Extra Lens for Hasselblad 500CM + 80mm ?

<p>Hi,<br>

New to Hasselblad (was using TLRs), I just got a 500CM with A CT* 80mm. <br>

I shot a few rolls and I am delighted with it.</p>

<p>I was now wondering what would be the best lens to complement the 80mm. <br>

I am thinking about a C or CT* distagon 50mm or 60mm. Which one do you think is the best?<br>

Then I have seen a few 40mm as well but that might be a bit extreme...</p>

 

<p>impossible to answer without knowing what you want to shoot with it ?</p>

<p>For many years the most popular, all round outfit consisted of 50, 80 and 150mm lenses. So popular was this choice, that Hasselblad offered beautiful leather cases which were designed for these as 'complete' outfits.<br /> However, if you want "wider" than the 80, for interiors and landscapes with broader view, the 50 will enable more opportunities than the 60. Both the 50 and 60 are of very high quality. If it's portrait or pulling in distant landscape views, obviously the 150 is the way to go.<br /> There are some very recent discussions on <strong><a href="00ZKqM">50 vs 60 lenses</a></strong> for Hasselblad. 40mm Distagons are larger, heavier and usually much more expensive. I suggest a 50mm CF. There is a FLE version (Floating lens element) with some improvements. (I will leave it to others to expand on this.) I have a Chrome Distagon C T* 50mm, and it suits me just fine. The 60mm Distagon C f3.5 is optically identical to the CF f3.5.<br /> May I suggest you also consider further exploitation of the 80mm with the purchase of an extension tube and/or a Proxar close-up auxiliary lens. (The Proxar attaches to the lens in the same manner as a filter. The extension tube between the camera and lens.)<br /> Congratulations on the purchase.<br /> Enjoy ! Cheers, Kevin</p>

<p>Jonathan, nothing in particular, leisure use, portrait landscapes, etc.<br>

Kevin, thanks, that was my first impression; 40mm heavy and expensive, 50mm more possibilities than 60mm.<br>

The 80mm CT* is a brilliant lens and it might be wise to stick to it for a while, I'll have look at the proxar and keep an eye for a good opportunity to get a 50mm</p>

<p>It might be better to go tighter than to go wide. Why not consider a 150? You might get more dramatic pics that way.</p>

<p>I think you are a wise man to go slow.....and learn.<br>

When I bought my first Hasselblad in 1980, I was already replacing a 645 system with a 45mm,80mm,and a 150mm. So I bought the same set up for my Hasselblad. The body and 3 lens set me back over $5000.00 the first day.......and that was real money back then.<br>

The next lens I added was a 120mm, after attending a class by Ernst Wildie, he said that was his most used lens.(he wrote the book literally)<br>

Years latter I bought the most fun toy ever a super wide........I used these optics on a CM and two ELMs. The Elms were my portrait and wedding bodies....loved the instant return mirror for candids.<br>

I used the CM for shots that need to be less intrusive, as during a wedding service.<br>

But the superwide is a lot quieter that any of them......just the beautiful sound of the shutter. I love that camera. And man the images are sooooo sharp with that camera.</p>

<p>I agree, the 50 and 150 are the most I use.</p>

<p>i currently have a 501cm with 80mm and 120 makro. been using them for nearly 2 years. if i had the money id now get a Superwide for landscapes and a 150 for portrait work. i better keep saving! btw i have a set of Bay50 proxars up for grabs if u fancy them</p>

<p>Depends on what you shoot but as other have noted the classic three, especially for wedding and portrait work, are 50/80/150. The 60 doesn't seem sufficiently wider than the 80 to be worth bothering with. I would start with those three and potentially add the 250 down the road, mabye a SWC if you want to do architectural interiors. But if you need length, there's only so far you can go in MF.</p>

<p>I have see people that went with the 60 and 120 only.......for a smaller kit.</p>

I use the 60 mm + 150 mm as a small 'universal' kit often and like it a lot.<br>But to each his/her own: there is no universally good set of lenses. (Except the one that contains all lenses that are available, of course. Then you only have to ignore what you do not need ;-) But who can afford that?)

<p>Russ, that's how I started out. The 120mm was my first lens, but at f/5.6, and no Acute Mat screen, it was a PITA to use in a lot of situations. The 60mm is a terrific lens, but so is the 50mm. Get them all<g>. I personally like a bit longer lens. I use the 150mm a lot for portraiture, where the 120mm is just a bit too bitingly sharp. I'd work on getting the 50mm/150mm combo if you have the 80mm though.</p>

<p>I have found myself using the 150 for women's portraits.....with a softar 1 sometimes. And the 120s extra sharpness for mens portraits. But yes we need them all.........</p>

<p>I have both the 40 CF FLE and the 50 CF FLE, along with a bunch of other longer ones. I use the 50 more than the 40. Both are excellent lenses.</p>

<p>The FLE version gives a bit better performance at close range. Here's a pic of the 50 FLE. <br /> <img src="http://www.mayadate.org/pix/Hassy50mmCFFLE.JPG" alt="" /><br /> The Floating Lens Element is controlled by the ring at the front. It has four detented positions: infinity to 4m, 4m to 1.2m, 1.2m to 0.8m, and 0.8m to 0.5m. Mine is almost always at the first detent.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

Above is a bit of Hasselblad folklore that isn't necessarily quite accurate: in truth, the 150 mm Sonnar is as bitingly sharp as the 120 mm S-Planar/Makro Planar.<br>;-)

<p>Wow, brings back memories. It is years ago, but my two favorite lenses were the 120 and the 40. I hated the 80.</p>

<p>I like the combination of 60+100+180 that primarily 60 for landscape, 100 for general and 180 for portrait. But because you started with 80, I would choose 50 for now, and 150 or 180 for future. My 2 cents.</p>

<p>I found that the Hasselblad with the standard 80mm, a 150 and a Hasselblad SWC to be a very nice combination.<br>

The SWC isn't much bigger than the 40mm and has the advantage of being the second camera.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the answers !<br>

So it is either a 50mm or go the other way towards the 150mm... Mmm... not the same use but unless I buy the two of them, I won't be able to do everything yet.<br>

I guess the 150mm would be a good choice for portraits and close ups ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess the 150mm would be a good choice for portraits and close ups ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Short answer: <strong>Yes</strong> - with extension tube for the close ups.<br>

Discussion on lens extension <a href="00N1qw"><strong>here</strong></a>.<br>

Repeating the recommendation most applicable to <strong>your</strong> situation, <em>as you already have the 80</em>,<br>

50 * 80 * 150<br>

The 80 with extension/proxar is also very usable for close ups.<br>

For the best possible, reproduction quality close ups - copy work for photogravure - I use the 120 mm f5.6 that Michael Axel mentions. The only lens I would use as an alternative for this application would be the 135 S-Planar - later Macro Planar. (requires variable extension tube or bellows.) A few of my favourite portraits were also taken with the 120. The 120 generally goes for higher prices than 150 examples of similar vintage and condition.<br>

That said, there are no rules to what you may experiment with. My son, at the age of 9, used 'our' 50mm with extension tube to create a few dynamic images of some miniature models he was building.</p>

<p>...</p>

 

<p>The more I read, the more I think I want to try some close ups with an extensions ring.<br>

Kevin, I think I am going to go with your advice, keep looking for a good deal on a 50 or 150 whichever comes first, take my time and first go for an extension ring to ue on the 80mm (then why not on a future 150mm).<br>

Would a 16mm ring be a good choice?</p>

<p>Yes a 16mm tube would be a good start. I have 10, 21 and 55, being the earlier C series. I use both the 10 and 21 much more often than the 55, and the 21 more than the 10. The later series, you know by now, were made in 8, 16, 32 and 56mm lengths, and differ only in the design of the grip surface. All can be used on either C or CF lenses and can be combined. So with the 16 now, were you to buy an 8 (or a 10) later, you would have the choice of 8, 16 or 16+8=24mm extensions. It's a neat system.</p>

 

<p>I just returned from a trip to Southern Utah (red rock country). I was surprised how little I used the 50 (I have 50/80/150) and how much the 150. I cannot see me using anything wider than 50 enough to justify the outlay. But the 50 is a must have addition to your kit, IMO.</p>

<p>I occasionally use a Canon 500D closeup lens on my 150 (with a B60 to 77mm adapter) for closeup work.</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<p>After picking up a Blad with an 80mm, I decided to go with the 100 Planar since I'd owned one before and loved it. It just matched my way of "seeing" a bit more.</p>

<p>As a result... I went 50, 100, and 150. However, in retrospect... I wish I would have gone to the 180 instead of the 150. Again, with my way of "seeing" I prefer something just a tiny bit longer (even though it's probably only a mere few steps forward or backwards.)</p>

<p>My next acquisition will most likely be either a 120 (since I enjoy doing close-ups) or a 1.4x tele-extender (since I also prefer shooting a bit longer. :)</p>

<p>Good luck on your decision... decisions, decisions, decisions!</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Each lens has its unique personality.</p>

<p>My Hasselblad kit includes all lenses from 40mm through 500mm except for the 60mm and the 120mm macro.</p>

<p>When I view a subject initially, I almost always know which lens I want to use. I seldom need to experiment.</p>

<p>Sometimes I see two or more different images within the same subject, perhaps rendered with the same lens or perhaps with different ones.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>