Hasselblad 40mm Options

I'd written off getting a 40mm a while back, or at least making it a "one of these days" purchase, but looking at Ebay again I'm kind of rethinking that.

 

I know that the CF version still brings a healthy chunk of change, but the C T* seems a whole lot more approachable(meaning a nice one in the $500-600 range) from what I see. I'd need to pinch my pennies a bit, but I think I could swing that in the next few months.

 

All of my other current lenses are chrome C(not T*), so I'm familiar with the sometimes infuriating quirks of those lenses. In particular, after using the EV system for over a year, it's sort of second nature to me and I almost feel like it would be more difficult to deal with both types of lenses-I'm well versed now in "push the tab to set the exposure, then turn to find the shutter/aperture combo that suits" and I feel like-after being use to the latter procedure in particular, not having it would throw me off. I've also used-but not owned-a CF 80mm f/2.8, and know that in a lot of ways its a nicer experience with having a rubber focusing ring that doesn't leave me with bruises from gripping it to turn it, I still come back to the lack of EV interlock.

 

Considering that a CF 40mm is ~4x or more the price of a C, is there any compelling optical or other operational reason(aside from the general differences between C and CF lenses) to get one?

Ergonomics: the original C and C T* are gorgeous Zeiss objet d'arts, an amazing optical achievement for 1967, but were always hell on wheels to actually use. General purpose, they are not, esp now when you have the CF option.

 

As I've mentioned in other related threads, I'd also dreamed of owning one since first seeing it in a 1974 Hasselblad brochure book as a teenager (heck, I was more interested in the wild-looking lens than the camera system itself). A stunning, 100% mint T* example presented itself on eBay for $450 opening bid a couple years back, and to my surprise no one else bid and I won it. One of the greatest thrills of my gear-addled life was opening the box and noticing the odors of the lens itself were as new, a smell I hadn't experienced since getting a brand new Olympus OM-1n forty years earlier (ironically, when this 40mm was made).

 

Unfortunately, the 40mm C T* proved an impossible, obnoxious beast in practical use. It is huge, very heavy (3 lbs), the large exposed front element is a fingerprint/dust magnet, so front heavy it defies most tripod heads, and front barrel gravity drag on the focus ring makes it the absolute worst-focusing lens in the system by far. You think the 50mm and 80mm C are hard to turn? Just wait til you have a go at the 40mm C: its like trying to unscrew a rusted bolt on the Brooklyn Bridge with your bare hands. IOW, forget hand-held or spontaneous use: it just ain't gonna happen.

 

On-film performance is Zeiss-caliber for the time it was computed, but falls short of modern expectations. Zeiss' primary design goal with the first 40mm iteration was to match the legendary low distortion of the unique SWC Biogon lens, every other consideration being secondary. So the SLR lens indeed has low distortion, but is otherwise unremarkable. It flares like crazy unless you're extremely careful about the position of sun and point light sources.Like all Hassy V Distagons, the optics are optimized for infinity: the 40mm falls apart a bit at close distances (enough that Zeiss felt compelled to install a focus limiter that you need to over-ride to get below 4 feet). Sharpness distribution across the frame is somewhat better controlled than the 50mm C T*, but it utterly lacks the signature color contrast and 3D "snap" of the 50mm. Its OK for BW but rather dull for color. Filters and (huge, required) lens hood are very expensive due to the gigantic bespoke B104 fitting size.

 

I would recommend any Hasselblad enthusiast get their hands on a 40mm C T* at least once to see what an incredible piece of engineering it was, and scratch the itch of experiencing a lens that sold for more than several brand-new compact cars when it was introduced. It is a marvel to behold, in some ways a must-have item for any dedicated Hassy user/collector. But for actual picture taking? Save more pennies, and wait for a deal on the CF version. The CF isn't a stunningly better performer, but handles WAY better- at least one can focus it without a plumbing wrench. The final, still-ultra-pricey CFi-IF significantly beats both earlier versions for resolution, but has awful mustache distortion: popular for crop digital, but tricky for 6x6 film.

 

Overall, the none of the 40mm V options quite measure up to the rest of the lens line: they're great for super-wide 6x6 perspective impact, but kind of one-trick-ponies. Not that some photographers can't get great images from them: many do. But its harder than you might think, so allow time to develop techniques to exploit them for your specific vision. Speaking of vision, the image all of them throw on the focus screen is "meh" - dark on the standard screens, plagued by vignetting, shimmer and prismatic rainbows on the Acute Mattes. Very difficult to nail focus perfectly. In the end, I sold my 40mm for a tidy profit and will never use one again: the practical limit with 6x6 reflex viewing for me is 50mm.

Edited August 23, 2019 by orsetto

Considering that a CF 40mm is ~4x or more the price of a C,

 

It isn't quite that bad a discrepancy nowadays: the 40mm C is seriously cheaper, yes, but a truly clean fungus-free T* that doesn't immediately need a $350 shutter overhaul is still averaging closer to $600+ than $400 (unless you snag a fantastic deal from a clueless local seller). The CF-FLE has consistently gone for $,1150 over the past year or so, with a few killer bargains at $999 (keep an eye on Canadian eBay sellers). If you only expect to need 40mm on very limited occasions, the T* is obviously better value, but it comes at some considerable cost in usability.

 

Should you discover you really love the 40mm perspective, the drawbacks of the T* design will quickly make you regret not choosing the CF, leading you to resell it at a probable loss of $150 in depreciation and eBay fees. Add that likely dollar loss to the initial T* purchase price of $600, and you're already inching closer to the CF-FLE buy-in. Throw in a probable Compur shutter overhaul in near future, and you're definitely in CF-FLE territory. The Compurs gum up and seize with disuse, and other than the 500mm Tessar no vintage Hassy lens sits around unused for as long a period before sale as the 40mm C. A bargain 40mm C at $450 or less can be an economical way to evaluate whether you truly need the ultra-wide focal length, but the practical drawbacks are just awful for anything beyond very occasional use.

Edited August 23, 2019 by orsetto

The days of legacy Hasselblad bargains are over. Where once KEH.com had dozens of lenses, now only one, a CFE40, is listed, and for over $4K. I am stunned by the current state of the Hasselblad market. I need to consider selling equipment I seldom use before my heirs cart them off to Good Will.

 

Most of the complaints regarding Hasselblad viewing are answered by using a prism finder. I have a CF40, and have never seen the "rainbows" on an Acute-Matte screen described above, and the distortion is below 1% (i.e., barely noticeable). It is an FLE lens (floating elements), which allows for flat-field response at all distances.

 

In lieu of bulky and largely ineffective (for digital) solid hoods, I opted for a compendium (bellows) hood, also "unobtanium" in the present market. All Hasselblad V lenses flare badly. The 40 mm is by no means exceptional in that regard.

Thanks guys for the information and also the reality check.

 

I'm a wide angle junky, but have never had anything that wide in MF.

 

I'm almost regretting selling my SQ-A, especially for what I got for it. I could have bought a 40mm for that system for a halfway reasonable price just to try out the focal length.

 

In any case, I can pretty safely say that I'm going to obsess over it unless I at least try one, so it sounds like the argument for holding out for a CF is there at least...or I can just be happy with the 50mm that I use as much as the 80mm.

Ed_Ingold, its wonderful that you're thrilled with your 40mm CF-FLE using a prism finder and digital back, but that isn't primarily what ben_hutcherson was asking about: he wanted opinions of whether the original ancient 40mm C could still be a fully practical choice for film vs your CF-FLE. The answer to that is "no" for most people: the C can be made to work, sure, but the CF-FLE is so much more usable for not that much more money in the long run. Your slams against my cautions are based on your experience of the CF-FLE, not my experience of the 40mm C T* in question. I'm in total agreement: your 40mm CF-FLE is an excellent, still relevant lens. Distortion is very low with the C and CF-FLE, but noticeable with the vastly more expensive $3K CFi-IF (which was optimized for crop sensor CF-V backs instead of 6x6 film).

 

But have you tested the ancient C vs your own modern CF-FLE lately? The old lens is decidedly more prone to flare than the new: not fantasy, fact. Its a dowdy old design with gigantic, exposed front element: less a lens than a 3 lb glass baseball encased in a brass cone. Compared to the 50mm C or 60mm C it is more difficult to shoot with mid day. It is an OK but not fantastic performer overall: the later CF-FLE you own is better (esp close up), and the final CFi-IF blows both away (at a price). The old C is a cheap entree to 40mm if you're dead broke or unsure about the focal length, but it absolutely sucks to handle and shoot with. The CF-FLE beats it by a country mile if you have any expectation of sustained architectural or lansdcape work.

 

Re acute matte prismatics and vignetting with Distagons: you're right, this is reduced or eliminated with the prism finder. But if you use the WLF with eyeglasses, they're annoying as hell indoors and get progressively worse from 60mm to 50mm to 40mm. The larger magnification of the WLF is preferable for composing the smaller details in 40mm perspective, but the prism is clearer: Catch-22.

 

The days of consistent across-the-board Hasselblad bargains are over, yes, but if you don't have a pressing need for the rarities prices have actually come way down on most of the glass. KEH is not always the best indicator: they're a great vendor, but don't reflect typical private sale prices. The only V lenses selling for over $1300 now are the 40mm CFi-IF, 250mm SA, 30mm Fisheye, and newest 350mm (the exotic $25K 105mm UV-Sonnar is irrelevant to anyone not employed by NASA). Most other common CF focal lengths are in the $400-$600 range. Prices for the 40mm and 50mm CF-FLE have dropped substantially from just two years ago: almost 50% for the 50mm CF-FLE (went from $900 average in 2017 to $550 the past couple months). 40mm CF-FLE went from $2000+ to $1150, far more reasonable. The standard 250mm CF goes for a song now, the 100mm Planar CF is now almost at parity with the (overpriced) 80mm, the 120mm CF Makro is way down, and 150mm CF Sonnars are a glut. Final CFi and CFe versions fetch a significant premium over CF, often 100%, but that still rarely edges them over the $1000 mark.

 

The most overpriced Hasselblad commodities have remained consistent over the past several years: there is always continual rampant inflation on the 40mm CFi-IF, 80mm Planar, A12 film back, Acute Matte D screens, and 501cm, 503cw GMS bodies. Everything else is static or slowly declining in value back toward their 2004 low point. The lack of a truly affordable modern CMOS digital back option doesn't help matters: as people grow tired of CCD limitations and migrate to the Hasselblad X1D and Fuji GX mirrorless duopoly, more V stuff hits the used market. So good 'blad values are available for patient, cagey film shooters.

Edited August 23, 2019 by orsetto

I sold all of my C lenses after little pieces of gears fell out of a C50 into my hands. Besides the aging and unreliable Compur shutters, I'm done with the narrow, sharp, and incredibly stiff focusing rings. The CF40 is 30% smaller and lighter than the C version, and has a greatly improved optical formula.

 

Medium format photography is an expensive luxury for amateur use, discounting the fun-factor. However with color film costing over $1.50/frame, including development, it doesn't take many rolls to justify a digital back. Plus with digital you get real resolution, not the 24 MP equivalent of 120 film. The new X1Dii and CFV50c are half the price when I bought into the system, about the price of a new Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx.

As a sidebar to the main discussion, the stiffness experienced in the C lenses is real and pervasive. Having said that, and FWIW, I have woken up many Chrome C lenses with a "down and dirty" clean and relube (vs a full disassembly). To do this first bring the focus ring to the Infinity position. This will expose the largest number of threads for you to work on once the black lens mount plate has been removed. The plate is held on by 8 flat head screws; go ahead and remove them all. Make note of the location for the one with the green head. (I have no idea what the significance of the green screw is but I always put it back in the same spot it was in. Depending on who had the lens opened last, these screws might be stiff so use a well fitting screwdriver as you apply torque. With all the screws out, just lift the plate off the lens. Don't work the focus ring with the plate off. This will create problems you don't need to have.

 

Once off you will see the rear portion of the helical threads. While a full disassembly is best, this down and dirty approach will rescue most lenses and save you a few hundred bucks or the hair you will pull out trying to sort through a full tear down. Once you are looking at the threads, scrupulously clean the threads. Ronsonol on q-tips is a good way to start but do this with magnification so you can be sure you don't leave any cotton threads in the helical threads. They are precision Zeiss threads and any foreign matter was not anticipated when they decided what the interference of the threads would be. Use fine tweezers to remove any of these threads. Once you think you have it clean, you still are not done. Use something like a sewing needle to lightly scrape out the grease the Ronsonol process left behind. I have a pinvise set up with a needle in it for just this purpose. In fact I have ground the tip of the needle down so it isn't quite so sharp any more. After you are satisfied that no more dirty lube is coming out off the threads wash the threads again with a Q-tip soaked in Ronsonol and once again, make sure to remove any cotton threads you may have left behind. Then apply a very thin lubricant. I use this from MicroTools. It has worked well for me on many different Zeiss lenses from Super Ikonta to Contarex to Chrome Hasselblad mounted lenses.

 

Grease, Helical #10 (Light) 8ml

 

I have used Henry Scherer's special, black, industrial-diamond-infused, lube but it has been too viscous IMO for the threads used in a Chrome C lens and especially too thick for the lenses in the Super Ikonta RFs. Using a clean artists brush ( one from Michael's or other craft stores will do fine), lightly paint the thin lube into all the threads you have cleaned. Don't use so much that you have excessive lube all over the mechanism; just make sure you thoroughly work the lube into the threads. As I said, a full tear down is the best way to free up a lens but this process will produce a smile and help you forget all the leverage you had to use in the past trying to rotate the focus ring. BUT DON'T ROTATE IT YET.

 

Before you reinstall the black lens mount plate, put a very small drop of oil on the rivet holding the shutter cocking detent on the inside of the black lens mount plate. When these freeze up the shutter just plain won't cock so now that you are in there, avoid a future problem. The most finicky part of this job is lining up the shaft that runs from the black lens mount plate to the actual shutter mechanism. As you reinstall the plate be careful to let the sliders fall into the grooves in the helical mechanism. (These grooves will be out of position and the focus will be off if you were to move the focus ring with the lens mount plate off.) Once the plate is on, install the 8 screws, remembering where the green one was originally installed. Now you can rotate the focus ring and work that lube into the threads. The feel should improve with every full rotation of the focus ring. Hopefully you won't need the "fast focus lever" you may have mounted on the lens solely to give you the leverage needed to power through the old grease.

Andy,

 

You've inspired me-I'm going to give that a go on my 50mm and 80mm. Surprisingly enough, my 150 and 250 are not that bad, so I may hold off on them for now.

 

How accessible is the shutter with the amount of disassembly you've described?

 

Also, when you mention a drop of oil on the rivet-do you have any preferences for the type of oil there? My inclination, unless told otherwise, would be Elgin M56b, which is a full synthetic typically specified for the larger pivots in 12-18 size pocket watches(it's roughly equivalent to Moebius 9020). I also wonder-given the size and forces in a camera lens-if a good quality clock oil would be a better choice.

Part of the issue with stiff C turning feel is the location of the focus ring too close to the camera on the shorter lenses. The longer 120, 150, and 250 C lenses push the focus ring an inch or two further forward of the mount. This allows a much better grip with more innate leverage, also the "mid-engine" location seems to be a better torque point for the dense Zeiss helicals.

 

The 40mm C under discussion here has an additional issue that isn't cured by a relube: the fundamental mechanical design of the lens is flawed. Zeiss chose to recycle the base shutter-aperture-focus ring mount barrel from the 50mm and 80mm, and simply graft on the gigantic, stupid-heavy front cone of 40mm glass optics. So you have an unwieldy 3 lb cone cantilevered off a focus helical that was never intended to support it. The entire weight of the front cone bears down on the bottom of the helical, placing tremendous additional drag on it. A relube might help a little, but the old 40mm C is never gonna be a pleasant lens to operate.

 

Re the shutter, AFAIK this is always accessed from the front (after removing the front barrel and optical group). Then a lot of pieces need to come out before you finally reach the geartrain. See this youTube video for an overview:

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by orsetto

Orsetto, I easily agree with you based on your description of the inherent poor balance within the 40mm. I've never had one and you are always on the mark so I push all my chips in on your assessment. And with the shutter, yes all the fun starts only after the front ring and lens element are removed. As the various videos on shutter service illustrate, its not an impossible task. Servicing of certain devices (Hasselblads, Contax, Mercedes-Benz, Ferrari, etc) have been such well guarded secrets for so many years the absence of information yields reluctance or "oh I could never do that".

 

 

The video is an hour long and covers a lot of what the other video covers. The difference is that it plods along practically in real-time. I know we aren't supposed to judge others but my feeling is that if a person doesn't have the patience to sit through a one hour video on how to work on a piece as well done and expensive as a Zeiss lens, they probably shouldn't be tackling the task in the first place. Having said that, yes Ben, I think that with your experience working on pocket watches (dexterity) and patience (you maintain your own British sportscar ) :) you are up to the task. As for the oil I use, its nothing special, just synthetic watch oil (wristwatch). You will find once you open up the lens and peer into the shutter, that you are looking at a mechanism that wasn't designed for much lubrication to begin with. Having said that, I put a liberal drop of oil on every coil spring or hairpin spring I come across inside a Hassy or a Zeiss lens. This was not required by the manufacturer thereforee their lubrication charts don't include this step. But then again, spare springs were almost as available then as USB cables are today. When one of those springs rusts a bit and breaks, good luck trying to find one, hence, this is why I let them coat themselves after putting a drop of oil at the mid point of the spring during reassembly. Let me know if you have any questions or run into a snag. We can trade sportscar stories if nothing else :)

 

Andy

Thanks for that updated video link, andyfalsetta! :)

 

Much better than the others I had in my old bookmarks. There's so many now, it can be hard to find the most useful. Fortunately the Hassy shutters are not as terrifying as they seem once exposed, and most of the older videos are reasonably accurate (if badly filmed or sped up). The hardest part is gaining access to the shutter without scratching the glass or ruining the barrel cosmetics: having the right tools is key here. Hasselblad actually supplied a bespoke tool set for each individual lens to authorized repair centers, so it be extra careful when choosing generic tools (or self-made improvisations).

 

I've actually found the silver-face Seikosha Mamiya TLR shutters much more hellish to work on: their mechanisms weirdly seem to rely on nnanometer-precise positioning. Once you so much as breath on, never mind remove, any of the parts: ugh. You could spend the following week trying to coax the damned assembly to fire properly (open the shutter blades at all). On the whole, I find these infamous Seikosha shutters have years-longer service intervals than Hassy C, but when they do fail its best to just swap the good glass into another functioning shutter barrel. Something one can't do with the far more expensive (and less dependable) Hassy C barrels: even if you could find an inexpensive swap, the next shutter is as likely to fail as the one you swapped.

Thank you to Andy and Orsetto both for the guidance.

 

I just with I could pick up a junky, fungus-infested C lens for a small amount to familiarize myself with them before tearing into one of my good lenses. I might keep my eyes open for a 150mm Sonnar, especially since they seem relatively available without the price premium associated with the 80mm.

 

With all of that said, I'm constantly amazed at just how crude things like Compur shutters are, or camera mechanics in general. My experience with them on Rolleiflexes showed a finish quality that makes a typical pin lever pocket watch look like a fine piece of craftsmanship. Of course, the forces and duty cycle are quite different-I constantly have to remind myself of that too when I work on a double action Colt revolver also.

 

Also, I admit that seeing something like the slow speed escapement getting "cleaned" with a solvent rinse without disassembly followed by slathering oil on the pivots sends a shiver up my spine, but at the same time I don't know that I want to even attempt to take one apart.

 

Also, hopefully my C lenses don't end up looking like the radiator in my MG does at the moment...

 

Ugh. Failed water pump Ben?

 

I totally agree about finding a 250mm or 150mm on the cheap, Everything is relative so I don't know what you consider cheap but I picked up an ugly 150mm on ebay for $36 and another for $80. The beauty here is that the shutters should be interchangeable with your 80mm. So you can pick up a cheap let's say 250mm and learn on it. Then when its time to dig into the 80mm, just swap in the shutter you already serviced and the 80mm is up and running more quickly if you like.

The only Hassy lens one could classify as "cheap" (in the sense of dirt cheap, like old Mamiya TLR lenses) is indeed the silver 250mm C. These turn up fairly often for $100 in functional condition, sometimes under $60 if glass/shutter issues and an honest motivated seller just wants to unload it. So yeah: probably the best candidate for a "practice lens". The slow f/5.6 max aperture (and finder vignetting in the older 500 bodies) makes them dismally unpopular today, so its not as if you'd be desecrating a classic or removing a desirable lens from the pool if you screw it up badly.

 

Went thru a few of these that came along for the ride in some eBay Hasselblad lots. Two interesting things I discovered: they (oddly) have the highest incidence of functional shutters in the C lineup, and the best focus ring feel. I always move them along to someone else, because I settled on a nice 250mm CF I got from a KEH fire sale (it was erroneously listed as full of fungus, but when received there was nothing wrong with it). Performance-wise, the CF is somewhat better than the silver C (at least when adapted to Nikon and Sony FX digital bodies, haven't used it much with film in recent years).

 

BTW that radiator looks like some tiny aliens landed on it by mistake and made a crop circle.

Edited August 24, 2019 by orsetto

Thanks to all of you.

 

$50 was what I was thinking for a cheap, practice lens, and it sounds like I might not be too far off on that for a 250mm Sonnar.

 

That's honestly a bit of an unloved lens for me also-I use my 150mm semi-frequently(some of my favorite photos were taken with it) but aside from the vignetting on my ancient bodies I've found the 250mm a bit clunky. Both my 150mm and 250mm have surprisingly easy focus though-it's Nikon "one finger" easy, but is definitely better than the 50mm and 80mm. I have a quick focus handle that fits them, but have never used it. It's also nice to know that the shutters are interchangeable-I could overhaul one out of a junk 250mm, transplant it into the 80mm, an then redo that one and have a spare for if/when I need it.

 

Another thought too-my 80mm has a ding in the filter ring. Genuine Hasselblad/B+W filters fit fine, but I've had to get the channel locks out before on generic brand filters that fit my other Bay 50 lenses fine(most recently had to do that with a Japanese Y2 from a maker I'd never heard of). Will a filter ring from an 250mm fit an 80?

 

One last thing-I admit to having not having watched the above hour long full service video, even though it's on my to-do list. Rather than the helical service described above, I'm wondering about about separating it, giving it an ultrasonic/mechanic clean in the watch cleaning machine followed by a manual inspection/clean and then a regrease. Am I asking for trouble doing that? I have a Nikkor 135mm f/2 AI-S here that I bought cheap because it needed a pipe wrench to turn, and it's still apart because I haven't been able to get the helicals to mate correctly. I want to avoid that issue, although I would also presume that the brass Zeiss ones are a bit easier to work with than the aluminum Nikkors.

 

Also, on the radiator-an unfortunate series of events that happened over the course of a minute or so where I no shoulder to pull off the road ended up with an errant can of carburetor cleaner in the cooling fan. It bent a fan blade, which then "sawed" the hole you see in the radiator. That was my first tow home in 4 years with the car. I have a new Made in England copper/brass radiator on the way along with a supposedly more efficient 7 blade plastic fan. Even though I'd drained the cooling system several times(I've had the engine out, the head off twice, and done several partial drains to do stuff like thermostat swaps) I've never seen the kind of rusty sludge that was oozing out of the bottom of the radiator when this happened, so I expect that the new one will probably cool a lot more efficiently. I wish I had a good way while it's down to flush the engine water jackets with caustic soda, but I don't think there's a good way to do that(unless I jumper the coolant inlet to outlet).

Ben

 

Couple of things. Give me a day or two to do some trial fitting and answer your question on the filter ring exchange. My gut tells me it will work but I don't want to give you bad info. With regard to buying an orphan 250mm (or any lens for that matter), just be aware that the early lenses did not have DOF preview. I was looking at a "cheap" 250mm on ebay not for me - just to see if it would work for you. It has "shutter issues" as described by the seller. I have a message into him asking for more detail on what the issues are. I noticed that the lens is an early one - without DOF preview so I wouldn't recommend using that shutter as a swap for one with a DOF preview. It might work but I haven't tried it and there might be clearance issues with the DOF mechanism and the shutter body.

 

As for the MG, what a mess. I sympathize. As you implied, the good news is you will be getting a totally new radiator and how cool is that (literally and figuratively :) . As for flushing out the very bottom of the block, I am not familiar with how the MG block drains. Is there a petcock or plug you remove to let the block drain? You might consider rigging up a connection with your garden hose and back wash the block through the petcock/drain plug? . Since it probably has a fair amount of gack in there, you might consider removing the heater lines and just let the water flow out the top of the head so you aren't driving stuff into the heater core. I'll get back on the 250mm to 80mm front ring interchange.

 

Andy

I no longer have any C lenses on hand, having made the (reluctant) choice to switch everything out to CF a couple years ago. But IIRC, the front filter ring of the 80C will not swap out with the filter ring of the 120C, 150C or 250C. Unless I'm embarrassingly mistaken, the longer lenses have the filter bayonet machined directly into the barrel, which is why so many otherwise-clean black C tele lenses have terrible "hood rash". Most working photographers would have seen little value proposition in paying Hasselblad to exchange the entire front barrel tube. This was not fully addressed until the final CB/CFi/CFe lenses, which have an easily exchanged scratch-resistant carbon fiber filter ring. The interim CF lenses have a similar replaceable ring, but its made of anodized metal which scrapes and abrades as easily as the C lens bayonets.

 

Re the shutter: you could experiment and learn complete disassembly and removal, but I don't think its advisable or necessary to swap the entire shutter between lenses. The most common issues of sticky slow speeds or fatigued mainspring can be dealt with as the rest of the assembly remains in place. Anything more serious, like broken shutter blades or (heaven help you) sluggish aperture stopdown takes a lot more work and/or tough to acquire spare parts. There's a reason David Odess' repair estimates jump two rungs if the aperture mechanism is involved.

Just to close the loop on what I said I would do, Orsetto is correct, the bay 50 mount is completely different on an 80mm (removeable) from a 250mm or 150mm (integrated into the portion of the body carrying the serial number of the lens).

Thanks to both of you for your answer on that.

 

My 150mm has actually been sitting on my desk at work for a few days, and in fidgeting with it I thought it looked that way-that the filter ring wasn't separate.

Ben, what could be more crude than an MG? And BTW, forget the 40mm and buy an SWC-- the best camera ever made.

According to Nordin, the 40mm C lens weighs 1400 grams, while the 40mm CF weighs 915 grams. The former takes 104mm filters, while the later takes 93 mm filters, the same as the 350mm and 500mm lenses. Apparently the CFE IF lens added 240 grams.

On the subject of Mr. Nordin, would anyone know if he still is with us and if so how to contact him?