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

[Michael Mutmansky]

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

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

all focal-length extenders ow a clearly visible decrease in image quality and stopping down isn't really an option due to the light loss of the extender.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[ragazzo]

What's the actual price difference between buying the 1.4x teleconverter and going for the 350mm lens?

 

[Sirius Glass]

What's the actual price difference between buying the 1.4x teleconverter and going for the 350mm lens?

If I remember correctly a Hasselblad 1.4 teleconverter is about the cost of the 350mm CF lens.

 

[ragazzo]

Hmmph. Wish I could offer you concrete experience but I think I'd rather spend money on the lens knowing it's optically engineered to perform well at that focal length alone. The TC could be used for your full lens lineup, i suppose. But my main question is how much smaller will the 250mm with the 1.4x be? If it'll make the difference in you taking it outside and actually getting use of it, I'd opt for that choice. Whatever facilitates more use, I'd say.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hmmph. Wish I could offer you concrete experience but I think I'd rather spend money on the lens knowing it's optically engineered to perform well at that focal length alone. The TC could be used for your full lens lineup, i suppose. But my main question is how much smaller will the 250mm with the 1.4x be? If it'll make the difference in you taking it outside and actually getting use of it, I'd opt for that choice. Whatever facilitates more use, I'd say.

I have the Hasselblad 2EX extender along with the 30mm Fisheye, 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm and 500mm, but not the 350mm lens. If one is going to get the tele extender, I recommend the 2x rather than the 1.4 unless one wants the 1.4 for the shift function. But I recommend one sticks with the fixed length Hasselblad lenses rather that opting for the tele extenders.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

One of my concerns is that the 250mm lens isn't terribly sharp on it's own and adding a TC may be a bit too much to ask of it.

However, the 180mm is a lot better performer and I suspect that it may match up well with the 1.4xe on it compared to the 250mm alone and it may also match up well with the 2x Mutar compared to the 250mm with the 1.4xe. If that is the case, then it is the better way to go to reach a longer focal length than the 250mm on its' own (about 350mm).

My feeling is that I don't want to have a 350mm lens in the bag that doesn't get a lot of use and until I am certain I will use that focal length a lot, I don't think I can justify the space and weight. But I certainily can see using a 180mm lens and probably also the 250mm (I already seem to pull it out a decent amount, and it seems that about 1/2 the time, I wish for a longer focal length). If the 180mm tests favorably compared to the 250mm, then that would give me the most flexability in the bag. The 180mm, a 1.4xe and a 2x Mutar and I have 180mm, 250mm and 350mm all more or less covered, but certainly not ideally.

The 350mm CF lens seems to go for from about $400 to $750 or so. The CFi version is a SA lens and goes for $5,000 to $6,000 and if you are lucky, it will have the matched 1.4xe SA TC with it to do double duty as a 500mm.

The 2x Mutar is around $250 and the 1.4xe is around $250 as well. From all I've read, the 2x Mutar MAY BE very slightly better than the 2xe version. I've read some conflicting reports on those two 2x TCs.

The 180mm CF goes for $400-$800 and the CFi version from about $800 to $1,400 or so.

I'm not inclined to get a C lens... The shutters are too old and parts are unavailable for many of them now. The CF are the sweet spot for price, but the CFi are newer (likely have less use) and supposedly have a better shutter main spring, so for longevity, they are the better way to go IMO, even with the premium to the price.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One of my concerns is that the 250mm lens isn't terribly sharp on it's own and adding a TC may be a bit too much to ask of it.

However, the 180mm is a lot better performer and I suspect that it may match up well with the 1.4xe on it compared to the 250mm alone and it may also match up well with the 2x Mutar compared to the 250mm with the 1.4xe. If that is the case, then it is the better way to go to reach a longer focal length than the 250mm on its' own (about 350mm).

My feeling is that I don't want to have a 350mm lens in the bag that doesn't get a lot of use and until I am certain I will use that focal length a lot, I don't think I can justify the space and weight. But I certainily can see using a 180mm lens and probably also the 250mm (I already seem to pull it out a decent amount, and it seems that about 1/2 the time, I wish for a longer focal length). If the 180mm tests favorably compared to the 250mm, then that would give me the most flexability in the bag. The 180mm, a 1.4xe and a 2x Mutar and I have 180mm, 250mm and 350mm all more or less covered, but certainly not ideally.

The 350mm CF lens seems to go for from about $400 to $750 or so. The CFi version is a SA lens and goes for $5,000 to $6,000 and if you are lucky, it will have the matched 1.4xe SA TC with it to do double duty as a 500mm.

The 2x Mutar is around $250 and the 1.4xe is around $250 as well. From all I've read, the 2x Mutar MAY BE very slightly better than the 2xe version. I've read some conflicting reports on those two 2x TCs.

The 180mm CF goes for $400-$800 and the CFi version from about $800 to $1,400 or so.

I'm not inclined to get a C lens... The shutters are too old and parts are unavailable for many of them now. The CF are the sweet spot for price, but the CFi are newer (likely have less use) and supposedly have a better shutter main spring, so for longevity, they are the better way to go IMO, even with the premium to the price.

If you only shoot a few 250mm with a 2x or 1.4x extender, then go that way. Heck I certainly do not bring my 500mm lenses everywhere, in fact in its leather case it could even hold a door open when useful. So how much are you going to use a lens that is longer than 250mm? For me when I took the 500mm lens to Yellowstone and the Rockies, the Bison and Elk promptly moved further away and instead a nice close facial shot with the 500mm lens and 2XE extender, I ended up with heard photographs with some choice views of rear ends [no flying Bison chips though]. How willing are you to get closer to the heard, walking & carrying equipment, risk ... ? What are you going to do with the longer lens and how are you going to use it? You, not me or anyone else, it is up to you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The question you really need to ask yourself is, do I really need such a long lens? I say this because I thought I did, so I purchased a 350mm APO lens for my RB67 (before the bottom fell out of analogue camera gear). I've used the lens three times. Now it sits. I've tried selling it. No interest. It just seems that I don't need to go beyond 200mm. Yes, of course this is me, and your needs are most likely completely different... but you still need to ask yourself that question.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

For a point of reference, I keep the 1.4x TC permanently installed on my GF 250mm lens for the GFX cameras... I rarely take it off. When I am wanting to extract detail from a distance landscpe, I tend to go longer.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

One of my concerns is that the 250mm lens isn't terribly sharp on it's own and adding a TC may be a bit too much to ask of it.

Did you get a repaired or modified 250 that is not right? I love mine and use it a lot. I do not see any obvious resolution issues. What is not "sharp?"

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-long-view-and-some-gas-250mm-sonnar.html

 

[Sirius Glass]

Did you get a repaired or modified 250 that is not right? I love mine and use it a lot. I do not see any obvious resolution issues.

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-long-view-and-some-gas-250mm-sonnar.html

Same experience and the same question. The OP's 250mm lens may need to be realigned.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

No, I think it works well, but the MTFs don't give me a lot of confidance with the addition of a TC.

I'll be able to do some testing soon. The TCs are cheap enough that I have them coming so we'll see how I feel aftery working with them with the 250mm for a while.

 

[eli griggs]

You are the one whom needs to decide what a tc will do for your images vs. the actually lens.

I used tc with Canon 35mm cameras when I started out and they gave good captures, that would look like less good, beside the "L Series" glass I bought a few years later, but they were more than strong enough for what I needed at the time.

I have a 1.4x tc for my Hasselblads, which I've simple no used yet, and the 350 & 500 mm are on my 'bucket list' for travel lenses, but I'll suggest you rent the lens and tc and shoot a set of parallel film backs and do the side by side. You might find you hate the lens functions so much you would feel like a boob for buying it at all.


I'm no the only one here that has had that feeling at some point in decades of camera shooting, but these days you do have this option to try first.

IMO.

PS. Shoot images that interest you visually, because just doing yada, yada, yada shots for inspection will no keep you interested in seeing what's what and you'll see if none, either, both give you results you'll respect.

 

[Edgy01]

In the optics world you need to keep in mind that once you get past about 150mm (MF) you should definitely consider the Superachromat lenses, for sharpness. In the 35mm world that applies above the 105mm telephoto lenses. In the Leica world that means APO lenses. In the Nikon world that means ED lenses. I use my 250 Superachromat Zeiss lens on Hassies and definitely see the differences. It’s all about the ability of the prime focus points to meet at the same place. The color spectrum meets at different points with conventional glass. The ED, APO, and Superachromatic glass meet spectrally in the same plane.

 

[Arthurwg]

I have not found the 250mm CF lens to be particularly sharp.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I have not found the 250mm CF lens to be particularly sharp.

Do you have an example of what not "sharp" means or looks in a photograph?

How do you define this term?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have not found the 250mm CF lens to be particularly sharp.

Do you have an example of what not "sharp" means or looks in a photograph?

I have similar thoughts. What film speeds are you using? Hand held with ISO 100? Does the lens need collimating?

 

[Steven Lee]

I do not shoot the 250mm often, but I think it is easy for people to misjudge its optical properties. At 250mm the depth of field is rather thin even at f/8, so you musts know exactly what the focus point was when evaluating shaprness of a scan or a print. Secondly, some shake blur is unavoidable even at 1/500s when shooting handheld. But when I nail focus on a tripod I have nothing to complain about.

This is a somewhat cropped full image:

And here's 100% fragment:

Another:

100% crop:

 

[pkupcik]

Sounds like you only need 350mm occasionally. I'm in similar situation, would love to have 350mm or 500mm, but there's no way I'm lugging it around just so I can take few shots with it once in a blue moon. I instead got the 1.4X and 2xMutar. I've used 250SA with 2xMutar with excellent results, as long as it's on a sturdy tripod. Btw, I even tried stacking 250SA with 2xMutar + 2XE for a combined 1000mm on a Canon 5DIV. It didn't provide any detail increase over a single 2xMutar, I was surprised though that quality didn't suffer - I expected the IQ to fall apart. Now the viewfinder gets very dark with 2xMutar, which is a problem when not shooting in good light.

If I were you, I would buy the 2xMutar, try it with your lenses and see how you like it. If you don't like it then upgrade to 250SA or 180mm and use it with it. Btw, I used 2xMutar with 180mm as well with excellent results, but I must say the lack of CA on 250SA is an advantage.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sounds like you only need 350mm occasionally. I'm in similar situation, would love to have 350mm or 500mm, but there's no way I'm lugging it around just so I can take few shots with it once in a blue moon. I instead got the 1.4X and 2xMutar. I've used 250SA with 2xMutar with excellent results, as long as it's on a sturdy tripod. Btw, I even tried stacking 250SA with 2xMutar + 2XE for a combined 1000mm on a Canon 5DIV. It didn't provide any detail increase over a single 2xMutar, I was surprised though that quality didn't suffer - I expected the IQ to fall apart. Now the viewfinder gets very dark with 2xMutar, which is a problem when not shooting in good light.

If I were you, I would buy the 2xMutar, try it with your lenses and see how you like it. If you don't like it then upgrade to 250SA or 180mm and use it with it. Btw, I used 2xMutar with 180mm as well with excellent results, but I must say the lack of CA on 250SA is an advantage.

I would use the 150mm lens with the 2XE and skip buying the 350mm lens, since I would rarely need the 350mm lens.

 

[jeffreyg]

I have a 350 of older vintage that takes different size filters than my other Hasselblad lenses so that might be a factor for you since you might be spending as much for filters as for the 2x

 

[eli griggs]

A Hasselblad 1.4 Mutar will allow you 350mm focal length with your 250 lens.

Does anyone have examples of this combo close to hand?

 

[Ai Print]

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.