Hasselblad 2 lens setup..

<p>Hey all, new to this forum..<br>

Spent years taking photos, stepped away from it for the last 15+ years got into some digital stuff but really unless its stuff I'm doing for work, I want to use film.<br>

After a couple of false starts buying gear off ebay and finding they don't work, looks like I've finally scored a WORKING hasselblad and lenses! A 503cx, 80 2.8 and 180 4.0 package, seller didn't want to split them, fair enough..<br>

Now, I'm most likely going to sell on the 180, its too long for what I do and I have a 50 4.0 on it way, may move on the 80 as well.<br>

So.. to cut it short, Really I want a 2 lens setup, I do mainly architectural photography, so the 50 for me is a good 'not too wide' lens, what in you opinions would be a good 'not too long lens' to make up a 2 lens set? When I travel I can't be bothered carrying 3 lenses and I know from having my Contax with a 28, 45 and 90 i'd just get annoyed by the 90 is too long, 45 is too short, usually just end up taking the 45.<br>

.. so what would you guys recommend? I see there is a 100, 110, 120 macro and a 150, I suspect the 150 is too long for a 'long standard'.. I think the 100 is really expensive?</p>

<p>Anyway.. any advice is appreciated!</p>

<p>First to strike is the 110mm : it's shutter-less so not for the 500 series cameras.<br>

The 50/100 is the perfect combo for the architectural bias : The 100mm is practically distortion free and the 50mm has the least distortion of the wides ( bar the 38mm SWC )<br>

However for a single lens walkabout I prefer the 80mm over the 100. The 80mm's distortion is less than the 50's.<br>

You will find all the datasheets here: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.org/HW/HWLds.aspx</p>

 

<p>Here is a good comparison between the 150 and the 180mm <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/cfi150vscfe180/cfi150vscfe180.shtml">http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/cfi150vscfe180/cfi150vscfe180.shtml</a></p>

<p>The 100mm is expensive beause it is one of the "best" lenses for Hasselblad. That and the 150mm are some of the sharpest glass ever made. But having said that, all Carl Zeiss Blad lenses are superb.</p>

<p>The 50mm and the 80mm are the ones I use the most followed by the 150mm, 40mm and 250mm, in that order. It really depends on what you want and what you usually shoot. You may also want to consider the 40mm for architecture. Can you rent lenses where you are? That would be a great way to evaluate them, without putting your money down towards purchase.</p>

<p>It depends on your budget, but for architectural, I would probably go 40mm / 60mm. A lot of people don't think about long shots when they think architectural. You could go 50mm / 80mm too. There is actually a lot of difference in these focal lengths. Maybe you could further describe what king of architectural work you want to do.</p>

<p>The traditional kit is a 50/80/150 set of lenses. The 180 is OK as the "long" lens in lieu of a 150 - not too long for good perspective in a portrait, but brutally sharp. You need a short extension tube to get a tight head shot with a 180, but the 150 does it without assistance. A 50 is the workhorse wide angle lens, roughly equivalent to 28mm on a 35mm camera.</p>

<p>The CF40mm is in the "very wide" category for the Hasselblad. It is big (93mm wide), heavy and over twice as expensive as a CF50 FLE. It is a great lens - very sharp with low distortion - but was the last lens I purchased, mainly for MF digital. A 120 "Makro" and 250 Distagon came first.</p>

<p>The usual drill for interior magazine photography is not to use the widest lens available, but to compose carefully and squeeze as many pieces of furniture and <em>object d'art </em>into the field of view as possible. (Look carefully at most magazines, and you'll see the same items in several rooms.)</p>

<i>"The 100mm is expensive beause it is one of the "best" lenses for Hasselblad. That and the 150mm are some of the sharpest glass ever made."</i><br><br>You meant the 180 mm?<br>But do not discount the 80 mm. It is one of the very best lenses you can get, easily on par with the 100 mm and 180 mm. But for some reason (probably because it was the 'kit-lens') it isn't held in as high a regard as those two. Undeservedly so.<br>Unless you are a cartographer, in need of a lens for aerial photogrammetry, there is no need to spend the extra on the 100 mm's reputation.

<p>Yes, the 180mm. Although the 150mm is not far behind. In fact, it is a little bit like comparing a bottle of Cheval Blanc to a Petrus Bordeaux. Both are excellent.</p>

<p>And I agree that the standard 80mm is underestimated for some reason and since I have one, would never get a 100mm. I would however like to get the 120mm Macro-Planar, but mainly for its Macro function. Alas...can't afford camera gear right now, but donations will be warmly accepted :)</p>

<p>I really like the combination 50+120mm. If you plan to do mostly infinity shots, you might prefer the 100mm however. I would not sell the 180mm though, you might regret it later! It is said to be one of the best lenses for the V-system. I also have the 150mm, but I prefer the 120mm because it is lighter and much easier to hand hold because of the slightly shorter focal length. This will certainly count the more for the 100mm.</p>

For what it's worth, my view on the 100 mm Planar.<br>A superb lens.<br>But it's neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. Too long to be a standard lens, too short to be a telephoto. The first forces you to use it to pick out details (or stand back more than you would like), the second means that it's not very good at what the first makes you use it for. So it's, by far, my least used lens.<br>But to each his own, of course.<br><br>A good alround two lens kit would be the 60 mm Distagon combined with the 150 mm Sonnar. You can tackle almost anything with this combo without feeling you needed something else.<br>A good architecture two-lens combo i would find much harder to pick. Depending on the situation/location, you could almost use any lens, from the shortest wide to the longest tele. But given the kit that already exists - 50 mm, 80 mm and 180 mm - i would stick with that. Make it a three lens kit.

<p>I think we got a little off course here, by forgetting that Russell is doing architectural work. When I was doing only architectural work, the SW/CM was my go to camera/lens. In fact, it gave me a real advantage over most other photographers in my city because few could afford it at the time. Now days, a very wide angle lens is just part of the kit. I would still choose a a 40mm/60mm combo, or possibly a 40mm/80mm combo for architectural work. Though we often think of capturing buildings and interiors from close up, and needing a wide angle lens, in reality, a longer lens (say 100mm or 150mm) is very useful at a distance and sometimes gives a cozier appearance to the scene.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, great feedback!<br>

The kit just arrived a few minutes ago.. the 180 is as I thought it would be.. a fair sized chunk o'glass, I can't honestly see me carrying the thing around unless I 100% knew it was going to be used.<br>

Bummer thing is the palpas is cracked and peeling in the body.. so it may all be a moot point.. :(</p>

<p>I've had SO much drama buying a hasselblad, first 500cm was totally stuffed, the 80mm lens didn't work, the 150mm lens didn't work.. now this one, looks great, but the palpas, should I be concerned, I don't know!!</p>

<p>But back to lenses.. The 50 I like, 40 is a little TOO wide for my regular useage, I'm leaning towards a 100 or 120 I guess, there seems to be some reports that the macro lens is not suitable for day to day general use (then again there are lots of people who say its fine), I suspect the 100 3.5 will be perfect.<br>

Then again, not really sure if visually the 100 would give much more crop than the 80?</p>

It depends on how bad the Palpas is.<br>Cracks are common, and i wouldn't worry about those.<br>Bits of it coming off is another matter. If only a few tiny bits, and likely to remain only those few tiny bits, and i'd again not worry. But if it's more and likely to become even worse, i'd look to replace the body sooner or later.<br><br>The 120 mm isn't quite as good at infinity as it is close up, but it still is very suitable for everyday general use. You'll have great difficulty trying to discover any minute differences between how it performs at infinity and how the other short tele, the 150 mm, performs at infinity.<br><br>The difference in angle of view between a 100 mm and a 80 mm lens is quite considerable: the 100 mm shows 0.81x of what the 80 mm shows (the difference between a square 100 mm wide, and another one 81 mm wide).<br>But it's not only in the numbers, but also what these lenses are used for, and how much such a difference matters for that subject matter. In my experience, typical scenes you would use a standard lens for don't allow a smaller angle of view, would benefit instead from an somewhat larger field of view (which is why the 60 mm is such a great lens to have next to the 80 mm). And that makes the 100 mm a bit difficult to find a use for.<br>On the other hand, if you really want to 'crop' to detail, the 100 mm is quite wide, quite short. Too short.<br>But 'your mileage may vary', and that sort of thing.

<p>Eek, the palpas is BAD, its actually about to peel off in one big sheet on one side!<br>

But the seller gave me a partial refund which im ok with, its unfortunate as the body is MINT otherwise.. and I mean MINT! I'll start another thread about that though!<br>

So trying the 180 last night, great lens for sure, but physically too large for what I'd consider 'day to day' use, makes the camera very front heavy.. a shame as it, along with the 80mm are mint as well.<br>

I'm thinking a 120 may be the go, although the 100 also sounds suitable for my needs, 2 lenses is really about all I need.<br>

I know from experience that with EOS 20D I use the 17-40 pretty much only at 17, my other lens is the 85mm 1.8, with my contax G2 I used the 28 and 90.. or if traveling light only the 45 with the 90 being too long and the 28 being too wide.</p>

<p>I guess in 35mm terms I was thinking a 28mm and a 60/70mm lens</p>

<p>You can find the equivalents of 35mm and 6x6 here: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx</p>

<p>For some reason the 60mm seems absolutely perfect for me.</p>