Hasselblad B50 filters on CF Lenses with an adaptor? Any Chance?

<p>Hey Guys and Gals,<br /><br />I've not been able to find anybody asking this particular question before so thought I'd give it a shot - please excuse me if this was already discussed before.<br>

<strong>Is it possible to use B50 filters on CF lenses with the 500 series Hasselblads without vignetting and if so which lenses won't vignette?</strong><br /><br /><br>

See, the dummy I was, I bought a set of 10 Hasselblad made B50 filters without waiting for my CF lenses to come in the mail and I din't realise that B60 was not just a newer mount from B50 but a completely different size! I can't send them back because that would be a dick move on my part and It was not a bad deal either as I have a whole range of red and blue now with an orange and two diffusors (sic?) complementing the set and collecting those one by one would be a huge PITA.<br>

Would it be ok to just get a B60 to B50 adaptor so that I can use these filters with some of my lenses? I don't really get why the new lenses need bigger filters as they seem to be the same size more or less internally, even more so the new wide angle CF lenses seem to be designed to be smaller at the end of the barrel, for instance with the 50mm one so what gives?<br>

<br />I plan to mostly use 40, 50, 80, 150, 250 mm lenses so if the colour filters I already have can work with at least 80 mm and up that would make it worthwhile to keep the colour set I have for shooting landscapes with those lenses and an adaptor. I would then add a separate and large enough orange, polarising and gradient set for the 40 mm and 50 mm and hopefully that would be enough to not fall short in the field. </p>

<p>I assume that even if it does work I would be limited as to how many filters I can use so is it, for instance sensible to go 80mm into B60>B50 adaptor into 1 Colour into gradient filter? That is 2 filters but with the adaptor it's 3 filters worth of length added and then the filters are smaller than they "should" be in the first place.</p>

<p>Any hope at all? I am new to 6x6 and still waiting on all my gear to come in the mail so can't do any testing at the moment. In all honesty with the way I used to shoot (scanning + post) I only need gradients for landscapes and a pol. for working from behind windows but I was having high hopes for mastering these colour filters to really tame the skies as part of my return to photography and also a new approach and attitude.</p>

<p>Much crumpets,<br />BP</p>

<p>Go easy on yourself. We all make mistakes from time to time. The B50 filters can not be used on any CF lenses, and there is no such 'step-down' adapter ring to help you even try. Forget it.<br>

Choices:<br>

1. Keep them just in case you do acquire a B50 C lens.<br>

2. Sell them when you are in the mood to do it.</p>

<p>There is a lot to learn about the Hasselblad system. Do you own a manual? The Hasselblad Manual by Ernst Wildi, edition 3 or 4 will cover your needs. The latest editions include all the H system which you don't need. Shown here is the manual I have, together with Ernst Freytag's "Hasselblad Way". This image is from another fabulous source of information: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu <br /> As good and comprehensive as the Hasselblad Historical site is, I do enjoy sitting back and reading a book. However, within the many info packed pages of all of these resources, there is nothing you can't find. Good luck and enjoy the camera.<br /> Cheers, kevin</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Kevin,</p>

<p>Thank you for the help.<br>

I do know about the Hasselblad Historical - was of great help when figuring out the different lens generations.<br>

I am wondering wether it would be worthwhile to get some C T* lenses instead of B60 filters.<br />I mean for what they can go for I could probably get about 5 filters or a C T* lens for the same price.<br>

I do like the hasselblad made filters and it feels a shame to adapter up to using regular ones so I guess it's back to auction hunting for me.</p>

<p>Cheerio,<br />BP</p>

The bay 60 -> bay 50 step down ring does exist, I bought it from B&H 10 years ago. It works without vignetting on CF80 (never tried

more than one filter, but i tried with succes the use with zeiss softar too that is noticeably thicker than a normal filter) so it does not

vignette on longer lenses either. It does vignette on the CF 50. I never tried with the CF60 but I suppose it does vignette too.

All C versions of the CF lenses used Bay 50 filters, except the wides (60 mm and shorter) and extra-longs (350 mm and 500 mm). So, since only the barrel changed, not the optical design of (most of) these lenses, Bay 50 filters should work on all of those with an step-down adapter.<br>However: the adapter moves the filter away from the lens. And the front lens apex to filter mount may not be the same in the CF barrels as it was in the C barrels. So thre is some uncertainty.<br>But if such a step-down adapter isn't expensive, and since you have the set of Bay 50 filters anyway, why not give it a try?<br><br>I wouldn't change CF for C lenses, just because you have a set of Bay 50 filters... CF lenses are newer, have a different shutter, better ergonomics. Why trade that for the ability to use Bay 50 filters without adapter?<br><br>The CF 50 mm lens has vignetting issues even with Bay 60 filters. One Bay 60 filter will work without vignetting on the 50 mm lens. But only just. Reason why they changed the mount to the even larger Bay 70 in the later FLE version.<br><br>I use filters, not in bayonet mount (that is: only the UV filters i keep as a see-through lens cap are bayonet mount filters), but in the square or oblong resin form that fits in a filter holder or Proshade. You will need such a filter holder or Proshade, plus adapters for the different filter mounts your lenses have. But you can then use the same filters (most expensive bits of the whole filter 'system') on all lenses, no matter what filter mount they have, from small diameter screw mount to the largest size mount of my Hasselblad and LF lenses. Makes economic sense, if you'd ask me.

<p>I did find a hasselblad step down ring but was not sure wether that was in true form a "step down" rather than a step up that the seller improperly described.<br>

I suppose with the amount of B50 filters I already have, it makes sense to spend 20 quid on a step down filter and see how that works out seeing how some of you managed to do that with success with an 80mm - I just hope my gear comes soon enough so that I can shoot a couple of test rolls before my scheduled shooting trip. I'm jumping right into the deep side of the pool with MF as I've not been excited about photography in 6 years at least so I want to use the mind momentum while it's there.</p>

<p>Big problem with B60 filters is that people sell them one by one or if in a set, it's not really a set, just whatever spares someone had and also big cheers for mentioning that the 50mm CF vignettes with more than one B60 filter! That makes it pointless for me to get B60 filters at all since I might end up with only one wide angle lens for the time being given the prices and I could not really count on filtering with it anyway.<br>

I would of course love to have the 30,40,50, and 60 as my wide lens set but prices on the 30 are prohibitive - If I get a nice 40 first then there might not be an immediate need for a 50 and so on...</p>

<p>I did not intend to say that I would sell my CF stuff just so I can use B50 filters. Just that right now I only bought an 80mm CF and a 150mm CF so given that C lenses are cheaper by far I could get say a 250mm C and an 180 mm C for the price of one bargain 40mm CF and then would already have all the filters I need for those two lenses save for a cross filter and a pol. - otherwise I would get say a 40mm CF and then for the price I could sell my whole set of filters would probably get just a couple of filters that would either fit my 80 and 150 or the 40 mm. So either end up with 4 lenses and a whole set of filters for two of those or get 3 lenses and 2 filters for just some of them. If the step down filter idea is indeed workable then that would mean 4 lenses and filters for all of the lenses I have with a mix of CF and C!<br>

Money wise it does make sense as wide angle is not as necessary in my experience as a tele lens despite the fashion to shoot everything with wide angles nowadays. In practice when you are out in the field it’s more at least to me about getting the perfect composition rather than getting everything in there and that is easier when you can choose the right amount of tele so that you don’t have to move the tripod and your bag and everything else say to the middle of the road.<br>

Also with B/W it is even more important to have a very strong composition as you have mostly shapes to balance and less so intensity - this can be done with post of course but I want to avoid cropping. </p>

<p>I will be going on a sort of small tour soon so with a limited budget I really just want to get as much of a complete setup as I can. I prefer CF lenses in principle just as you guys do but if I can get more out of buying C lenses and using those with the CF I already have then I am keeping that open as an option. In a similar fashion I’m getting a berlebach tripod with a gitzo head rather than a whole gitzo set as it’s just too expensive otherwise. Something like a minolta spot meter and then some old incident meter combo rather than a brand new all in one and etc.<br>

Another example is a CLA can cost as much as a used lens so in such a case I’d rather get another lens and keep the old one or sell the old one for spares and repairs. If I paid 2 grand for a lens it would make sense to CLA but if it’s more like 200-300 quid then it’s a bit crazy to then pay 150 for a CLA!<br>

I doubt that at the places that would exhibit my work locally anybody would actually buy prints as I’m not currently located somewhere where people have money to spend like that. It’s not a matter of what you are selling, people just don’t have money for anything lofty like that nowadays. Much more sensible to spend more time assembling gear than hoping for an out of towner to wander into some small gallery and have the money to spend. I was even thinking about doing some hyper realist paintings from the photographs and try and sell that. Does anybody pay for fine art photography anymore anyway? <br>

None of that matters for now though, there is a bit of will and there is some way and this year I will be getting some good shots!</p>

You can use filters on the CF 50 mm lens. One at a time.<br><br>What you can't do is get a C 180 mm lens. The 180 mm lens was added to the line up well after the C lenses were discontinued.<br><br>What you also cannot do is use filters that fit your other (planned) lenses on a 40 mm lens. The C version of this lens takes 105 mm filters, the CF version 93 mm filters.<br>Unless you get 100 mm square resin filters and a filter holder. Still the cheapest way to filtering with many different lenses.<br><br>Sounds to me like you´re confusing composition and framing. The perfect composition and getting everything in there aren´t two different things. The perfect composition starts with having everything in there that needs to be, and (important) picturing those things in the right spatial relation and proportion. And that requires finding the exact position relative to the subject first, and then deciding what focal length to use to get the desired framing too. You´ll have to (have and) use whatever focal length that may be. The right amount of tele is fine when changing position would alter the spatial relation between the parts of your subject, and all you need is to frame the composition a bit tighter. Changing to a tele could also be no good when what is really required is to change position to get the perspective that makes the composition.<br>In short, you can´t decide that you need the right amount of tele when you do not yet know what you are going to put in your pictures. There´s nothing wrong with moving to the middle of the road now and again. ;-)

<p>Dear Q.G. you share an interesting view however I just wanted to correct a few things:<br>

I did not say that I plan to use B50 or B60 filters with the 40 mm as I'm aware what size they take - the mistake with the sizes was made once by me since I din't check the mount info on the lenses promo pages. Thus my conclusion that getting B60 is a bit pointless since it's no good in my case (using many filters at the same time) with wide angles anyway and the narrower lenses are fine with a step up ring apparently.<br /> I did not say that a perfect composition is getting everything in there - what I said is that I'd rather have a perfect composition than get everything in there (which I see people grabbing wide angles for most of the time) meaning that I care about the inner shapes so to speak of bigger things and them balancing out more than getting the whole big thing in the frame - that is simply an artistic choice rather than a matter of nomenclature. Framing or cropping or however we want to call is directly tied to composition imho, especially with B/W where we can't count on colour for softening or strengthening something in a scene - what I called intensity.<br /> That is why I used to prefer zoom lenses in the past as that was the most economic way of arriving at a workflow that would actually result in pictures rather than a bunch of might haves and should haves. Many people are really colour photographers (who do B/W occasionally) and that is what they have an eye for - I do find that many if not most contemporary B/W photographs look like they where shot by someone looking at a colour image in their minds eye.</p>

<p>I used to go in the middle of the road but that was with a small handheld pentax, I dare not do that with a hasselblad just yet :)<br>

The comment about "the right amount of tele" was about anticipating that I might have a lack for "the right amount of tele" more than “the right amount of wide” and you do have to anticipate things since you can't just buy a lens on the spot if you are lacking one - that mindset is not an artistic one, it just comes from not being able to own many lenses. My anticipation given my planned subjects and past experiences with the same type of subjects is that I often can't get close enough for one reason or the other and that it spoils what I had in my minds eye.<br /> So in that case grabbing a specific lens is less about the artistic choice for a given perspective and more about exactly, framing - especially if you do not want to frame in post.<br>

Being able to choose between lenses purely or mostly for the artistic effect of different perspectives is an unobtainable luxury to many around the world however I do plan to enjoy some of that too, even if in increments. Also It’s great to have many tools in the toolbox but what improvising music has taught me is that I’d rather have a couple of things I can do a lot with than a lot of things that I struggle to all do something with.</p>

<p>So yeah even filters and spot meters are a luxury in my opinion. With so many things being random in photography especially in the digital age I understand the need to assert that conscious choices where made either to oneself or others. Maybe I have a subconscious aversion to falling into gearism - something that happened to me with recording gear.<br>

In school I always where hassled that I shoot often on auto and how random that is yet every next roll was getting better and better and I had one camera through the whole of it. It was also reaffirming to find that with all that “randomness” I could get a good picture and someone else with all these conscious choices could not get one being in the same exact spot at the same time. For me it was two things, focus and again framing and everything else I just din’t care about.<br>

My main interest in medium format is to get more information in there so that I can enlarge it up to bigger sizes and "paint" with textures in B/W. That might sound like I am missing the artistic importance of certain choices but I think that very rarely do contemporary photographers actually make such artistic choices they claim to make afterwards and in fact are simply trying to awe with sharp images and wide angles, that choice actually being set on “auto” just in their minds. I still remember when digital was making a big wave when I was in school and many people where doing nothing but obsessing about sharp edges at big zooms in photoshop. None of those edges ever mattered since the school was not equipped to print in high enough quality and large enough too.</p>

<p>I do wonder about the whole proshade approach - are all of you guys really getting the same quality as with the bayonet filters?<br /> My intuition is telling me that the filters when bent would act as another element messing around with the lens.<br>

Good stuff - can’t wait till I get my hands on the actual camera. Getting back to filters, they are really beautiful compared to what I had in the past. Hasselblad is best for actually trying to care about the gear itself it seems for me.</p>

You indeed didn't say <i>"that a perfect composition is getting everything in there"</i>. On the contrary. When you say that <i>"I'd rather have a perfect composition than get everything in there"</i> you are treating the two as if they are not one and the same. They are. Those <i>"inner shapes"</i> are those of <i>"everything in there"</i>. See?<br>The need for a wide angle is dictated by the desired composition. You need one when you need one. You cannot exclude wides from your to get list arguing that you rather get the perfect composition.<br>You could indeed say that your photography is planned to such a high degree that you know in advance that you wil never need a wide to get <i>"the inner shapes"</i> the way you want to, That you <i>"just din't care"</i>.<br>Making ''artistic' choices isn't that difficult. You do it 'on the fly'. As easily as deciding that you need to get in the middle of the road to get the picture the way you want it. No need to claim to have done so afterwards.<br><br>Anyway, back to filters: yes, the resin filters offer the same high quality as glass filters (they cost enough, so they better ;-) ). They scratch more easily, so need more care. And will need replacing more often. But (provided you stay away from the less good brands, go for things like Cromatek or Lee filters) every bit as good.<br>Yes, when bent, filters have an effect on image geometry (which is why you have to get good filters). But they also do when they are perfectly straight and planparallel. Some glass filter manufacturers have been known to curve their filters to increase image quality. You can also get bent filters from the lesser manufacturers, but their curves aren't controlled.<br><br>Luxury... True, we can't always afford what we need. But as long as we know what we need, we can see what we can afford, and how to afford those we can't yet.<br>Having a toolbox full of things does not make us struggle. Understanding the tools and what they are there for, it's no effort at all to pick the bit you need. There is no obligation to use all of the bits in your tool kit all of the time. So often having everything you might need is a luxury. It's a waste if you have things you'll never need. Waste is bad. Luxury is good ;-)<br><br>Hasselblad doesn't make their own filters. They have them made by manufacturers like B+W and Heliopan. So you can get ones made as well from manufacturers like these.

<p>Since most CF lenses use a larger BAY diameter, it is unlikely you would be able to use BAY50 filters on them without vignetting.</p>

But, Scott, if only the diameter of the mount is bigger, smaller filters (with step down ring) will work without vignetting.<br>Most lenses haven't changed in the C to CF transition (nor in later version changes). Only the mount. So unless the filter mount to front lens distance has changed too, the smaller filters will work as well as they did on the older, smaller diameter mount C lenses.<br>As well as, though. Certainly not better. So if there was a good reason to change to a wider filter mount, switching back to the bayonet 50 filters will not help with that.