I'm interested in shooting some landscapes with my Hasselblad 500 C/M when I go travelling this summer, but the only lens I currently have is the 80, and I think I would prefer something with a little wider field of view. I've been looking at the 50mm T*, but I've heard it's not really up to par with the other lenses. Has anyone had experience with it? Do you think I ought to look at another lens for landscape pictures, I've been thinking about the 60mm as well, but it seems as if it might be a little too close to the 80 to be worth getting. I'm mainly looking for CT* lenses, as the CF range are a little out of reach for me budget-wise.
Short lens for Hasselblad?
-
A
- Thread starter Cybertrash
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Sold Fujica Super Fujica-6 folder, 6x6
- Started by Dan Daniel
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,826
- Format
- Multi Format
Don't go too short.
I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on a Century Graphic (long story, and no, I didn't extract it from an SWC). I love it but it isn't a good lens for broad vistas. The problem is that with a short lens shots of broad vistas come out all foreground with tiny things at the back. This also happens with a 47/5.6 SA. The effect is much less pronounced with lenses around 60 mm.
If you can rent the lenses, try a 50 and a 60 on landscapes like the ones you want to shoot.
I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on a Century Graphic (long story, and no, I didn't extract it from an SWC). I love it but it isn't a good lens for broad vistas. The problem is that with a short lens shots of broad vistas come out all foreground with tiny things at the back. This also happens with a 47/5.6 SA. The effect is much less pronounced with lenses around 60 mm.
If you can rent the lenses, try a 50 and a 60 on landscapes like the ones you want to shoot.
The 50mm Distagon is really good. No matter what version you get. The earlier versions (non FLE) do not perform up close quite as well as the later (FLE) versions. But you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference on film. Though I would suggest getting one with the T* lens coating. It does help with flare that wide angles are prone to.
The 60mm Distagon does feel different from the 80mm Planar. It doesn't seem like much of a difference in terms of focal length but you definitely notice the difference in field of view as you look through the finder and compose. It's one of the best lenses in the whole Hasselblad line up.
The 60mm Distagon does feel different from the 80mm Planar. It doesn't seem like much of a difference in terms of focal length but you definitely notice the difference in field of view as you look through the finder and compose. It's one of the best lenses in the whole Hasselblad line up.
Aside from a number of others, I have both the 50 and 60 and love them equally. I think the 50 would be a great pairing with the 80, big difference in field of view which makes it worth hauling out. I have the FLE version but a T* black would be a good bet too although they can often be the same price as the CF version now.
Try to spring for a CF version if you can as parts are getting scarce for C lenses. I had to get a new main spring put in my mint 120mm 5.6 S-Planar T*, that set me back $350, I could have got a mint 120mm CF for what that ended up costing in total.
And I agree with the statement above that even though on paper the 60 sounds close to the 80, it is not, it really has a different feel and is super sharp, one of my faves for walk-around.
Try to spring for a CF version if you can as parts are getting scarce for C lenses. I had to get a new main spring put in my mint 120mm 5.6 S-Planar T*, that set me back $350, I could have got a mint 120mm CF for what that ended up costing in total.
And I agree with the statement above that even though on paper the 60 sounds close to the 80, it is not, it really has a different feel and is super sharp, one of my faves for walk-around.
For landscapes I find the most useful lenses to be the 60mm and 250mm-- but of course, I don't have a 50. Sometimes the 60 is even a little wide for my taste, though, so I don't feel a lot of need.
If you already have an 80, the 50-80-150 spread is probably not a bad idea and very affordable. I use 60-120-250 and don't feel the need for anything else, although a SWC would be fun to try out.
If you already have an 80, the 50-80-150 spread is probably not a bad idea and very affordable. I use 60-120-250 and don't feel the need for anything else, although a SWC would be fun to try out.
I have the 50 FLE version and find it to be excellent. There are some differences with the 60 that may or may not be helpful with your choice.
The 50 will focus down to 1ft7in - the 60 to 2ft which probably won't matter for landscapes but the 50 will stop down to f32 - the 60 to f22 and the angle of view for the 50 is (diag/horiz) 75/57 and the 60 is 66/50. If you want to go wider there is a 40 that gives you 88/67. The 50 and 60 will take the same size filters as your 80 but the 40 needs 93mm filters.
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
The 50 will focus down to 1ft7in - the 60 to 2ft which probably won't matter for landscapes but the 50 will stop down to f32 - the 60 to f22 and the angle of view for the 50 is (diag/horiz) 75/57 and the 60 is 66/50. If you want to go wider there is a 40 that gives you 88/67. The 50 and 60 will take the same size filters as your 80 but the 40 needs 93mm filters.
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
+1. Both are stellar pieces of glass ( I have never heard of anyone dissing the 50 for a lack of sharpness!). As Dan suggested, parts for the C series are getting scarce (they are well over 40 years old, if I recall correctly); I would opt for at least the CF T* if possible. A classic kit is the 50-80-150. Some do, however, find the 50 a little wide. If you have the opportunity, rent both the 50 and 60 and take them for a spin; make your decision after you have given the pair a workout (Zeiss glass for the Hasselblads still fetches a good price on the used market).
One nice feature of the 60 is that it sells for less money than the 50's. But you do lose some "wideness".
As noted, that's not necessarily a bad thing, oftentimes less is more in landscapes.
A 60 on the Hasselblad is more or less similar to a 35 on 35mm and the 50 is kind of equivalent to a 28 or so.
For me, I am very happy with the 60, and yes, it is scary sharp.
As noted, that's not necessarily a bad thing, oftentimes less is more in landscapes.
A 60 on the Hasselblad is more or less similar to a 35 on 35mm and the 50 is kind of equivalent to a 28 or so.
For me, I am very happy with the 60, and yes, it is scary sharp.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,408
- Format
- Medium Format
Don´t hesitate to buy the pre-FLE 50mm if you have to save money! I have the old 50/4 Distagon for my SL66 and it is one of my favorite lenses. Sharpness and resolution of this lens are pretty good when used in the f8-f11 range. When used for close ups or wide open, it is rather soft on the other hand. So if you only want to shoot landscapes and objects within a medium distance range, this lens will suit you well as long as you stop down a bit. I had scans made of some of my slides with a Flextight X5 and they had nothing left to be desired. I also tested it along with the 80/2,8 and found it to be of equal sharpness once stopped down to f8-f11. Mine is the single coated version and I did not found it overly vulnerable to flare. I even use it without a hood most of the time. The CF version of this lens (the early one, before the introduction of FLE) might offer the best value for money. It seems to me like people shun away from it since everyone wants the FLE, but as long as you don´t shoot close up´s or wide open most of the time, the early version is everything you may need.
This is how I have always felt.
I have always liked wide angle lenses for getting in close.
If you want to get in close I would buy the 50mm but for landscapes I personally would prefer the 60mm.
OK, so I went out to my front porch and shot a set with the 40, 50, 60 & 80mm CF lenses, it should help put it into context, the pics are of the screen via my phone. As you can see, the difference between the 60 and 80 is not insignificant, but based on what you own already and being budget conscious, I think the 50mm CF non-FLE should be your next lens.
Personally speaking, when I shoot wider landscapes in square format, either the sky or the foreground takes on a more important role in the narrative composition, the same goes for 4x5 which is pretty deep as well. All too often you see shots where the photographer was so enamored by the right to left portion of the shot that they fill either the sky or more often the foreground with really dull subject matter...I see this a ton. You want to get to the point in going from an 80 to a 50 that the choice to go wide is *super* obvious, the entire shot is strong.
I think I need to grab my snowboard and go shoot some IR, my lens selection will be 60, 100 & 180....
Personally speaking, when I shoot wider landscapes in square format, either the sky or the foreground takes on a more important role in the narrative composition, the same goes for 4x5 which is pretty deep as well. All too often you see shots where the photographer was so enamored by the right to left portion of the shot that they fill either the sky or more often the foreground with really dull subject matter...I see this a ton. You want to get to the point in going from an 80 to a 50 that the choice to go wide is *super* obvious, the entire shot is strong.
I think I need to grab my snowboard and go shoot some IR, my lens selection will be 60, 100 & 180....
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Cool. I wonder if with a tripod, MLU and using something like the 40mm CFE IF you can crop to 50mm or 60mm and call it more than sufficient results....that said once I got my 40 CFE IF, sold my 50 and kept my 60 and 80....
I don't see why not but I also think that the 60 is good enough that if you compared the 40 crop to the 60 full frame, you would see a noticeable difference, for starters, the tonality might look more condensed in the 40 cropped. I can see why one might punt the 50 in having a 40 and 60, but I like having the options in order to make the overall set work better and it creates backups for when something goes out for repair or CLA too. I love having the set I do for these reasons, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 180 + 1.4X.
Totally off topic here, I know, but do you find a big difference between the 100 and 120? I've toyed with getting a 100 before but I always rationalize that the different won't be much (esp. given the asking price for a good 100). I know the 100 should be better at infinity, but I honestly have no complaints with the detail and sharpness of the 120 for infinity shooting if stopped down a little.
the 50mmCarl Zeiss Distagon CF FLE is excellent from close-up to long distance,clearly superior to the non-FLE and part of my 50/80/150mm trio, which I think is anideal match for the 500c or 501c-including theCMversions. I prefer the spli-image finder for all Hassy lenses.
Not sure, I never use my 120mm 5.6 S Planar at infinity, it's strictly a macro lens, usually 1:8 or closer. The 100 seems great through the entire range. Some of the most amazing images I have ever seen with it were those shot from the Space Shuttle by astronaut Jay Apt, incredible....
His book is called "Orbit"....
I was in the same as the OP a few months ago and opted for the 60mm. And I am glad i did, it is an excellent lens! Very versatile. I also sold my 80mm and I'm happy with my 2 lens setup of 60mm + 150mm.
Like another poster said before, I have found that it is sometimes difficult to frame landscapes with a square negative, there's often too much foreground or sky. Even with the 80mm. That is the main reason why I did'nt want to go too wide, and chose the 60mm over the 50mm.
Like another poster said before, I have found that it is sometimes difficult to frame landscapes with a square negative, there's often too much foreground or sky. Even with the 80mm. That is the main reason why I did'nt want to go too wide, and chose the 60mm over the 50mm.
This is my understanding:
50 vs 60: if your MF 80 is roughly equivalent to a normal 50mm lens in 35mm format, then the MF 50 is like a 28, and the MF 60 is like a 35.
C T* vs FLE: no significant diff at infinity as in landscapes, but the newer lens will be better at closer distances.
50 vs 60: if your MF 80 is roughly equivalent to a normal 50mm lens in 35mm format, then the MF 50 is like a 28, and the MF 60 is like a 35.
C T* vs FLE: no significant diff at infinity as in landscapes, but the newer lens will be better at closer distances.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you mean 50 like a 28 and 60 like a 35?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,826
- Format
- Multi Format
If you go by actual format sizes and compare the horizontal edges, 36/56 (the nominal 6x6 frame is 56 mm square) = 0.64. So an 80 mm lens will give the same horizontal view on 6x6 as a 51 will on 24x36, a 60 will see the same (horizontal edge) as a 38, a 50 as a 32, and a 40 as a 25. Why guess when you can do the calculations?
Yes, thank you for the correction! I'll go back and fix that in my post.
I go by gut feel. I understand that others may prefer to crunch the numbers. It's not a simple direct comparison because one format is rectangular, the other square.
While the MF 50 may be equivalent mathematically to 32mm when considering the horizontal frame width, the additional height of the square format gives the image a wider "feel". Like a 28 in the small format.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like my 50 CF Distagon in general. I tend to make images more with normal-to-long lenses, and when I put the 50 on, it's pretty breathtaking in how wide it is and how close you can get to your subject and have the whole darned thing in the frame.
The only drag is trying to use 67mm filters with a Hasseblad Bay60 to 67mm adapter. The darned thing vignettes no matter what I do. I will have to buy a Bay60 to 77mm adapter to make it work.
The only drag is trying to use 67mm filters with a Hasseblad Bay60 to 67mm adapter. The darned thing vignettes no matter what I do. I will have to buy a Bay60 to 77mm adapter to make it work.
The CF 50mm lens is a great lens. I also have the Hasselblad 903 SWC which is a great camera and lens.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |