Hasselblad Lens Recommendation

I'm in the midst of purchasing a Hasselblad 500c/m. My issue is that

I can afford one lens and I will use the camera primarly for single

person portraiture. In 35mm, I use a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 most often

and I love this lens. Would you recommend the 100mm or the 120mm.

I'm not so interested in a macro feature and I like the lower f/stop

associated with the 100mm. However, perhaps the 120 would give a

flatter look (more appealing) due to its longer focal length. Any

recommendations from users of either of these lens'. Thanks very

much!!

If you like the perspective the 85 gives for your 35mm work perhaps you

should consider the 150 for your 500CM. It all depends on whether you like

tighter (head and shoulders) shots or something more environmental. If I had

to stick with just one lens for an extended period, I'd get the 100.

If you get a 100/3.5 now, you can get a second hand 60/3.5 (or 50mm FLE) and a 1.4XE or 2XE (or 2x Zeiss Mutar) for the 100mm later.

Brian,<br><br>You're right. The 100 mm is too short for portraiture. Even the 120 mm is a bit on the short side.<br>To get about "right", you would need a 135 mm lens (and the difference between 120 mm and 135 mm is quite something).<br><br>I wouldn't worry about the difference in speed: the 100 mm at f/3.5 isn't even 1/2 stop faster than the 120 mm, which is f/4.

Most 'blad lenses need extention tubes to focus close enough for head shots, and the 120 macro is is a bit short, but OK.

 

I also bought a used 250, which I use for candids.

 

Keep and eye on Ebay.

Ihave the 38mm-50mm-80mm-129mm-150mm I always grab the 150 first for portraits ,even full length bridal portraits. I went to a Don Blair class about 15 years ago and he mainly used the 40mm for portraits!

Get the 120.

Brian,

 

I have several Hasselblad lenses and love both the 100mm and 120mm lenses because of their outstanding performance. However, if it is portrait work that you most desire and can only have one lens, I would recommend the 150mm or 180mm focal lengths. The 180mm is a better performer according to many postings on photo.net and the Hasselblad Users Guide but you will pay more for it! A 150mm is still an outstanding lens and deserves more merit than it often receives! If you want to save some money, a nice condition "C" version 150mm T* can be had for $500 to $650. I think a 180mm CF would be more than double in the same condition.

 

If you must have a 100mm or 120mm than the 120mm would be the better choice for portrait work. I use mine for photographing pets and children. It is an awesome lens in the close range! Good luck.

 

J. P. Mose

Brian I have a 80mm CB Planar and a 250mm C Sonnar. The Sonnar is an old one but the glass is pristine! I like them both. I have taken portraits with the Sonnar using Vericrome Pan, (my favorite), and the 80 mm CB with Ilford FP4+. At about 12 to 13 feet you can get a very nice Head and shoulder with the 250. The older 250 Sonnars are a little softer than the modern lenses which I personally like for Portraits. The CB is a good lens contrary to what many say but it is sharper than the 250 Sonnar. The Sonnar is my choice for a Portrait. I have no experience with any other lens for the Hasselblad.

I see a lot of people who strike me as unrealistic. If you want the 6x6 equivalent of an 85mm lens on a 35mm camera, then you need something in the 150mm to 160mm range. Assuming the prints are 5:4 (e.g., 4x5", 8x10", 16x20"), then the precise equivalent of 85mm for 35mm in a 6x6 is 159mm. If that's what you need to get the perspective you want (without excess cropping), then a 100mm or even a 120mm isn't goint to do it.

 

Now I realize that, say, a 150mm doesn't really make a good general purpose lens. A 100mm would be better for that, an 80mm better still, and a 60mm perhaps even better still. But if the raison d'etre is portraits, including mostly less-than-full length, then the shorter lenses don't get you there. Shoot with a 100mm and to keep your perspective, you will have to crop so much that there's hardly any advantage over 35mm.

Rent the 120 for a weekend and see if it works for YOU.

Good luck.

If you are only doing portraits, from a tripod go with the 150 or the 180. The 180 is great for tight head-shots, but you may find it too sharp! I use a 150, but have lusted over the 180 for years. I find the 120 to be a great compromise. I originally bought it for the macro facility, but have lately found it very handy at wedding receptions. I use it for a close-up of the cake, then leave it on for the candids. With the 150, even with flash, camera shake can be a problem hand-holding, this is lessened with the 120. (You don't want to use too fast a shutter speed, or the background goes too dark).

Dear All,

 

Sorry for my intrusion into the discussion. I am also interested in the CFE120mm for macro work too .

 

However, the new Hasselblad V-catalogue indicates that the minimum focusing distance for this lens is 0.8m. How it can make the macro work ? (My Nikon AF24-85mm/2.8-4 can shot as close as 10cm for macro work !)

 

Is it more easier or cost effective it I uses the 32E or 56E extension ring for my existing CFE80mm lens ?

 

Thanks for your advice.

CL Ho,<br><br>You're right. You need extension tubes and/or bellows to do macro work even with the special Makro-Planar lens.<br><br>Would it be more cost effective to use a tube and your 80 mm lens? Yes, it would. And of course you would need less extension, compared to the 120 mm lens. But, though still very good, the results will not be as good as they will be using the Makro-Planar. Not quite, though really very close.