in. So I wanted a Bronica and got a Hasselblad. Further note, Tamron lenses are built by Bronica and I have two of their AF zoom lenses.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Will I see a difference in print quality between the Hasselblad with it's 80mm lens compared to a mamiya 645 with it's 80mm f1.9 or a Minolta TLR with it's 75mm lens?
Yes! we can say we have a system camera with many exotic lenses which most of us seldom use , or a bomb proof camera and even those that survive the worst storms ( but we still stick the camera under our jacket!)
Thousands of wonderful exposures have been made on cameras with non coated lenses, slow apertures that would fail the modern era MTF curves!!
Some lens/camera combinations would seem to defy digital scrutiny?
Just how often have you heard; It just looks good/right ?? a realy good lens!

TB

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Happy new year.

TB

 

[Richard Man]

Hasselblad are trashonfire. Please stop buying them. I need to pick up another 203FE and all these talk about how great they are do not help me.

THEY ARE TRASH.

Happy New Year!

 

[itsdoable]

In high school I wanted the Bronica S in the worst way...

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.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

"...just need to know your camera and system..."

There is nothing more true than this...

And, a happy new year to all!

 

[Philippe-Georges]

BTW, what I forgot to mention, and is of great importance to me, is the Flexbody which is perfectly integrated and fully compatible with the Hasselblad V system. This is one reason, among so many others, to prefer Hasselblad above all...

With Hasselblad you enter in an extensive family with a huge amount of members and possibilities!

 

[250swb]

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.

 

[Steven Lee]

There are two ways to think about Hasselblads:

1. They aren't designed well enough to be perfect for all people.
2. Not all people are developed well enough to appreciate a Hasselblad.

Solutions for all Hasselblad problems can be found in the self-improvement section at a near book store.

 

[otto.f]

I just bought a Hasselblad 500 C/M with 50mm in very good state for a reasonable price and half as expensive as a Mamiya 7ii with a 65mm at the moment. The prices of the latter have become insane. So it’s just what you compare, what you’re looking for and what you want to pay. I’m quite happy with a bright focusing screen versus a quite mediocre rangefinder in the Mamiya or a dark time-spending screen in a Rolleiflex. All these camera‘s have something where you have to get used to. I know what I bought, I owned a 500 C/M before and also know the love-hate relation I sometimes had with it. I just have a better defined purpose for this camera now. And there are ‘irrelevant’ details that you may love. I’m very fond of Hasselblad’s sound of the shutter for instance.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

It's almost like with kitchen chefs: some absolutely want Solingen made knives, others want only Japanese knives.
Just take what fits you best and go out shooting!

BTW, the drawback with Hasselblad is that before you do anything, you have to cock the the whole body/lens first, but you get used to it rather fast...