Your Most Essential Hasselblad Lenses?

Your Most Essential Hasselblad Lenses?

  • Total voters
    316
I bought here an 80 CF and a CF 60 with my camera. The great thing about the 60 is the close focus to under 0.6m compared to a little less than 0.9m on the 80. This is always discussed with Leica lenses - 0.7 v 0.9 or 1.0m but I never see it mentioned in Hasselblad discussions. I could leave the 60 on all the time. And now I have a 150. I've never had much time for "portrait lenses". Prefer a 50 for 35mm portraits. The 150 is heavy and big, but this morning I took it and the 60 on a bush track and I am hoping I got a wonderful shot of some wild flowers with the 150 near the river. I expect they will be beautifully isolated amongst the trees, mirror prerelease and cable release on a solid tripod and my new Leofoto ballhead, and so I am not quite yet regretting adding it to the kit.
 
Richard, when you see how the 150 performs, even at wide apertures, I believe it will be a keeper. Yes, it does require a tripod to see what it can really do.
 
Rob-F said:
I have thought of getting the 30mm, despite the fisheye rendering, just to get a lens wider than 38/40mm for my outdoor panoramic shots. Even the 38mm is only equivalent to a 25mm on 135 format. The 30mm would be more like a 20mm in image width. But I'm not enough of a fisheye fan to carry this heavy and expensive lens in my kit.

What subjects do you 30mm Distagon owners use it for? Maybe I should start a 30mm Distagon image thread.
Click to expand...

Sometimes this lens works and sometimes not. W. Eugene Smith once said "fisheye lenses are difficult to use intelligently". That says it all. But when it works, it works!
 
I just recently aquired a 501c and was given a 150mm f4 cf that has been fun. I purchased the 80mm as I think it silly not to own one and I purchased this system for the fast 80mm. I was between this or a 2.8f solely for the fast lens and chose this for a number of reasons.

I was loaned a 501cm with a 40mm, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm and boy, this is a great system. I can't hear enough about the 60mm and 120mm, i"ll probably get them at some point. However, I'm really interested in the 350mm or 500mm for safari.
 
Rob-F said:
What subjects do you 30mm Distagon owners use it for?/QUOTE]


Here is a good 30mm Fisheye example, I have always liked this one. The circular circus ring works well with the curving of the 30mm image lines. The front end of the lens was about a foot from the end of the clown's nose.

clown2 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Click to expand...
 
Still enjoying the 60/100mm CF lenses. I don't think I'll need anything else since I'm not shooting my Hasselblad enough to warrant additional glass, but when I do get to use it, these two seem to suit exactly what I want to shoot with it.
 
Nokton48 said:
Rob-F said:
What subjects do you 30mm Distagon owners use it for?/QUOTE]


Here is a good 30mm Fisheye example, I have always liked this one. The circular circus ring works well with the curving of the 30mm image lines. The front end of the lens was about a foot from the end of the clown's nose.

clown2 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Yes! This shot is indeed a great application for the fisheye! They really do lend themselves well to circular subjects. And placing the main subject in the center seems to result in little or no distortion. And some landscapes that are shot with the lens held perfectly level give no hint of being shot with a fisheye.
Click to expand...
 
Just starting on my Hasselblad years, I recently picked up a 50 FLE and 180 CF pair.

I'm shooting the 50 the most, it's nicely balanced and the 0.5m close focus is great for in close shots around home. It's wide enough and still useable in general purpose. A beautiful lens.

The 180 gets less use, I've heard it's a great lens, but it is big and heavy - the camera tips forward when it's sitting on a table with the 180, not with the 50. I'll persist with it though, I didn't get a Hasselblad for a lightweight carry everywhere kit aft all.

But I think I'd be just as happy swapping the 180 for the 150, or even the 100 or 80 and the 2x for when I need the reach?

Does anyone use the 100 or 80 with the 2x?
 
The 150 balances better than the 180. And it is a stunningly sharp lens, even though it doesn't enjoy the mystique in the public mind of the 180.
 
Rob-F said:
The 150 balances better than the 180. And it is a stunningly sharp lens, even though it doesn't enjoy the mystique in the public mind of the 180.
Click to expand...

The 150 looks about the same size and weight as the 50 FLE, so should balance well. I think the issue with the 180 isn’t just the weight, but that it is very front heavy; there’s a huge chunk of glass in the front end.
 
Just got a 100 CF Planar - woooow
Haven't shot a roll yet, but even just looking through the viewfinder, it just snaps in focus
 
i know i'm in the minority, but 60mm just feels right on the hasselblad. i'm not trying to draw a line from 35mm format to 6x6, but 60mm 'feels' like the 35mm FOV on the 35mm format.
 
bayernfan said:
i know i'm in the minority, but 60mm just feels right on the hasselblad. i'm not trying to draw a line from 35mm format to 6x6, but 60mm 'feels' like the 35mm FOV on the 35mm format.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the weight and the balance of the 80 makes it a constant in the bag at least.
 
agoglanian said:
About a year or so ago I had the 50/60/80/100/150, I eventually settled on the 60 and 100mm CF lenses as a pair

So a few years later now my kit is the 60 and 100. Suits me just fine whenever I use the old Blad.
Click to expand...


Back in my Blad days I had your "leftovers" -50-80-150- as that's what came with the used body I had bought.


Today I would come to the same conclusion as you...60 and 100 would be happily sufficient. Two of our favored focal lengths happen to be two of Carl's best efforts. :)

Yes, it depends on the user's proclivities.
 
60 and 100 are indeed two of the best! And I personally find the 50mm CF FLE indispensable. And I find I am using the 40mm in preference to the 38mm Biogon. I believe the ability to see the composition on the groundglass has won me over to the 40!
 
Why not revive again, seems to happen every so often.

Earlier this year I swapped out my CF 60/100 and bought a CB 60 to try out the newer style focusing and I was immediately hooked on it, it's just so much smoother to use even if I prefer the aesthetics of the CF lenses (something industrial about them).

I've been happily using just the 60mm for this year (wound up shooting more 120 this year than expected) but I'm wanting to add a longer option again so I'm considering a 150 again but I suspect the 120 is calling my name mostly so I can pull tight details and some tighter crops on environments.

I had given some real thought to just going right back to the 80mm and calling it a day, BUT the key take away for me is being able to focus so much closer with the 60mm. I love being able to frame that way with this camera. I suspect that is what would ultimately be a deciding factor for me as well between the 120mm and 150mm. .8m MFD would be preferable to 1.5m.

So for the time being 60mm is my lens of choice. It's been an interesting journey with this camera these past 7 years!
 
Don't expect the 120mm Makro-Planar to be tack sharp outside the macro range. As a macro lens, it is stunningly sharp; but I have found that it goes soft at long distances. Stopping down helps; at f/16 you can get acceptable sharpness at infinity. There is a comment, on another forum, by Dr. Fleischer, then head of lens applications at Carl Zeiss. He said that Zeiss does not recommend the Makro-Planar at longer distances. His advice was to use the Makro-Planar for subjects the size of a computer screen, or smaller; and use the 100mm Planar for anything the size of a window or larger.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/100-cf-vs-120-makro-planar-cf.1638/

I do agree that the 60mm gives a very natural field of view. At times I think of it as my normal lens. At other times, it's the 50FLE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top