Hasselblad 6x6 - classic landscape focal lengths

<p>Hi all, I have done some research and digging on the 35mm which I shoot now vs 6x6 in terms of conversions.</p>

<p>In the 35mm world, landscapers, some of whom shoot with a 24mm and a 100mm. I know that this would be a 40mm and a 180mm. But that's not that accurate practically. For 6x6 landscape photographers what is generally the classic FLs that is used? Also what is your view on older vs modern lenses b/c they differ quite in price.</p>

<p>For the filters, I have 77mm. Is there a conversion rule for the Hasselblad system?</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

<p>50mm, would be close to 28mm in 135<br>

60mm, would be close to 35mm in 135<br>

80mm, would be close to 50mm in 135<br>

Commonly used lenses. Then there's the personal vision issue.</p>

<p>For the 'Bay' lenses, (bayonet filter mounts), you will need a bay-mount to screw-mount filter adapter.<br /> Step-up filter adapters (step-up rings), may also be needed. <br /> ie...There may not be any Bay 50's or Bay 60's, directly, in one step to the 77mm size filters. <br /> Could be...a Bay 50 to 62mm, then you would need a 62mm-77mm step-up ring to complete the conversion.<br /> For a lens hood, (when using adapters as explained), you just use conventional 77mm screw-on hoods that match your 77mm filters..</p>

<p>The most common three lens set up years ago was the 50,80,and the 150 lens. This was what I started with back in 1980. <br /><br />I have the 38,50,80,120,and the 150, all I own are the CT* type with no problems yet. <br />Everyone will now chime in and tell you about the shortage of parts for these. <br />They are the arm chair professionals.....wait for it.<br /><br />It all depends on what you want to do with them as to which you need?</p>

<p>The problem with a conversion rule is that since they are different formats with different aspect ratios, there's no exact basis for comparison. Me, I compare based on horizontal angle of view. If you do that, then the 35mm equivalent of a 6x6 lens will be 2/3 of the focal length of the 6x6 lens. So a 40mm has the horizontal coverage of a 26.67mm (OK, 27mm) in 135 format. Then:</p>

<p>50mm is equivalent to 33mm;<br>

60mm is equivalent to 40mm;<br>

80mm is equivalent to 53mm;<br>

100 is equivalent to 67mm;<br>

120 is equivalent to 80mm;<br>

150 is equivalent to 100mm; <br>

180 is equivalent to 120mm.</p>

<p>Some use the diagonal as the comparison. In that case, the 135 equivalent is about .56 of the 6x6 focal length. Proponents of this comparison say that this method feels more like the true equivalent, in terms of what they see in the finder--the general look and perspective. I could see that point of view as well. That would make the 40 about equivalent to 22mm in 135 format, while the 80 would be about like a 44mm. And so on.</p>

 

<p>Thanks again all, </p>

<p>I have been reading up on Mir.com.my. From their list it seems the 40mm is the widest listed apart from the Fisheye for a T* CF lens. Maybe a 50mm and a 150mm. Might skip the 80mm for the time being. It will be mainly tripod based landscapes/cityscapes on a meter-less camera and the odd portrait. </p>

<p>Yep there are issues with the conversion rule, hence I asked for your opinions :) </p>

<p>I know that Mir.com.my has a great lens database with Nikon lenses for the 35mm system Is there a similar webpage for Hasselblad lenses?</p>

<p>I'll just point out that the square format versus 2:3 format has an effect on how you frame, etc. So what works well in 35mm might be very wrong in 6x6 as you find yourself framing and balancing images in a new manner. You might find a wide angle in a square format feels strange, or that it works better than a wide angle in 2:3 ever did.</p>

<p>I would go for a body in excellent and plan on the lens search to take a bit. Buy one lens at first and work it for a while as you figure out the square. Soon you'll know where to go next, if anywhere, but until you shoot squares for a bit it's hard to say.</p>

Re "conversion", <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx">look here</a>.<br>On the bottom of that page, there's also a link to an online calculator that shows 'equivalents' of focal lengths on a number of formats.<br><br>Wide angle lenses are popular, because the promise to capture the wide sweep of landscape that presents itself to you. But the sense of wide space you get when you're standing in it is lost when captured on film. Sometimes an ultrawide is useful, but if that's not necessary i think it better to use moderate wides that show elemtnts of the landscape, instead of trying to capture it all in one frame.<br>And on that theme: long lenses, very long lenses even, are also very useful, making it possible to pick out single elements from a landscape (just as we do. We do not just soak in the wide scape, but our eyes scan the vista, going from detail to detail.) So do not just look at wide angles. On 6x6 a 50 mm or 500 mm lens would be a good landscape lens too.

<p>Ray, are you an apug subscriber? If so, there are plenty of gorgeous landscapes in the gallery there that were taken with 'blads. You can get an idea from them what focal lengths are popular, but from what I have seen 80mm is used a lot.</p>

<i>"On 6x6 a 50 mm or 500 mm lens would be a good landscape lens too."</i><br><br>Should have said:<br><br>On 6x6 a <b>350</b> mm or 500 mm lens would be a good landscape lens too.<br><br><br>About the filters: 77 mm filters will fit on most lenses using adapters. But on most you will then not be able to attach the sunshade. Using a filter system, like the ones Lee or HiTech produce, with a filter holder annex bellows shade is the best (but expensive) option. A must if you want to use grads too.

<p>"On 6x6 a <strong>350</strong> mm or 500 mm lens would be a good landscape lens too."</p>

<p>If you go for these, try to get the accessory llama to carry them!</p>

Nothing, compared to what LF landscape photographers carry, Rob.<br>Anyhow, is the aim to go out to get good photos, or have a nice comfortable walk through the park? ;-)

<p>I did use HB with 50,80 and 100 mm lenses along with Canon F1 and prime lenses. I would say that in most situations a HB 50 mm corresponds to a 28mm in 135-format and a 50 or 100 mm corresponds to 50mm in 135-format.<br>

For landscapes, my most used lens was the 50mm followed by 100 and 80.</p>

<p>Conversion between medium format and 35mm is complicated by the shape of the image, but it's more complicated than that. Which lenses you use depends on what you like to see in landscapes, and how you make use of perspective. Why do you shoot medium format and not something else? For many, it's so you can make bigger prints with more detail. Consequently, you tend to use shorter lenses than you would with 35mm. The larger the print, the less effect a short lens has on perspective.</p>

<p>If you start by carrying a 50, 80 and 150 lens, or some variation on that theme, you'll quickly learn what you prefer to use, and you won't be disappointed with any of them. For portraits, closeups or interiors, you might want something completely different. The one constant factor is that you will use a tripod for nearly everything. Otherwise all that (film) real estate and lens quality is wasted.</p>

<p>The perspective of the 50MM is superb for landscapes. These are cheaper and more common than the 40MM which is a great landscape lens too.</p>

Do we use shorter (you mean "wider", i think) lenses for landscapes with MF, Edward? I don't think we do.<br>If only perhaps because the options are limited. You can't get as wide a lens for MF as you can for 35 mm format. ;-)<br><br>The ability to make "bigger prints with more detail (!)" is due to the fact that on that larger format we can capture the same scene (same angle of view, same perspective) with a higher in-camera magnification. The level of detail is higher.<br>If we would use shorter/wider lenses, that magnification drops again. Detail will be lost again. Using a X mm lens on MF will produce an image that doesn't show a higher level of detail using a X mm lens on 35 mm format would. There's only more of it, i.e. the MF image will capture a wider angle of view.<br>But that thus also means capturing a very different picture, with the part that is present in both showing no more detail in the MF image.<br>So if we do choose our images based on what we would like to see in it, then pick the lens that captures that scene (i.e. the angle of view needed and perspective is fixed by the subject), "conversion" between the two formats is complicated by the different shapes/aspect ratios of the formats. Only.

And apropos perspective.<br>Perspective is not a feature of a lens as such. It's entirely 'produced' by position: where you ae relative to what you are looking at.<br>You can get closer to the subject using shorter lenses and capture the same angle of view (you have to, even), and doing so will have an effect on perspective. But if you only change to a shorter (or longer) lens, the only thing that changes is the angle of view. Perspective will remain unchanged.<br>Important to remember when trying to understand what things like <i>"The perspective of the 50MM is superb for landscapes"</i> might mean.

<p>I meant that I tend to use a wider field of view with medium format than with a 35mm camera for landscapes. For example, I use an 80mm "normal" lens for an Hasselblad for landscapes more than any other focal length. With 35mm, my preference is 70-105 mm, which is a medium telephoto in that format. I use what would be considered a wide angle lens in either format only when I wish to exaggerate something in the foreground. Those are the lenses stored on the camera, and probably the ones I would choose if I take only one lens with me on a stroll.</p>

<p>Others may have different choices, which are neither right nor wrong.</p>

<p>Your perception of perspective in a print is altered to some extent by the size of the print and how close you are when you view it. Distortion induced by rectilinear projection disappears, for example, when you view the print from a distance equal to the focal length times the magnification of the print. It is true that the relative size of objects (hence, perspective) in the image depends only on their distance from the camera when the picture was taken. However, not all parts of a print are the same distance from your eye when you view it.</p>