Hello everyone,
I have been looking to purchase my first Hasselblad camera for a while now and it seems that I am not the only one. I like the looks of the medium format (currently have 6x6 Pentacon Six and and old Voightlander Besa I 6x9). I mainly shoot family, travel trips and occasional landscapes. Over the last year or so, when I first started looking at the Hasselblad, the prices of the camera seems to have increased and keep going up. So, it might be a good time to get myself one before Hasselblad pricing become similar to Leica M film cameras.
Anyways, I have been looking around for 500 series camera and lens and not really too sure of which one to go for. There tend to be a lot of information suggesting that the later models like 500CM and 503CX / CM have a few common faults addressed. On a contrary, some people suggested that the older models, like 500C have a better quality materials and built and after a proper CLA should outlast the older makes. What is the community take on it?
Similarly, with lenses, have had a conversation with a technician at one of the London's camera shops and he suggested that the older Zeiss lenses, the silver once, are far better in quality and parts compared with the newer models with T* label. He said that the older lenses were also multicoated, but not labeled and the quality of the optics is pretty similar. What is your take on that? Any thoughts or perhaps comparison pictures between the older and the newer lenses?
And finally, I came across two cameras with the lenses and backs. One is a complete set of 500c with 3 lenses (50,80 and 150mm Zeiss in silver colour) and 2 backs that was sitting in a case for about two decades, but looks like in near mint condition from the pictures. This camera is for sale for about £1,200 - 1,300.
The other one is a newer 503CX made in the mid 80s with a single 80mm and one back in mint condition for the same price as the first one above.
Which one do you think I should go for and why ?
Thanks
Andrei