Is the Hasselblad 100mm Planar a "standard" lens?

<p>Is the 100mm Planar considered a standard lens? Comparing it to 135 format what would the 100mm Planar be?</p>

<p>Thank you -- Paul</p>

<p>The 35mm (film) equivalent would be 60mm (62mm, rounded), which is still considered "normal". I find the square format has a wider field of view than comparing diagonals would indicate, and that the 100mm is more suitable in this respect. The other reason is that the 100mm is much sharper, especially at the edges, than the 80, and works better for pictures of large groups at large apertures.</p>

<p>If you count it from the full 56mm square negative, the diagonal of the Blad is 79.2mm, and the diagonal of 135 is 43.3mm. So, 100mm*43.3mm/79.2mm = <strong>54.7mm</strong> .</p>

<p>Now, do you typically print square? If your count it from a crop to rectangular, the diagonal of the Blad drops to 68.8mm (a nice, intermediate ISO aspect of 1.4, between 3:2 of 135 and an 8x10). Now you're at an equivalent of <strong>63.0mm</strong> .</p>

<p>I consider even 54.7mm to be too long for a normal. My favorite normals have always been closer to the diagonal, I like Nukon's 45mm f2.8 Tessar clone, or the 40mm f2 Voigtlander Ultron. Nikon, Pentax, etc. made some 58mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.4 normals back in the 60s, because that extra few mm of "back focus" (rear element to film plane distance) makes it much easier to make a fast normal.</p>

<p>But there was considerable resistance from the photographers, and soon they all switched over to more expensive, more complicated, and (typically) slightly lower performance 50mm f1.4 designs. So, at least for my taste, 80mm is the "standard" lens for MF.</p>

<p>The 100 mm on 6x6 is 'equivalent' to a 64 mm, 54 mm or 42 mm lens on 35 mm format, depending on whether you want the same horizontal, diagonal or vertical angle of view.</p>

<p>On 6x4.5, the 'equivalents' are 64 mm, 61 mm or 57 mm.</p>

<p>Whether it is a 'normal' lens depends on how you define normal, and on what your type of photography demands.<br>

It is in the neither-wide-nor-telephoto range. Yet a bit near the long end of that range.<br>

It has the familiar double Gauss design, typically found in normal lenses.</p>

<p>It can form a great team with the 60 mm lens, forming a short + long normal pair.<br>

Yet you may find the 80 mm suits your needs best, with the 60 mm too short, the 100 mm too long.</p>

<p>I used the 100mm CFi for some time as a normal lens, paired with the 50 and 180. Eventually I found it to be a little too restrictive in view and added an 80 for "normal".<br>

The 100 is nevertheless an optically superb lens that is indispensable for certain forms of critical photography.</p>

<p>By the usual standard of our day, a 35mm film camera or a camera with a sensor that size would be a 5/8ths factor or "crop body". Multiplying a normal, 80mm lens by a factor of 0.625X will produce the 35mm equivalent.<br>

Hence a 180mm lens would have an equivalent on a 35mm camera of a 112.5mm lens. A wide angle 50mm lens would have a 35mm equivalent of 31mm or so. and so on. ;)</p>

<p>Generally, yes.<br>

The different aspect ratios makes it difficult to compare though. Hence the three different 'equivalents' i mentioned, based on actual angle of views of lenses on either format.</p>

<p>Or contrarywise, you could say that the 35mm crop body had a 1.6X conversion factor, so to know what was "normal" on a 35mm camera, you'd multiply its focal length by a factor of 1.6X, thus the 50mm 35mm-sensor lens would be a normal lens like the 80mm lens on a <em>full-size body</em> . Strangely enough, this is the same relation that the super-crop body APS-C cameras have to the 35mm.</p>

<p>Please note, Q.G. - I'm taking the opportunity to make fun of the ethnocentrism of those 35mm-sensor-size people who describe <em>their</em> cameras as "full-size".</p>

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>Your 1.6x factor is off. 50mm lenses on 35mm film do not cover the same angle of view as 80mm on 6x6. The proper equivalent is 43.3mm on 35mm film. This makes the ratio 1.83x.</p>

<p>But while I insist on such technical accuracy, in deference to the generally accepted definition of standard lens ("focal length equal to the diagonal of the image format"), I can live with a very fuzzy definition of "standard" lens. What you regard as your own standard can be anything from a moderate wide to a short telephoto. In terms of what I've used myself, I tend to prefer the moderate wide (35mm on 35mm, 55mm on 645, 65mm on 6x6) or formal normal (100mm on 6x9), to the slightly long normal (50mm on 35mm, 80mm on 645, 90mm on 6x6, or 127mm on 6x9). In this scheme, the Hasselblad 100mm is indeed a standard lens, of the long normal variety. But if a shot calls for a little length, I prefer to skip the long normals and move up to 70mm on 35mm, 110mm on 645, 120mm on 6x6, or (if I had one) 150-180mm on 6x9. In other words, in each format, I like a pair where one lens is a moderate wide and the other is twice its focal length.</p>

<p>Yet again. My (and pretty much everybody else from TLRs, etc. on) standard lens on a 6x6 is an 80mm. My standard lens (and, again, for pretty much all makers) on a 35mm is a 50mm. 80/50=1.6.<br>

First of all, regardless of the rationale for <em>why</em> an approximate focal length is "normal", <strong>what is normal is what is normally supplied as the standard lens for a particular format</strong> . So, if I were serious, I'd <em>still</em> argue that the ratio in this case is 1.6X.<br>

And what is the focal length of a normal lens on an APS-C camera? Is it really SQRT(15mm^2+22.5mm^2)?<br>

I don't think so. If people were making one it would probably be a 30mm or maybe 28mm lens.</p>

<p>But pedantry aside, as I have said already once before, I WAS JUST MAKING FUN OF THE 35MM USERS SAYING THEIR CAMERAS WERE "FULL" SIZED CAMERAS. And yes, I AM shouting!<br>

Either<br>

1) Jeez, are youse guys literal minded! ;)<br>

2) or you are answering posts of which you have not read the full post.</p>

<p>Either way, you get your dog back, as the veterinarian-taxidermist advertised.</p>

I approach this question with my personal response to full-frame prints made from each format and not through math. Maybe you are like me. All those format conversion charts one finds on the web always seemed "off" in my way of feeling.

<P>

I like 50's in 35mm. I feel like a 120mm in 6x6 is about a 55/60mm in 35mm. Maybe a 65mm sometimes.

<P>

And, although I haven't shot one, I think a 100mm hassy = ~45mm in 35mm format. I arrive at that guess because I feel a 80mm hassy = 35mm in the 35mm format.

<P>

I think the extra "bottom" of the 6x6 is the reason for this feeling. The square format gives a wider view to my eye.

<p>The traditional "normal" lens for 35 mm film is 50 mm, and has been since Caeser was a pup. This roughly corresponds to the diagonal of the film. AFIK, there has never been a "normal" 42mm lens (other than a Nikon 45mm "pancake" Tessar and a recent Leica 40mm). The traditional "normal" Hasselblad lens is 80 mm, which corresponds fairly well with the diagonal of that camera (76 mm). The diagonal of a Rolleiflex TLR (5.6x5.6) is 79 mm.</p>

<p>There is no standard way to compare formats with different aspect ratios, which leads to different conclusions. Q.G. comes closest with (paraphrased) "normal" is not wide and not long. Sometimes close enough is close enough.</p>

<p>"... since Caeser was a pup..."</p>

<p>What about Hector? :)</p>

<p>There are other lenses in the 40's mm range.</p>

<p>I shoot with a 43mm Pentax which is still in production as a standard lens for 35mm film. And pentax also made a 40mm a couple of decades ago.</p>

<p>My answer to the original post is this.... yes, a 100 on a hasselblad is considered a normal standard lens like the 80... not a wide standard lens like a 35mm in small format.</p>

<p>But you will find them to feel wider because they give you more vertical field of view.</p>

<p>JDM, me old buddy,</p>

<p>What's with the shouting? I can't see the point in getting worked up about these discussions because of course, none of this matters in the slightest. We're just gabbing on the web, about the things we love. But my approach is that, since it takes no more effort to be accurate than to be inaccurate, why gab inaccurately? By "Pedantry aside", you appear to mean "Accuracy aside". Accuracy is not the same as pedantry, as aircraft designers know! (;-).</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em> Accuracy is not the same as pedantry, as aircraft designers know! (;-).</em></p>

<p>Another adage applies to photography - "Measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon and cut with an axe."</p>

<p>Standard or not, the 100 is one of the best lenses for Hassy: the 80 mm Planar is much less sharp and contrasty than the 100.</p>

<p>That's not quite true.</p>

<p>The 100 mm is a great lens. That's true.<br>

But the 80 mm is only a bit less sharp than the 100 mm at infinity. Come closer, and the difference disappears. Come close enough, and the 80 mm might even be better.<br>

Contrast too is not something the 80 mm does less good.</p>

<p>So unless you are doing aerial mapping (infinity focus, and needing the very low distortion), the 80 mm is just as good.<br>

A decision between both lenses should be based on focal length. Which focal length suits you best. No need to fret over quality.</p>

<p>As I understood it, the 80mm was considered the 'standard' lens for 6x6cm formats. certainly it is the one that was sold with Hasselblads in the 70s and 80s when I had one. It was the equivalent of the 50mm in 35mm photography.</p>

<p>Odille, exactly, and it turns out it wasn't point one <em>or</em> two, but both one <em>and</em> two.</p>

<p>And of course, the finest of all 6x6 standard lenses is the Carl Zeiss Jena Biometar 80 mm f/2.8.;)</p>

<p>The Carl Zeiss 180mm Sonnar f/2.8 which covers 6x6, but also works well on Kleinbildfilm cameras, is simply one of the all time classics--and this time, I am serious, not joking, as I was about the Biometar, which is good, but not the finest by a longshot.</p>

<p>Speaking of which, JDM...I have a late (one of the final batches) MC Carl Zeiss Jena Biometar 80mm f/2.8 - and for me it is indeed a most excellent pinpoint lens, but only from f5.6 and smaller. At f2.8 it has remarkably strong coma, and still quite a bit at f4. This doesn't really show in most daytime shots, but in my astrophotos, well...let's just say my Mamiya 645 80mm f1.9 is of the same quality from 1.5 stops wider open. Having two more elements (7 vs 5) certainly helps the Mamiya win that joust. It also beats the Hassy 80mm Planar, which behaves stop-for-stop rather like the Biometar; this I know from closeups of test astrophotos I've seen online. Pardon my awful German pun, but "the Sterrentest is the sternest-test" of optics. At f5.6 all these 3 lenses are pretty much equal performers.</p>

<p>The Carl Zeiss 180mm Sonnar f/2.8 you mentioned is another lens I've used (I presume you're referring to the Jena lens), but it does not hold a candle to my Mamiya 645 200mm f2.8 APO. Its big problem is chromatic aberration and in particular strong radial tails of blue lateral colour, which stopping down cannot fully remove. Not a fair comparison, really, since the Mamiya APO is of a whole different generation and uses ultra-low-dispersion glass. It is an astoundingly sharp tool.</p>

<p>The 300mm f/4 MC Sonnar is a superior performer to the 180mm MC Sonnar and I happily use it wide open for astrophotography, although it naturally has some longitudinal chromatic aberration. The 300mm is also a lovely lens for long-distance portraits in an outdoor landscape setting.</p>

<p>OK, now we've swung the thread way off the OT...! Like a poker game...we started with 100mm, you raised it to 180mm, I saw your 180mm and raised it to 300mm!</p>

 

<p>For general photography the 80 is of course a great all-rounder. But when I first started using Hasselblad to photograph artwork, for example paintings 1 to 3 meters square, I was struck by the very pronounced barrel distortion toward the edges.<br>

This was in the days when "photo shop" meant the local camera store. The purchase of a 100mm Planar eliminated the problem.<br>

Even now, the I believe correction of curvature at the edges requires a full version PS with "Plug in" for additional expense. For web work, my basic PS Elements does everything else, and came free with Epson V700.<br>

If I'm dashing out with a minimal kit, I will usually grab the 80.</p>

 

<p><br /> ... because, for all the qualities of the 100mm, including clarity of distant fields in landscape images, distortion-free, rectilinear imaging, the additonal field of view of the 80mm, as well as it's f2.8 aperture, bringing more light to the viewing screen, are significant points in it's favour, .</p>

<p>For me the 100mm provides the subject-photographer distance I prefer to work. Its a smallish lens, not much bigger than the 80mm and only half stop slower. The acute matte fresnel picks up the rest.</p>

<p>My mintish 60mm CB continues to be mintish because the 100 gets 90% of the use.</p>

<p>My "normal" lens in 35mm phtotgraphy is a 100mm. When using my Hasselblad, my "normal" lens is the 120mm Makro.<br>

Where did I go wrong? Or did I?</p>