Hasselblad 1000f + Salyut mount (and back)

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by antoniobravo, Sep 3, 2019.

  1. I may have the possibility to get a Hasselblad 1000f body for cheap (few speeds unaccurate).
    I was thinking, i may experiment: replace the mount, included whatever required slight dremeling and register distance adjustement, with one of a Salyut/Kiev-88. So all range of soviet bayonet-V available.Tweak Salyut backs for it (this for sure has been done, the Salyut back must be modified a bit in order to fit and frame spacing will be a bit different it seems).

    I find nothing on the web but certainly somebody must have done it?
  2. Eric Constantineau, photographer

    I'm not sure I believe this conversion works, as there are some differences between the helical pitch and depth of the Hasselblad and Kiev lens mounts - but some lenses sort of screw on, some do not.

    As far as converting a Kiev back to Hasselblad, I have done that with their latter NT backs (which are much more reliable).
    Modifying a Kiev NT film back for Hasselblad V
    Even after you have trimmed the film gate, the earlier Kiev backs will not wind the film far enough with a Hasselbald body. You get overlapping frames, unless you advance the back's fold out film advance key a bit (till it stops) on each frame.
    antoniobravo likes this.
  3. Why? I had a 1600F with most speeds working and the original Kodak 80mm and 135mm lenses. They were amazing lenses and when I had the opportunity to test the original Zeiss 80mm lens for the Hassie (a Tessar, not a Planar) it was greatly inferior to the Kodak. If you have a working 1000F body find a Kodak lens and enjoy a great camera.
    antoniobravo and orsetto like this.
  4. It is mordantly amusing how Kodak's demise has also completely buried the fact they once made extraordinary optics, if not the "standard of the world" then at least neck-and-neck with whatever the standard was. The Ektar 80mm and 135mm lenses for the early focal-plane Hasselblad were among the highlights: superb for the time, they helped establish Hasselblad as the ultimate 6x6 SLR.

    Ironically they were actually "too good" to remain viable retail offerings: much too expensive for the market that quickly developed. Hard to believe now, Hasselblad primarily turned to Zeiss because they were more affordable than Kodak. But we see what that led to: Zeiss ratcheting up the performance (and price!) of their Hassy glass to match or exceed Kodak. The somewhat sub-par Tessar and Distagon for the 1000f were supplanted by the superior Planar and improved Distagons for the 500c (while the 250mm Sonnar soldiered on unchanged for fifty years straight in both mounts).

    Still, I can understand why someone might want to butcher a 1000f into a more-reliable Salyut/Kiev clone. Realistically, of the several genuine 'blad 1000f lenses, only the two Ektars are unique to the system, and at this point are such expensive collectibles most photographers can't find or afford them. So, many a 1000f sits lens-less or with a dull-as-dishwater Tessar on it. The appeal of the wide range of interesting Russian Salyut/Kiev glass makes a strong case for modifying a good 1000f body to host them. Whether it is possible to do so cleanly is another story, and you're still faced with the issue of genuine 'blad 120 film backs being crazy overpriced in the current market (the more affordable Russian film backs can apparently be modified to fit Hassy bodies, but with some functional irritations).

    Unfortunately there is no really perfect solution, at least in film cameras. The lenses are easily adapted to digital cameras, but at prohibitive cost (and heavy cropping from 6x6 cm film area down to 33x44mm sensor of Fuji GX50R, etc).
    peter_fowler and antoniobravo like this.
  5. Some of my thoughts and experience:

    Re: Kodak Lenses - yes they are very good. Try to buy one now though, they are more $ than the current V lenses.

    Re: 80mm f2.8 Tessar - there are a lot of poor reviews on this lens. I have one. It's fine. Mine is, anyways, and it's certainly not a pristine copy.

    Re: Kiev backs on Hasselblads: the newer NT-backs are quite reliable (they use a rubber roller to meter the film), and when modified for Hasselblads, work very reliably with no functional irritations. They have been more reliable than my old Hasselblad backs, which require regular service to a) maintain film spacing and b) renew the seals. They are aesthetically uglier though. I bought an NOS as-is lot of 5 for $40 (shipping inc.) to modified/fix, and have not used a Hasselblad back for a few years now (but I do have an old 12C back that I'm planning to get working). The original Kiev backs were pretty sad, the hook on the spring steel clutch was over stressed and broke on most of them, disabling the advance key, and they could not maintain the precision needed to keep film spacing regular.

    A 1000f does not need to be butchered, the modification are completely and easily reversible.
  6. Didn't really mean to imply the Tessar for 1000f was poor, more that by itself it isn't enough of a draw to use the the old Hassy focal plane system. Its a nice lens, just not very different from what you'd get from the Tessar on a similar-era Rolleiflex or folder. I like the Tessar, esp for B/W: but it wouldn't make me choose a 1000f over a 500cm. The interesting Russian lenses might.
  7. curiosity, experiment. In case I find a cheap 1000f body only (the one I spotted is gone and often whole kits rather than bodies are sold)). I have a range of six soviet bayonet-V lenses, which are totally ok, specially I am very satisfied with the Zodiak-8 and the Vega-12. Plus macrotubes, wide-angle addon lens, teledoubler, and a bunch of backs old and nt. So if some reasonable tinkering makes these lenses usable on a 1000f, I could compare with the Salyut body and keep my gear. Like for instance in RF world, Zorki vs. Leica-III.
  8. that's what I read on older forums around but I find no pages about replacing the mount on the Hasselblad body with one from a Salyut, if doable with reasonable tinkering.

    Here is a Kiev-88 that I used for disassembly practice and learning about the inner:


    There's the outer shell, the inner frame with the gears and mechanism, the bayonet mount taken apart. The idea is to remove the mount on a Hasselblad 1000f and put that one from the Salyut/Kiev-80/Zenith-80/Kiev-88. What matters are the sizes of the corresponding body and outer shell holes for the mount and the distance to the focal plan. A bit smaller holes would be better, they could be enlarged with file/dremel, but bigger would require for instance something like inserted rings fixed on the outside, with epoxy probably as there's no room inside for added screws supports. Then the register distance....
  9. Since my 1000f is loaded with expired film, I thought I'd see if I could get a decent photo with the Mir-26B I have. The only wide angle lens available for the 'blad is a Fujitar 53mm with adapter, which is quite poor in the corners - and the Mir 45mm is actually quite a bit better.

    The Mir-26B does not seat fully into the Hasselblad because the back of the lens extends ~1mm deeper that the Kodak and Zeiss lenses, and interfears with the bottom of the mirror box. Thus swapping the mount with a Kiev-88 would still have this issue. You could remove the bottom cover of the mirror box, or shave the back of the Mir, but as I have not done that (yet), I do not know if that would fix the issue.
  10. My previous post about the Mir-26b lens interfering with the mirror box was wrong, it is the index pin that is too long, which interferes with the Hasselbald mount such that the lens does not seat properly. I've started a new post with a descriptive title (so future searches are easier)

    Saluyt-S / Kiev-88 lens on a Hasselblad 1600f / 1000f
    orsetto likes this.
  11. The Real Hasselbladski!

    I did the dirty deed - I modified my Hasselblad 1000f to take Kiev-88 lenses.


    As I mentioned in the other thread (linked on my previous post), the threads start a little deeper into the mount on the Hasselblad than the Kiev, hence Kiev lenses barely engage - otherwise they are the same. Here are the 2 mounts removed from their bodies, can you tell which is which?


    The hole spacing is identical, the thread pitch is the same, and both use a brass shim to adjust position. The Kiev mount may be slightly larger in diameter than the Hasselblad, but both fit (snug) into the body interchangeably, so it's probably differences in tolerance.

    There are a few issues using Kiev Lenses on the Blad.

    1) The latch pin sticks out more on the Kiev lenses (I've mentioned that in the other thread) - and in fact the length of that pin is quite variable from lens to lens. In all cases, it is longer than the pin on the Hasselblad lens, such that it interferes with the pivot mechanism for the latch when being threaded in, Warning - it's easy to push it past the interference, but much harder to remove - making it feel like the lens is jammed (!). I'll have to find shorter screw heads for the pin. For now, I've remove the pin, so the lens stays on with friction (which actually work pretty well). Or I could steal the screw out of a Hasselblad lens.

    2) the auto diaphragm pin that sticks out the back of the lens interferes inside the mirror box of the Hasselblad, it has no problem going on as the pin gets pressed in by the mirror box, but as you screw it in, the pin clears the box and springs out - which means your lens is now jammed on (!). Since the Hasselblad has no auto diaphragm, you can just remove the pin (also mentioned in the other thread). However, the pin in many of the Kiev lens retracts naturally as you open up the aperture, so for the above lens, you just have to turn the aperture to f/2.8 and the lens comes off.

    Four screws, and don't lose the shim. Completely reversible.

    Cheers, Tom

    (reference: the other thread on Kiev88 lenses on Hasselblads)
  12. What a nice job :) . Peter
  13. Sample image.


    Arsat 80mm f/2.8 Hasselblad 1000f

    The Volna pictured in the previous post turned out to have a lot of spherical aberations wide open, this later Arsat (optically the same) was "better". Russian roulette. Better than the radioactive Tessar though, but not quite as good as my Biometar, or the better Planar that came with later Hasselblads. But you have to look close, and it's a little difficult to see the difference on film - much more obvious on digital.
    andyfalsetta likes this.

Share This Page