Confession: Hasselblad 350mm Tele-Tessar CF

We only live once, and at today's relative-bargain prices every Hasselblad enthusiast should certainly "buy-and-try" any lens they can afford. Hope you soon find subjects that lend themselves to this lens, and that you get at least enough enjoyment out of it to reimburse any slight loss you may take on resale (should you decide it isn't quite for you). Often, we find uses for lenses after unexpectedly bonding with them: I was never remotely interested in the 250mm f/5.6, assuming it was too slow to be of any use to me, until I came across a mint CF for less than $250. Now, its one of my favorites: the rendering at f/5.6 is amazing so I make an effort to find subjects. I imagine you'll have a similar experience with the 350mm.

Even if it turns out the 350mm isn't quite for you, it will be worth owning for a time just for the satisfaction of scratching the itch. That was my feeling when I briefly owned the old 40mm f/4.0 C T* last year. I had wanted it ever since I first saw it in the Hasselblad brochures when I was a teenager back in the '70s. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine ever owning a Hasselblad, never mind several lenses, until the digital tsunami made it possible in 2008. Old assumptions die hard, however: even after acquiring my 500CM, 553ELX, and 50-60-100-120-150-250 lenses, I never seriously considered looking for a 40mm. It seemed like a silly indulgence: 40mm is way too wide for 6x6 unless you are very skilled with a great eye for suitable subjects.

Also, no bargains had yet turned up in 40mm. Until last spring, when I spotted what seemed to be a time-capsule, totally mint 40mm C T* on eBay for a relative pittance.Amazingly, no one bid on it but me, so I won it for a measly $500. It was a thing of beauty: utterly unused, so perfect it even still smelled new. I couldn't get over actually having it in my possession at last: in the 1970s, the 40mm sold new for more than a Volkswagen Beetle! Alas, reality eventually kicked in: while its a gorgeous piece of glass and metal with very low linear distortion, the 40mm CT* has horrible ergonomics. Weighs a ton, the huge flared barrel puts so much stress on the focusing ring that its impossible to turn handheld, and I just don't "see" in 40mm. So I reluctantly sold it off a few months later (luckily I broke even, but even if I'd lost $100 it would have been worth it just to know I'd gotten to try it out after 40 years of wondering).

Have fun with the 350mm!

A ball head on a monopod is more trouble than it's worth to keep it straight. Really Right Stuff (RRS) makes a swivel that gives you up/down motion and a clamp for the camera.

On a tripod, I use an Arca B1 or RRS BH-55 ball head, with an RRS plate with a lip screwed to the camera. The lip keeps it from turning, and with a square format, there's never a reason to tip it sideways where it might slip. I have also used a smaller RRS BH-40 for the Hasselblad and other cameras. My longest lens is a CF250, but my heaviest Hasselblad is an ELD555. Any of these heads will hold an 8# Arca view camera with the rail at any angle. A350 might strain the lens mount (doubtful), but not challenge one of these heads.

a heavy duty 3-way head would work, but is considerably less versatile than a good ball head. A cheap head and QR system will soon have you banging your head on a wall. You can't make fine adjustments due to slip-stick action, and it won't reliably hod at an angle.

350mm on 6x6 is roughly 200mm (give or take) on 135 size film. So not terribly long. If it were me, I would use this setup on a tripod 99.99% of the time.

One aesthetic of a longer lens is flattening and compression of perspective.

A practical consideration is that camera shake or movement needs more attention. Faster shutter speed helps with this, leading to wider apertures for the same exposure. Bottom line - it takes some planning to produce good results with a longer lens, when considering lighting and subject movement, or lack thereof.

Subject material:

Landscapes

Portraits

Architectural details

Sports

That was my feeling when I briefly owned the old 40mm f/4.0 C T* last year.

I got really lucky in getting a good, reasonably complete kit in one go for a bargain price. All I've added was an A24 back(at the time for my old stash of 220, now for some that I'm getting ready to order-I might get another), a set of quick focusing handles, and some filters(plus a hood).

Still, though, the 40mm is one of those pieces that I'd love to have. I figure if I can make good(albeit careful) use of a 14mm on 35mm, I can find plenty of uses for a 40mm on 6x6. Still, though, the 50mm is a chunk of glass-I can only imagine that the 40mm is even bigger.

I say forget the 40mm. The 38mm SWC is spectacular in so many ways.

Positive points for the 40 Distagon:

1) you can compose and focus on the groundglass.

2) you can use the lens with electric motor driven Hasselblad like the 500 EL...

3) Distagon : F/4 and Biogon : F/4.5

4) Distagon 40mm much less expensive

The SWC is a polarizing option: you either love it or hate it. If you got into Hasselblad because you wanted a premium 6x6 SLR, switching to the SWC for ultrawide can be jarring. The 38mm Biogon is indeed spectacular, but many of us find the primitive contraption its attached to undeserving of the word "camera". It takes a specific, definite need for utmost picture quality to motivate enduring the (un)usability quirks: for general-purpose shooting, the reflex 40mm Distagons are more versatile. Also, the SWC Biogon is increasingly incompatible with newer digital backs.

OTOH, the reflex 40mm Distagons have their own drawbacks. All three are huge, heavy and clumsy. The old 40mm C lens is ultra-clumsy, front-heavy and hard to operate, with scarce, impossibly expensive hood and filters (a hood and two filters will set you back more than the lens itself). The first version CF is two to three times the price, while arguably not being that dramatically better. The superb final internal-focusing version is still hideously expensive (as much or more than the SWC), and optimized for crop digital over film: when covering the 6x6 film frame, it has tricky distortion.

The Hasselblad is a comfortable, practical, consistent-feeling SLR system down to 50mm, but loses a great deal of its charm with lenses wider than that. At 40mm and below, it stops being an elegantly quirky camera and becomes a clunky inelegant tool to get the job done. The results are great, esp with the SWC, but operational enjoyment (and budget!) evaporates.

Since this thread had drifted from the long to the short, there's no need to get an SWC to enjoy a 38/4.5 Biogon. I use one on my humble 2x3 Century Graphic. I extracted the lens from an AGI F.135 aerial camera, had the late Steve Grimes remount it in a Copal #0. The lens absolutely positively doesn't cover 2x3, the sharpness dies 42 mm off- axis and the light stops 43 mm off-axis. With a 2x3 roll holder it offers interesting cropping opportunities, including 24x82 (with a bit more than 1 mm of the corners missing). Who needs an SWC? Who needs an XPan? Who needs an Alpa?

Arthur, to get back on topic, I've read that some versions of the 350 TeleTessar, in particular the one sold for the Agiflite, have noticeable chromatic aberration. How's yours?

The Hasselblad is a comfortable, practical, consistent-feeling SLR system down to 50mm, but loses a great deal of its charm with lenses wider than that. At 40mm and below, it stops being an elegantly quirky camera and becomes a clunky inelegant tool to get the job done. The results are great, esp with the SWC, but operational enjoyment (and budget!) evaporates.

Unfortunately, that seems to be generally true of medium format systems-not just Hasselblad. I sold off all my Bronica stuff to fund my Hasselblad, but in retrospect I wish I'd kept the SQ-A just to use the Zenzanon 40mm. It may not be as technically good as the Distagon, but has a cost, size, and weight advantage.

On the other hand, I paid around $250 for a really nice Nikkor 75mm in a Copal #0 that will cover 4x5. It's a really great little lens, is quite wide(by "larger than 35mm" standards) and doesn't need anything exotic like bag bellows to focus. In fact, it will fit right on my Speed Graphic without any trouble. It gets along just fine with standard screw-in 67mm filters. Its only downside is that-like most LF UWs-it has a decent amount of vignetting and Nikon didn't make a dedicated center filter for it.

Dan, no idea about chromatic aberrations with the 350 Hasselblad. No mention of that in the (Hasselblad) literature that I've seen, only that it is considered to be a much better lens than the 500 (which I also want). The two versions, Hassie and Agiflite, look so different that it's difficult to believe that they have everything in common. No pictures so far. Maybe today?

As for the SWC, it was my first Hasselblad 25 years ago and is still my favorite camera, bar none. So basic, so compact, so easy to use. No mirror, no electronics, nothing but what's actually needed. Even the viewfinder works remarkably well. I've traveled extensively with this camera and find it great for most subjects short of wildlife. I get pictures with it that I can't imagine with any other camera. Would not be great on safari I'll grant you.

According to most who have compared their performance directly, the Hasselblad 350mm variants follow the 250mm pattern almost exactly. The initial C version is adequate to excellent depending on subject and individual example of the lens, the CF version focuses closer and has tighter quality control (more likelihood of getting a "good" sample), and the APO C or CF version is dramatically better (at triple the price) than the non-APO. The APO improvements are even more pronounced on digital than film, as CA is that much more apparent with digital. So I expect you hit the price/performance sweet spot by picking up the 350mm CF.

The 500mm is probably the most controversial lens in the Hasselblad lineup. A significant number of users have reported bitter disappointment with it over the decades, esp the earliest C version. Consensus seems to be it only really "works" when the subject would noticeably benefit more from the added compression effect or reach than absolute resolution. Sample variation is a big factor here: the 500mm C is a fairly simple optical design but looks vulnerable to being knocked out of mechanical alignment. The newer CF Tele-Apotessar is considered somewhat better than the earlier version, but not nearly as much better as the Apo vs non-APO 250mm and 350mm.

Many of those who express disappointment with the 500mm are probably victims of their own unrealistically high expectations, based on the consistently superb performance of the less-extreme Zeiss focal lengths. 500mm (in any format) crosses the line from "manageable by most photographers" to "really needs a practiced eye and very disciplined technique to coax out maximum performance". Luckily, these factors make the 500mm unpopular enough that its quite affordable to anyone who wants to try one for themselves. If you can make it sing for you, it could be quite a bargain, esp for BW film projects.

Its only downside is that-like most LF UWs-it has a decent amount of vignetting and Nikon didn't make a dedicated center filter for it.

You don' need no steekin' dedicated center filter. You do need a center filter. Recommendations here: 6x9 lens by Dan Fromm (1)

Another point to consider with the 350mm and 500mm is availability of repairs. I believe there was some discussion here not long ago, where David Odess confirmed special Hasselblad tools are required to open the two long teles enough to reach their shutter assemblies. These tools were not made available to anyone but authorized repair centers and techs, so you may encounter difficulty finding a local repair tech who can rebuild the shutters of these lenses in future.

It would be a good idea to dry-fire exercise the shutters in the long teles every couple months at the slower speeds, to keep lubricants spread evenly and delay onset of the inevitable Hasselblad sticky shutter syndrome for as long as possible.