Low contrast lens for Hasselblad

jlpape · May 19, 2010

Hello All,
About a year ago purchased a Kodak Brownie #2 and have been enjoying the images that come from it since. The lens has a delightful distortion characteristic, but the thing I like best about it is how low contrast the images are. I then saw this wonderful documentary on James Ravilious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYg8mxvUgJE&feature=player_embedded#!

Where he used the earlier low contrast Leica lenses to create a look that I really like. So I am trying to understand what are considered the lower contrast lenses that were made for the Hasselblad 500 series cameras. I would assume that these would be of the earlier vintage, but are there any that are considered standouts in this regard?
Thanks in advance,
Jim

Q.G. · May 19, 2010

Earlier or later vintage doesn't make much of a difference with Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses, if one at all.

Yes, the early T coated lenses would, in theory, show a bit more contract lowering flare than the later T* coated lenses. But i'm not sure you want lower contrast because of a veil lying over the entire image.

To be pleasing, the lower contrast must be produced by the way the lens renders the image. A bit of under- or over-corrected spherical aberration will help.
Out of the line-up available for the 500-series, i can't point out one that would qualify.
The 110 mm Planar for the 200/2000-series however comes close when used wide open.

jlpape · May 19, 2010

Ian C said:
The low contrast of the old Kodak Brownie lens is due to the lens flare and glass-to-glass reflections that are inevitable with an uncoated lens. That happens with any uncoated lens and is impossible to replicate with a coated lens.

The closest you might get with a coated lens is to attach a UV filter and smear oil around the outer part leaving the center clear. It can be interesting, but it will never be the same as a using an uncoated lens. All lenses designed for the Hasselblad are coated. I suppose an older uncoated lens of the appropriate design might be might be mounted to a Hasselblad with some sort of adaptor.

Thanks, I will admit that the Kodak Brownie example is a bit extreme (and I am not looking for the distortion component either), but I did have a Leica M6 with the 35mm V4 Summilux that had a low contrast character. While it was a coated lens, it's was not as contrasty as more recent iterations of the design. I really miss that lens (but am happy with the move to MF). I did go through the Hasselblad lens listings and I do see that all of the designs that I can find are coated lenses, but am still curious if any of the older designs have a lower contrast characteristic. Possibly one more so than another? The Hasselblad lenses that I have are either CF or CFi.
You also bring up a good point of an adapter to mount a non-Hasselblad lens. Not sure I have ever seen one though.

jlpape · May 19, 2010

Q.G. said:
Earlier or later vintage doesn't make much of a difference with Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses, if one at all.

Yes, the early T coated lenses would, in theory, show a bit more contract lowering flare than the later T* coated lenses. But i'm not sure you want lower contrast because of a veil lying over the entire image.

To be pleasing, the lower contrast must be produced by the way the lens renders the image. A bit of under- or over-corrected spherical aberration will help.
Out of the line-up available for the 500-series, i can't point out one that would qualify.
The 110 mm Planar for the 200/2000-series however comes close when used wide open.

Thanks for the reply and education. When you say the early T coated lenses, you talking about these as a class of lenses (i.e. all T lenses) vs a specific manufacturing timeframe or particular lens?

Mustafa Umut Sarac · May 19, 2010

There is someone at the apug forums who installed Darlot to Hasselblad .
If you post to the forums asking owner of the Darlotblad and be a friend at facebook than scroll the gallery , may be you would want the same.
As you know Darlot is the lens of Julia Margaret Cameron.
Darlotblad is a excellent workhorse , I want to add you will face great difficulties to match your hasselblad with a leica. Leica is matchless old or new. I dont know how you reached to a idea , old leicas are low contrast , if I am not wrong they are not.
Rent few old Leicas and take same image with Hasselblad and with them.
I am not sure what is old for you , 70 years or 20 years ?

Q.G. · May 19, 2010

jlpape said:
Thanks for the reply and education. When you say the early T coated lenses, you talking about these as a class of lenses (i.e. all T lenses) vs a specific manufacturing timeframe or particular lens?

Yes, as a class of lenses: single coated lenses vs later multicoated lenses. The thing they tend to be divided by: either T or T*, as if that difference is significant.
Though certainly a difference, i don't think it is significant.

There of course is an associated time frame. They began changing coatings around (very roughly - it happened over a multi-year period) 1970.

photobum · May 19, 2010

I don't think you will get the effect you want with any Hasselblad Zeiss or Schneider lens. Nor will a 'Blad Softar filter do it either. Try one of the cheapo filters with the white nylon mesh in it or make your own. 67mm filter with a B60/67mm adapter. If in the studio aim some light at the lens and no shade.

Q.G. · May 19, 2010

photobum said:
I don't think you will get the effect you want with any Hasselblad Zeiss or Schneider lens. Nor will a 'Blad Softar filter do it either. Try one of the cheapo filters with the white nylon mesh in it or make your own. 67mm filter with a B60/67mm adapter. If in the studio aim some light at the lens and no shade.

All that would do is lay a veil over the image. It doesn't produce a clear, but lower contrast image.

I think things like the Darlotblad, i.e. a lens that does produce the desired effect all by itself (but when such a lens, why on a Hasselblad?) would be the way to go.

jlpape · May 19, 2010

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
I dont know how you reached to a idea , old leicas are low contrast , if I am not wrong they are not.

Actually the Summilux V4 is sought after as being a lower contrast lens. That's why I bought it. To be more specific, lower contrast than the current line-up. It was absolutely wonderful (IMHO).

2F/2F · May 19, 2010

I think you will have a hard time getting a Brownie look from a Hasselblad.

What I might consider in the 6x6 realm is a 2x3 or 4x5 press camera with a focal plane shutter. They can mount 6x6 backs (as well as 6x7 and 6x9 backs), and will allow you to use practically any lens within the draw of the bellows that you can mount on a board. They have much versatility as far as lens selection goes, and while not SLRs, they are usable hand held within a certain range of FLs. If you get a 4x5 model, you can shoot all of those medium format frame sizes I mentioned, as well as 4x5 inch, 9x12 cm film and 6x12 frames.

This route will not have the slick precision or SLR features of a Hasselblad, but it will be incredibly versatile and allow you to get a lower contrast look by using any of a wide variety of lenses.

jlpape · May 19, 2010

Q.G. said:
All that would do is lay a veil over the image. It doesn't produce a clear, but lower contrast image.

I think things like the Darlotblad, i.e. a lens that does produce the desired effect all by itself (but when such a lens, why on a Hasselblad?) would be the way to go.

So maybe trying a lower contrast lens idea for a Hasselblad may not really be the optimal way to go. Are there any reasonably priced alternatives that I should consider? 80mm focal length is fine for my needs. I would and do appreciate your comments. I am fairly new to medium format photography and am trying to learn the characteristics of various makes and vintages of cameras.
Thanks

jlpape · May 19, 2010

2F/2F said:
I think you will have a hard time getting a Brownie look from a Hasselblad.

What I might consider in the 6x6 realm is a 2x3 or 4x5 press camera with a focal plane shutter. They can mount 6x6 backs (as well as 6x7 and 6x9 backs), and will allow you to use practically any lens within the draw of the bellows that you can mount on a board. They have much versatility as far as lens selection goes, and while not SLRs, they are usable hand held within a certain range of FLs. If you get a 4x5 model, you can shoot all of those medium format frame sizes I mentioned, as well as 4x5 inch, 9x12 cm film and 6x12 frames.

This route will not have the slick precision or SLR features of a Hasselblad, but it will be incredibly versatile and allow you to get a lower contrast look by using any of a wide variety of lenses.

Thanks, This may well be the more versatile way to go. As you mention, the lens choices to get a certain characteristic is broader. I have thought about going larger format sometime in the future to be able to gain the functionality of the lens movements, not to mention the larger negative. So one option could well be to wait on this idea until I am ready to make that change. Are you aware of any resources that give a historical look at the lens choices for this format and some of the characteristics that they have?
Thanks again.

jlpape · May 19, 2010

Q.G. said:
Yes, as a class of lenses: single coated lenses vs later multicoated lenses. The thing they tend to be divided by: either T or T*, as if that difference is significant.
Though certainly a difference, i don't think it is significant.

There of course is an associated time frame. They began changing coatings around (very roughly - it happened over a multi-year period) 1970.

Thanks, I'll look around for some images with pre 1970 lenses. As you say, it may not be significant, but I would be interested in seeing how they render.

jlpape · May 19, 2010

2F/2F said:
What I might consider in the 6x6 realm is a 2x3 or 4x5 press camera with a focal plane shutter.

I take it that the significance of the focal plane shutter is that I would not be limited to requiring a leaf shutter in the lens. How are these cameras with regard to vibration from the shutter. I typically use longer exposures (1 sec --> 1/30sec) on a tripod. When using the Hasselblad, I always use the mirror lock-up function to keep vibration to a minimum.

BrianShaw · May 19, 2010

jlpape said:
So maybe trying a lower contrast lens idea for a Hasselblad may not really be the optimal way to go.

What about a different approach - lower contrast film. Portra NC (either speed) is rather low contrast. Is that low enough or do you need/want lower?

jlpape · May 20, 2010

BrianShaw said:
What about a different approach - lower contrast film. Portra NC (either speed) is rather low contrast. Is that low enough or do you need/want lower?

I only shoot black & white. I found that the newer emulsions, such as Ilford Delta and Kodak Tmax, to be higher contrast than films such as Ilford's FP4+. At least with my exposure/developing techniques. I am still working on my technique, since I believe I have room for improvement here.

bdial · May 20, 2010

Speed Graphics are more or less the default choice as a platform for funky shutterless lenses. I haven't found the vibration to be a problem.

BrianShaw · May 20, 2010

jlpape said:
I only shoot black & white.

Oh... I understand. That probably means that you won't get much value from the next couple of suggestions I'll make. This is what I do when I want low contrast and don't use Portra NC:

1. SF filter on Hassy (or Nikon)
2. SF lens on LF camera
3. Shoot Porta NC and convert to B&W

For #1 I use a Softar-type or a duto, depending on how much soft and/or contrast reduction I'm trying to achieve.

I'd be interested in hearing about chemical approaches to contrast reduction, but don't practice photo-chemistry myself at this time.

p.s. I agree about FP4... it is my favorite for portraits. Almost everything else I do I favor Plus-X, though.

epig · May 20, 2010

I'd suggest an older Rolleiflex which had single coated lenses.

Eric

Thomas Bertilsson · May 20, 2010

You are speaking of Andrew Moxom. He uses the 2000 series Hasselblad cameras, which have a focal plane shutter. The focal plane shutter is necessary to make it work, so the 500 series Hasselblad will not work.

Those old lenses can (and will if you're not careful) flare a lot, but when you get it right the soft highlights and the waaaaay open shadows can be used to fabulous results. I'm currently trying out a 50mm Summitar for a Leica, and it has some of the characteristics the OP is asking for.

I think it's best to look to a different camera in order to be able to use lenses with lower contrast rendition.

- Thomas

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
There is someone at the apug forums who installed Darlot to Hasselblad .
If you post to the forums asking owner of the Darlotblad and be a friend at facebook than scroll the gallery , may be you would want the same.
As you know Darlot is the lens of Julia Margaret Cameron.
Darlotblad is a excellent workhorse , I want to add you will face great difficulties to match your hasselblad with a leica. Leica is matchless old or new. I dont know how you reached to a idea , old leicas are low contrast , if I am not wrong they are not.
Rent few old Leicas and take same image with Hasselblad and with them.
I am not sure what is old for you , 70 years or 20 years ?

Nicholas Lindan · May 20, 2010

There are no 'low contrast' lenses available for a Hasselblad. For a Lieca you can get pre-WWII uncoated lenses, 'blads are strictly coated lens machines..

You need a Holgablad - Mount the Krappy-Kam lens of your choice to a body cap. With a 500 you have to use the 'auxilliary shutter', you only get a 'bulb' speed IIRC.

But if you like the Brownie look, why not just use a Brownie?

jlpape · May 20, 2010

Nicholas Lindan said:
But if you like the Brownie look, why not just use a Brownie?

Fair question... The Brownie may not have been the best example, though I do like the images from it. What I am after is the benefits of a low contrast lens (open shadows and soft highlights) without the distortion. When I want the distortion, I can and do use the Brownie.

jlpape · May 20, 2010

BrianShaw said:
Oh... I understand. That probably means that you won't get much value from the next couple of suggestions I'll make. This is what I do when I want low contrast and don't use Portra NC:

1. SF filter on Hassy (or Nikon)
2. SF lens on LF camera
3. Shoot Porta NC and convert to B&W

For #1 I use a Softar-type or a duto, depending on how much soft and/or contrast reduction I'm trying to achieve.

I'd be interested in hearing about chemical approaches to contrast reduction, but don't practice photo-chemistry myself at this time.

p.s. I agree about FP4... it is my favorite for portraits. Almost everything else I do I favor Plus-X, though.

Does the softar really reduce the contrast, or create a soft blur? Maybe I don't understand this, but is a softar creating lower edge contrast while a low contrast lens creating lower global contrast (i.e. opening up shadows)? To be honest, I could have this mixed up.

jlpape · May 20, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I think it's best to look to a different camera in order to be able to use lenses with lower contrast rendition.

I'm drawing that conclusion based on the great advice I have been getting. It seems that the most versatile solution is LF as this will open a whole world of available lenses to explore. I did not even think about the older lenses that do not have a shutter in them prior to this thread. So thanks to all. I think for now I am going to work with the Hasselblad and get the most out of this format... and the most I can out of the film before I make that large of a change. However, if an interesting older MF camera comes along...

Q.G. · May 20, 2010

jlpape said:
However, if an interesting older MF camera comes along...

Or that Speed Graphic that was mentioned...

Low contrast lens for Hasselblad

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency