Your Most Essential Hasselblad Lenses?

Your Most Essential Hasselblad Lenses?

  • Total voters
    316
So in your opinion, would you lean more towards a 150 to compliment the 60 if you weren't necessarily doing "macro" work? I'm not much of a portrait guy but I do like to have people in my images, more for environmental context but I'm typically working at a distance with my Hasselblad.

I appreciate the presence the 60mm offers, and I do have an extension tube handy which I could throw on a 150 to reduce the MFD.

Mostly I want the longer lens for tighter framing, not necessarily "macro" work, though I will occasionally do very close up shots when the need calls for it.
 
While certainly not disagreeing with the above suggestions on the 120 Makro, maybe I can put my own slant on this discussion.

I ended up buying a nice 503CXi and CF120 Planar whilst part way through our Europe trip last year. I already had with me a Super-Wide C. The NewOldCamera deal was too good to pass up, LOL.

I shot the both of them alongside each other, SWC when I wanted wide (DOH!!!), and the 503/CF120 when I wanted tighter framing. I used Portra 400 almost all the time, with a smattering of XP2 as well. None of the shots were "close" as in what the CF120 is/was designed for, but none of them (to my eye) were compromised as a result.

As an aside, I sold (stupidly) the CF120, but now have a CF100/3.5, and a CF50/4, so all is good in the world. Super-Wide C I sold to a friend but replaced it with a (NOS) 903SWC. Happy chappie. And recently a nice X-Pan.

Gary
 
My choices were 50, 80, 120, 150, and 250 because that's what I've got.

In reality, I enjoy my 50 CF FLE and my SWC's 38 Biogon more than anything else.

Wish I had the 100 CF - a Holy Grail pursuit.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20190315_151130491~3.jpg
    IMG_20190315_151130491~3.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 0
agoglanian said:
So in your opinion, would you lean more towards a 150 to compliment the 60 if you weren't necessarily doing "macro" work? I'm not much of a portrait guy but I do like to have people in my images, more for environmental context but I'm typically working at a distance with my Hasselblad.

I appreciate the presence the 60mm offers, and I do have an extension tube handy which I could throw on a 150 to reduce the MFD.

Mostly I want the longer lens for tighter framing, not necessarily "macro" work, though I will occasionally do very close up shots when the need calls for it.
Click to expand...

I think that for the non-macro, yet still fairly close distances you plan to use it for, the 120 will serve you well. The clue here is that you plan to use an extension tube with a 150. That's close enough to justify a 120!
 
Rob-F said:
I think that for the non-macro, yet still fairly close distances you plan to use it for, the 120 will serve you well. The clue here is that you plan to use an extension tube with a 150. That's close enough to justify a 120!
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me! When the time comes I’ll keep an eye out for one.

Edit: I might just buy a CB 160mm since A) It’s inexpensive B) I like Tessar lenses and C) I’ve had good luck with my CB 60, and don’t see why I wouldn’t with the 160. Since the Hasselblad isn’t my primary system I feel less compelled to try and chase after top-shelf everything for it.
 
I have never owned a Hasselblad, but based on the medium format cameras I have owned and used, with some confidence I can say that I would consider the 80, 50, and 180mm lenses as my most essential.
 
Yes, the 100 is a special lens, in terms of its optical performance. No distortion, and very sharp, even wide open. It does seem an odd focal length to me, though. A bit too long to be normal, not long enough to be even a short tele. I have it, rather than the 80mm, and I have thought of making the switch to an 80. I do have the 60mm, and when the 100 is too long, I use my 60. But lately I've been thinking the 80mm might be a better choice, especially for handheld shooting.

I often wish the 120mm had been optimized for normal distances, and not for macro. It is a good focal length for a short tele, like using an 85mm on the Nikon. The 150 seems just a little too long for that. I think a lot of people use the 120 as a general purpose lens, whether it's meant for it, or not!
 
Does the Macro 120 suffer in performance at non-macro subject distances? I understand that many macro lenses are designed with symmetrical lens arrangements that perform well at all distances...
 
Rob,

I tried the 60/100 combo, but far preferred the 80mm, and eventually sold all other lenses ( as I suspected I would do many years ago at the start of the thread ).

On Leica I now almost exclusively using the VC40/1.2 or Summilux 28/1.4 on APS-C, yielding a very similar view to the Hasselblad 80mm.
 
Doug said:
Does the Macro 120 suffer in performance at non-macro subject distances? I understand that many macro lenses are designed with symmetrical lens arrangements that perform well at all distances...
Click to expand...

Doug, the person who was in charge of Hasselblad lens applications at Zeiss, a Dr. Fleischer, wrote on photo.net that Zeiss discourages the use of the 120 Makro-Planar outside the Macro range. I'll see if I can post a link to that thread this evening.
 
Doug said:
Does the Macro 120 suffer in performance at non-macro subject distances? I understand that many macro lenses are designed with symmetrical lens arrangements that perform well at all distances...
Click to expand...

I have both the Makro-Planar 120 f/4 and the Sonnar 150 f/4. While the MP is definitely a better performer (both in comparison and in absolute terms) in the close up range, I wouldn't exactly call its performance poor at longer distances and infinity. You can only barely tell the difference between photos made with the 120 and the 150 at 7, 10, 15, 25 feet, and infinity ...

G
 
Thanks guys for your input! Rob, the linked discussion was interesting and educational. It also seems that some Makro lenses are more strongly geared to macro use than others...
 
Doug said:
Thanks guys for your input! Rob, the linked discussion was interesting and educational. It also seems that some Makro lenses are more strongly geared to macro use than others...
Click to expand...

Indeed. Someone who is Zeiss personnel is going to be pretty particular about it.

In practical use, unless you're going to the limits to get certain qualities in your images, I'd not worry about it too much. In part, because I'm not really a landscape photographer or particularly concerned about infinity focus quality most of the time, the differences are less important to my use of the lens... I really love the CF Makro-Planar 120mm! It's one of my favorite lenses for general use, I only wish it was a bit smaller and lighter.

I haven't had any problems with flare, but then again I learned years ago how to avoid situations in framing that cause flare and just naturally don't point my camera that way.

There isn't a Hasselblad lens I've used that could not return a beautiful photograph... :D

G
 
Expanding the topic to other Hasselblad systems for a moment... because I've added to my Hasselblad system with a 907x Special Edition... I want to say that for me the XCD 21mm f/4 is an essential lens and the XCD 45mm f/3.5 or f/4 P will be also as soon as mine gets here. The 45mm on this sensor format nets the equivalent FoV of the Planar 80mm f/2.8 on the V system, the 21mm nets the equivalent FoV of SWC's Biogon 38mm f/4.5 (when cropped square ... and a bit wider when you use the full 33x44 format).

(I've been testing the 907x for a 45mm focal length by using a mount adapter and my M-mount Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special lens, which covers the full format reasonably well and the square format perfectly: yes, a XCD 45mm will be super!)

I will at some point in the future decide between the XCD 80mm f/1.9 and the XCD 120mm f/3.5 Macro as well for my "essential" list ... preferably both, but there are limits to my financial resources! :D

And now back to our regularly scheduled V system program: Using the CFVII 50c back on the 500CM, the Makro-Planar 120mm is absolutely superb, the Distagon 50mm excellent if a touch difficult to focus accurately without the split prism viewfinder, the 80mm a lovely portrait lens, and my old, pre-T* Sonnar 150mm becomes a slightly softer (when wide open) long tele.

Example.. Makro-Planar 120mm on 500CM with CFVII 50c back:

​

The Makro-Planar 120 pops in and out of focus beautifully, from close up to infinity, and using a screen which has the 4x4 format superslide lines, the FoV is almost perfect in estimation for the square crop.

G
 
In my seemingly never ending quest to experiment with lenses on my trusty old 500CM I have once again (actually, twice again since my last posting here!) swapped up my lens line-up.

Long story short, I had something of a “falling out” with Leica and wound up selling all my glass (perfectly happy now with a couple new Voigtlander offerings on my M-A and Sigma’s delightful I primes for my SL). That freed me up to get back to my hasselblad as I felt more drawn to it in recent years and wanted to begin to focus on it for my work going forward.

Anyways, through some fortuitous purchases I have been able to acquire a 40mm CFE, 80mm CFE and 120mm CFI for my kit and I think I may have finally landed in a spot that “works” for me. I have long hoped to be able to pickup an SWC but it remains well outside my budget but the 40mm, though large, is not as unwieldy as I thought it would be.

I’ve been going through something of a rough spot the past month so I’m not terribly mobile for the next 6-9 months, but I am really looking forward to getting to know the signatures of both the 40 and 120mm (which also came with a couple newer extension tubes). The 80mm I know well, but I appreciate the more modern ergonomics of the CFE variant.

Will try to shoot and share as soon as I am able!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top