Hasselblad Help, Please?

O, and by the way: The 80 mm Planar is a very good lens to use on tubes. IQ wise. The Planar design, whether Makro or S-Planar or 'plain' Planar, is very good for close up work.

Due to the short focal length and ditto working distance, not good for portraits. But if you need to get close up at something else than a face, don't forget the 80 mm.

The lengths of the Hasselblad tubes are chosen so they do indeed (roughly) match Hasselblad lens mounts. The old set more than the later one (the 150 mm needs 21 mm? So you got a 21 mm tube in the old set.) The later set takes 8 mm as a base unit, allowing to build up extension from 8 mm, in 8 mm steps, up to 64 mm (which is where the bellows unit takes over), using 2 tubes at most.

Many years ago upon first acquiring a Hasselblad and 150mm Sonnar, I did heed your advice above re selecting optimum tube lengths to avoid overlap with the lens' own helicoid and maximize close reach. I started with the 21mm as you suggested, then filled in with the other 10mm and 55mm "vintage" tube sizes. Over time I accumulated a couple of newer 16mm tubes that came in package deals: they're almost as versatile, but as you've often posted 21mm is the perfect match for the 150mm.

Unfortunately the old tubes won't fit directly on some later Hasselblad bodies, they can only be added in front of another compatible tube. 503CW, 501C, 501CM with larger shutter button cannot directly mount the old 10mm tube, the 200/2000 focal plane series with shutter controls around the mount cannot directly use the old 10mm or 21mm or the newer 8mm. Interestingly, the thin 8mm seems to be the most sought after and expensive tube of all.

Another nifty option seldom discussed is pairing the dedicated-for-bellows 135mm CF f/5.6 S-Planar with the matching variable (helicoid) extension tube Hasselblad eventually offered to make that lens more usable in the field. The lens alone cannot be mounted directly to a camera, but used with the variable tube it becomes a versatile lens that can focus from infinity to nearly 1:1 with better working distance to the subject than the more common 120 Makro Planar. The 135mm is also better corrected at infinity than the 120mm, making it suitable for landscape/architecture duty if stopped down (at f/11 it pulls distinctly ahead of the 120mm in edge-to-edge performance).

Despite its virtues, the 135mm CF S-Planar is the forgotten stepchild of the lineup: a shame because its one of the jewels of the system. The two disadvantages that probably account for its lack of popularity are slow f/5.6 maximum aperture, and cost (the 135mm + variable extension tube on average sells for triple the price of a clean 120mm Makro Planar).

Hello, hope you all are well.

wanted to report back to say that some of your advice has paid off. I took a deep breath this afternoon and mounted the 16 extension tube on my 500cm body, then attached the 180mm lens.

With these in play, I messed around a little bit, moving my camera and tripod back and forth until I was able to get a very nice, in-focus close up of a flower arrangement on our dining room table. I snapped a couple photos, adding time to the exposure, just by guessing.

Probably not ideal; I had a roll of iso 50 (Ilford Pan F Plus) film loaded into my A16 film back. Shooting indoors -just inside our huge window, with plenty of natural light. I’ll shoot more photos with this tube/lens combo and be sure to post photos at some point.

BUT happily, I’ve gotten it figured out and which you all’s help.

So, thank you!

Perhaps I should simply save my drachmas and spring for a 120 makro-planar lens? Maybe I can trade all my tubes and filters + X $$ with some seller for a lens!

 

I had a bunch of these tubes at one time.PITA for sure. Sold them and moved on. And yes, the 120 lens is a must have.

I have Hasselblad 250mm SA, which extension tube would I need for adult head and shoulder portrait?

Just checked with my standard (non-SA) 250mm CF. The 16mm tube seems to be the most versatile for this purpose. The range is from loose head-only (with some hair and neck) at approx 5.5 ft distance to a bit more than waist up at approx 11ft.

The 250 SA has a slightly longer minimum focus distance in its helical (3.0 meters instead of 2.5 on the standard 250mm), so the above range will vary slightly at the extremes, but head-and-shoulders will still be well within the range of SA + 16mm. Biting sharp lens, tho: unless the subject has no vanity, a Softar or retouching may be required. ;)

With the 180 mm lens mounted on a 16 mm tube, the extra exposure needed ranges from 0.34 stops with the lens set to infinity upto 0.84 stops with the lens set to its minimum focus distance.

How would 0.34 or 0.85 stops translate in real terms, please? I've been shooting at varying apertures, and cutting shutter speeds basically in half from whatever readings I get on the MyLightMeter app. I am shooting mostly indoors, but in good to really good natural light (LARGE windows). Most of what I shot has been on one roll of Rollei Superpan 200 (but I had a few frames on some other film stock, maybe HP5?)

Haven't sent any film out for processing lately so not sure how this is working out, yet.

How would 0.34 or 0.85 stops translate in real terms, please? I've been shooting at varying apertures, and cutting shutter speeds basically in half from whatever readings I get on the MyLightMeter app. I am shooting mostly indoors, but in good to really good natural light (LARGE windows). Most of what I shot has been on one roll of Rollei Superpan 200 (but I had a few frames on some other film stock, maybe HP5?)

 

Haven't sent any film out for processing lately so not sure how this is working out, yet.

In real terms that would mean you'd open up the aperture between 1/2 stop and 1 full stop when using this lens on that tube, depending on how much you use of the extension the lens' focusing ring provides in addition to the tube.

You could just open up 1/2 stop no matter what, depending on how precise you meter and how precise you want to expose. At most, you'd be 1/3 stop off correct exposure. Using negative film or digital capture, hat would not be a problem.

Great discussion here everyone. I'll piggy back on this thread and will ask: I have Hasselblad 250mm SA, which extension tube would I need for adult head and shoulder portrait? I see I can choose from 16E, 32E and 56E. Thank you.

250 mm Sonnar-Superachromat unaided:

50 cm field of view, at 280 cm focusing distance, 0.58 stops exposure compensation needed.

250 mm Sonnar-Superachromat + 16 mm:

88 cm to 32 cm field of view, at 449 cm to 203 cm focusing distance, 0.34 stops to 0.86 stops exposure compensation needed.

250 mm Sonnar-Superachromat + 32 mm:

44 cm to 23 cm field of view, at 256 cm to 168 cm focusing distance, 0.64 stops to 1.11 stops exposure compensation needed.

250 mm Sonnar-Superachromat + 56 mm:

25 cm to 17 cm field of view, at 175 cm to 140 cm focusing distance, 1.05 stops to 1.46 stops exposure compensation needed.

I'd say, for head and shoulders, you do not need a tube.

In real terms that would mean you'd open up the aperture between 1/2 stop and 1 full stop when using this lens on that tube, depending on how much you use of the extension the lens' focusing ring provides in addition to the tube.

You could just open up 1/2 stop no matter what, depending on how precise you meter and how precise you want to expose. At most, you'd be 1/3 stop off correct exposure. Using negative film or digital capture, hat would not be a problem.

OK got it thank you- not a very dramatic difference there. if I’ve been cutting exposure time by half instead of opening up the aperture by half stop I may be a bit over exposed, yes?

OK got it thank you- not a very dramatic difference there. if I’ve been cutting exposure time by half instead of opening up the aperture by half stop I may be a bit over exposed, yes?

You're losing light, so cutting exposure time in half is doing the opposite of what is needed: extending exposure time. Losing 1/2 a stop and halving exposure time, you're underexposing by 1.5 stops.

But maybe you mean that you're using, say, 1/30th instead of 1/60th, i.e. cutting 60 in half? Then you'd be overexpsoing by half a stop or thereabouts, yes.

Sorry yes that’s exactly what I mean. Been cutting the values by half- so increasing exposure time. So here’s a screen shot of MyLightMeter. Just so I get this right, all I have to do is pick basically any aperture setting, open up by a half stop, and get as close as possible to the recommended shutter speed?

Sorry yes that’s exactly what I mean. Been cutting the values by half- so increasing exposure time. So here’s a screen shot of MyLightMeter. Just so I get this right, all I have to do is pick basically any aperture setting, open up by a half stop, and get as close as possible to the recommended shutter speed?

Yes, that's it. Set both the aperture and shutterspeed as recommended by the meter, and then open up the aperture by half a stop.

pavelkupcik, q.g. is correct re you do not need to use any of your extension tubes for a head-and-shoulders portrait with either the standard 250 or 250 SA. When I checked my 250 with tubes to answer your question of which tube would be best, I neglected to check without a tube. Set to 3m minimum unaided close focus distance, the 250 SA will indeed give you "loose" head and shoulders (more accurately head, shoulders, upper chest, hair and some background). The non-SA 250 gets slightly closer to exactly head-and-shoulders framing.

If you think you might want to get in a bit closer in to nearly head shot framing, while still having enough range to pull back to waist-up, then the 16mm tube would be useful (the older 21mm tube more so). The 32mm tube would get you closer still, but limit your fallback range a bit too much unless you specifically wanted a primarily hairline-to-chin session.

Wanted to follow up to say I got these extension tube sorted out, I think its going reasonably well with them. First results are in from the. lab, so wanted t post a couple pix here.