Thinking about a 350mm lens for the Hasselblad camera...

Diner

A
Diner

  • 3
  • 0
  • 69
Gulf Nonox

A
Gulf Nonox

  • 9
  • 3
  • 92
Druidstone

A
Druidstone

  • 8
  • 3
  • 128
On The Mound.

A
On The Mound.

  • 1
  • 0
  • 75
Ancient Camphor

D
Ancient Camphor

  • 6
  • 1
  • 88

Forum statistics

Threads
197,806
Messages
2,764,788
Members
99,480
Latest member
815 Photo
Recent bookmarks
1

eli griggs

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
3,825
Location
NC
Format
Multi Format
I have a 1.4XE that I use on my 100 CFI, 180 CFI and 350 CF but only occasionally on the latter so the two lenses I am not interested in because of that are the 150mm and 250mm. I find on its own and with either B&W film or conversion to B&W from a D-back, the 350 CF holds up really well if you nail the focus which is truly critical. It can get color fringing in color images which is what the 350SA solves completely among other things.

I make a lot of mountain landscape images living where I do, so I really love the 350mm for that purpose and will likely budget for the 350SA next year. But either way, using a 350mm with a Flexbody helps quite a bit in merging different focal points in a scene.

One thing I got for my 350mm 5.6 CF is an aftermarket tripod collar to help balance it and take some of the stress off the lens mount. But that was several years ago and now they seem to have vanished. I suppose it is possible to adapt one from another lens by shimming it.

I've mentioned this before but this is a good reason to bring it up again.

While you could make a 3D printed yoke or carve one out of hardwood, to accept the camera mount screw on a monopod, a simple, plastic telescoping gun rest, with a built in rifle yoke is easy enough to carry as a large lens support.

After the tripod, camera and lens are set-up, position the yoke forward and vertical under the lens and drop the leg to the ground, with a firm, steady lock up of the sections so as to support the weight of the lens.

Edit; Here's one to view.

https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/bog...id=98efbf0542c519f5006cda045c2bf83b&gclsrc=ds
 
Last edited:

pkupcik

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
18
Location
Atlanta, GA
Format
Medium Format
Decided to do a non-scientific test today and compare 250mm Superachromat against 180mm CFE with 1.4XE and also 2xMutar on Canon 5DIV. Scene was about 4 meters away. Here are my conclusions:

  • 180mm with 1.4XE resolves the same detail as 250mm SA. The image quality is virtually the same, unless shooting high contrast scene where LOCA is visible on 180mm.
  • 180mm with 2xMutar resolves more detail than 250mm SA. Again, the only issue is LOCA on 180mm if high contrast scene.
  • Shooting 180mm wide open at f/4 with either teleconverter produces outstanding results. Shooting at f/8 helps a little, but f/4 is already amazing.
  • I did not compare 250SA with teleconverter attached in this test, but did in the past, and both teleconverters resulted in increased detail. My guess is that 250SA with 1.4XE is probably equal to 180mm with 2xMutar.
Overall, I'm mighty impressed with 180mm CFE with or without teleconverters.
 
Last edited:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,206
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Decided to do a non-scientific test today and compare 250mm Superachromat against 180mm CFE with 1.4XE and also 2xMutar on Canon 5DIV. Scene was about 4 meters away. Here are my conclusions:

  • 180mm with 1.4XE resolves the same detail as 250mm SA. The image quality is virtually the same, unless shooting high contrast scene where LOCA is visible on 180mm.
  • 180mm with 2xMutar resolves more detail than 250mm SA. Again, the only issue is LOCA on 180mm if high contrast scene.
  • Shooting 180mm wide open at f/4 with either teleconverter produces outstanding results. Shooting at f/8 helps a little, but f/4 is already amazing.
  • I did not compare 250SA with teleconverter attached in this test, but did in the past, and both teleconverters resulted in increased detail. My guess is that 250SA with 1.4XE is probably equal to 180mm with 2xMutar.
Overall, I'm mighty impressed with 180mm CFE with or without teleconverters.

I used them250mm CF lens with an off brand 2X extender for a while. I decided to upgrade to a 500mm C lens and then a 2XE. I am glad that I did. If you will use the 350mm lens, then by all means go ahead and get it. the 350mm lens is more maneuverable than the 500mm lens.
 

eli griggs

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
3,825
Location
NC
Format
Multi Format
Decided to do a non-scientific test today and compare 250mm Superachromat against 180mm CFE with 1.4XE and also 2xMutar on Canon 5DIV. Scene was about 4 meters away. Here are my conclusions:

  • 180mm with 1.4XE resolves the same detail as 250mm SA. The image quality is virtually the same, unless shooting high contrast scene where LOCA is visible on 180mm.
  • 180mm with 2xMutar resolves more detail than 250mm SA. Again, the only issue is LOCA on 180mm if high contrast scene.
  • Shooting 180mm wide open at f/4 with either teleconverter produces outstanding results. Shooting at f/8 helps a little, but f/4 is already amazing.
  • I did not compare 250SA with teleconverter attached in this test, but did in the past, and both teleconverters resulted in increased detail. My guess is that 250SA with 1.4XE is probably equal to 180mm with 2xMutar.
Overall, I'm mighty impressed with 180mm CFE with or without teleconverters.

Interesting work;even if it's based on one person's metric, I find this helpful.

I only have a 1.4 telecoverter and I still need to repair my 500mm C T*, so I won't be doubling my optic range anytime soon.

I do have the 180mm Cfi Hasselblad and love it's sharpness, but I would rather have the 500mm C t* working than doubling the regular, non-super chromatic 250mm Cfi.

If I did have the 350mm, I would use it even if the 500mm was repaired, as I can carry both while shooting out of the car with fairly short walks.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
620
Location
Sacramento
Format
Medium Format
I started this thread a while ago and it has been interesting to hear what other people have done and chosen to do for long lens options.

I have a 250mm (non-SA), the 180CFi and a 150 CFi and I also have the 1.4x and 2x mutar TCs and have decided to not get a longer lens since I probably won't use it too terribly much (and frankly, absolute sharpness isn't really all that important to me), so I think the TCs will be sufficient.

I just got back from a trip into Utah and found I used the 100mm, 180mm and then the 60mm the most. I pulled out the 250mm for a few shots and converted the 180mm+2xTC for some shots. I also made a handful of shots with the 38mm. I even used the 80mm a few times, and at one point, wished I had the 120mm macro. The 50mm never got used, but I could have pulled that instead of the 60mm probably. All B&W shooting. Mostly Delta 400 and a couple of Delta 3200.


---Michael
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,769
Format
8x10 Format
I don't shoot a Hassie, but do get a LOT of usage out of my Pentax 6X7 300EDIF lens - probably optically superior to any Hassie tele. The key is a serious tripod and no wobble-bobble head. I bolt the lens collar directly to the tripod platform top.
 

Hassasin

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2023
Messages
1,308
Location
Hassasstan
Format
Multi Format
One thing I got for my 350mm 5.6 CF is an aftermarket tripod collar to help balance it and take some of the stress off the lens mount

I have asked about it in a thread but no responses. And am yet to find even a photo of where the collar was put on the camera, since technically there is no "right" place for it.

Do you mount it just in front of the first "obstruction" on the lens barrel?
 
OP
OP
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
620
Location
Sacramento
Format
Medium Format
I have a lens support bracket for the camera and the 180mm or 250mm with TCs attached, since it gets pretty long at that point. It's not ideal, but it does appear to be a lot more stable when balanced in the bracket rather than on the camera mount.


I also have replaced the HB mounting plate on the camera with an Arca Swiss compatible plate made by Hejinar:


No other adapters are needed. Not sure if that plate will fit any other cameras other than the 501C, but I worked with Chris Hejnar to develop the SWC/M plate so he is really great about modifications.

As for your question on the dedicated lens collar; I haven't use one of those specifically, but there are a few companies that made similar products to use on other lenses (IIRC, RRS used to make one for a 70-200 Nikon lens years ago, and other companies make something similar for telescopes, etc.). You basically would clamp it as close to the balance point as you can get it, which I suspect is right in front of the focus-shutter collar mechanism.

It looks/feels like it would be a bit back-heavy with it that far forward. However, if you are intending to use an AS plate on it, you could get a longer plate and mount it so that you have a bit of room to balance the camera better on the tripod head. That may be the approach I'd take. Alternatively, the lens support bracket I shoed above should work well and may give you better flexiblity.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,206
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I have asked about it in a thread but no responses. And am yet to find even a photo of where the collar was put on the camera, since technically there is no "right" place for it.

Do you mount it just in front of the first "obstruction" on the lens barrel?

At the balance point on the lens alone or the balance point of the camera and lens. I prefer the latter.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,206
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I started this thread a while ago and it has been interesting to hear what other people have done and chosen to do for long lens options.

I have a 250mm (non-SA), the 180CFi and a 150 CFi and I also have the 1.4x and 2x mutar TCs and have decided to not get a longer lens since I probably won't use it too terribly much (and frankly, absolute sharpness isn't really all that important to me), so I think the TCs will be sufficient.

I just got back from a trip into Utah and found I used the 100mm, 180mm and then the 60mm the most. I pulled out the 250mm for a few shots and converted the 180mm+2xTC for some shots. I also made a handful of shots with the 38mm. I even used the 80mm a few times, and at one point, wished I had the 120mm macro. The 50mm never got used, but I could have pulled that instead of the 60mm probably. All B&W shooting. Mostly Delta 400 and a couple of Delta 3200.


---Michael

I had the 2x but not the 2.4x and I was not really interested in a longer lens than my 250mm. I called KEH about something else and since many of their sellers know me by name, one told me that the he a had the 500 C lens for a price I would not pass up. I only had CF lenses, but with the price including shipping, I could not pass it up. When I got it, it jammed the camera and I sent the lens for their CLA. They took apart the complete lenses, CLA'd and the recollimated it, and returned it at no cost. Hasselblad told me the recollimation would have cost over twice what I paid for the lens. I nice lens, but I does not get used much. When there is a heard of animals and I want a head shot of only one, the herd promptly moves far enough away that I can still only get a herd shot with the 2XE. How do they know how to do that?
 

eli griggs

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
3,825
Location
NC
Format
Multi Format
How do they know how to do that?

I use to photograph a local Deer herd or herds (I could never determine if it was a huge herd or several on the same property) with a Canon 300mm 4L and occasionally, with telecoverter, giving about 600mm.

This was a large preserve by a Duke Power coal fired electrical power plant, mainly for Geese, Ducks and other migrating and residential waterfowl.

What I found was, without a blind, it was a matter of setting up, tripod, ect., while the herd was making the rounds on the property and simply settling in, not trying to put the sneak on them or appear to be hiding, but calmly, quietly waiting there, motor drive off, and at first focusing my attention elsewhere, the nearby pond usually had birds enjoying its being there.

Keep in mind, these were corn fed waterfowl and deer, so they did not spook easily and go off and hide during the day.

After awhile, the main part of the herd would often wander much closer to me and even in the rut, mostly ignoring me, my camera and usually a friend that would accompany me on these shoots.

There's no stopping quick, jerky motions in a herd, but there was over the day, ample opportunities to get decent shots, including some close in head shots with that basic setup and no place to be that was not where I was.

Man fed herds usually tolerate the presence of a few people, especially when they grow use to seeing you and your kit, but not everyone has the patience or, no longer possess the ability to limit their movements, but if you want the shots, you can get them, with this technique or others used by real wildlife photograph professionals.

In my, old, limited experience.
 

Ai Print

Subscriber
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
1,292
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I have a 1.4XE that I use on my 100 CFI, 180 CFI and 350 CF but only occasionally on the latter so the two lenses I am not interested in because of that are the 150mm and 250mm. I find on its own and with either B&W film or conversion to B&W from a D-back, the 350 CF holds up really well if you nail the focus which is truly critical. It can get color fringing in color images which is what the 350SA solves completely among other things.

I make a lot of mountain landscape images living where I do, so I really love the 350mm for that purpose and will likely budget for the 350SA next year. But either way, using a 350mm with a Flexbody helps quite a bit in merging different focal points in a scene.

One thing I got for my 350mm 5.6 CF is an aftermarket tripod collar to help balance it and take some of the stress off the lens mount. But that was several years ago and now they seem to have vanished. I suppose it is possible to adapt one from another lens by shimming it.
Budget approved, super clean example of the 350SA purchased for a reasonable price. I can’t wait to get it and put it to good use.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,588
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
I've been using my 501C with the leses I have for a few months now and I'm pretty sure that I would like a lens longer than the 250mm that I have... I seem to have a vision for a bit tighter crop than it produces.

So, the obvious solution is to buy another lens... but this is where the options come into play.

The 350mm focal length is probably viable and the 500 seems to be pretty much out of the question due to size...
The uber-expensive 350mm SA isn't going to happen, so that leaves a CF Tele Tessar probably.
However, another option would be to buy a 1.4x TC for the 250mm lens. This would be smaller and maybe optically nearly as good?

This is what I want to know options on ... I have the 250mm CFi lens and it seems pretty good, but I wonder how well it will be with a 1.4x TC on it. What if I spent the cash on a 250mm SA lens and then used a 1.4x TC on that? Is that likely to be sharper than the 350mm TT CF lens? Price-wise, I may be able to come in pretty well to go this approach and if it produces a better 250mm and also a better 350mm while also being smaller in the bag then that wll feel like a bit of a win.

---Michael

Since you went for a HASSELBLAD<I assume optical quality is important to you. The hard truth is: Even a Carl Zeiss extender cannot change the laws of optics and will degrade image quality beyond your liking;acceptable for some; horseshit for the critical!
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,206
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I've been using my 501C with the leses I have for a few months now and I'm pretty sure that I would like a lens longer than the 250mm that I have... I seem to have a vision for a bit tighter crop than it produces.

So, the obvious solution is to buy another lens... but this is where the options come into play.

The 350mm focal length is probably viable and the 500 seems to be pretty much out of the question due to size...
The uber-expensive 350mm SA isn't going to happen, so that leaves a CF Tele Tessar probably.
However, another option would be to buy a 1.4x TC for the 250mm lens. This would be smaller and maybe optically nearly as good?

This is what I want to know options on ... I have the 250mm CFi lens and it seems pretty good, but I wonder how well it will be with a 1.4x TC on it. What if I spent the cash on a 250mm SA lens and then used a 1.4x TC on that? Is that likely to be sharper than the 350mm TT CF lens? Price-wise, I may be able to come in pretty well to go this approach and if it produces a better 250mm and also a better 350mm while also being smaller in the bag then that wll feel like a bit of a win.

---Michael

As I have posted often, I can hand hold the 250mm lens but I must use a tripod for the 500mm lens due to the swing weight and the 1/[focal length in mm] second is the longest hand held shutter because the fastest shutter speed is 1/500 second. I cannot predict how the 350mm lens will handle but it does have a built in tripod mount.

On revisiting this topic, I have gotten a lot of use of my 250mm lens and do not get a lot of use of my 500mm lens. I think if I had a 350mm lens, that I would use it much more than the 500mm lens.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
620
Location
Sacramento
Format
Medium Format
Circling back on this as I find myself using a converter on the 250mm a good bit more than I expected, so I'm thinking about a 350mm again...

How does the hood and filters work with the CF and the superachromat CFE lenses? Is it the same 86mm threaded adapter and then a large 93mm hood for both lenses? Actually, it looks like it would also work on the C lens and at least one of the 500mm lenses as well maybe...

Second, I can see that there are lots of the non-superachromat lenses available for a decent price but the superachromat is pretty uncommon and super expensive... I know at least one user on this forum has used both and I'd like to get a sense whether there are real-world differences when shooting landscape details, probably stopped down at most a stop or two from maximum. I don't like to spend lots of money, but shooting with a lens that is a bit lesser than the other lenses I shoot with (mostly CFI/CFE of multiple different focal lengths) would be a bummer if side-by-side I couldn't pair up images and have the 350mm shots seamlessly integrate with the rest.
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom